Thread: Lets say God DID create everything...

. . .

Ok to be fair, I wasn't in the best of moods when I posted that. I was out of line.

But the fact is, the puritan movement is not new thing its about 500 years old or more. That makes bible literalism not a new thing... and I seriously doubt at 0ad people weren't taking the bible literally, bible symbolism is, in fact, the recent phemomeon.

... and as far as making assumptions about you, I didn't. You said yourself that you believe it to be symbolic. At that point, there's not need for assumptions. I did say Christians insisted on taking the bible literally until science proved that it can't be. Can you tell me that this is uncorrect? I know my fair share about theology and the history of religion, and its just flat out true.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of worshipping somethat you know isn't true, but rather "symbolic"...

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

But the fact is, the puritan movement is not new thing its about 500 years old or more. That makes bible literalism not a new thing... and I seriously doubt at 0ad people weren't taking the bible literally, bible symbolism is, in fact, the recent phemomeon.

It is true that people have been interpreting the Bible literally since the beginning of the religion. The early church fathers even warned against this, but it has never been as popular as it is today until fairly recently. It has now become a main movement in Christianity, as well as other religions, or at least it seems that way.

I still don't understand why you insist that symbolic interpretations of the Bible is a recent thing after my response to you. It is very, very clear that it isn't, and that in fact, symbolic interpretations of the Bible were favored over literal ones when the religion was being founded. How can you say otherwise?

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

... and as far as making assumptions about you, I didn't. You said yourself that you believe it to be symbolic. At that point, there's not need for assumptions. I did say Christians insisted on taking the bible literally until science proved that it can't be. Can you tell me that this is uncorrect? I know my fair share about theology and the history of religion, and its just flat out true.

Well, you tried to tell me what I was arguing, or what I will argue when I didn't believe in those arguments. This is what I meant by making assumptions.
As for showing you how your statement about symbolic interpretations coming after scientific evidence that proves literal interpretations impossible, I clearly did that when I responded to you. Did you read it? The church fathers knew that literal interpretations contradicted sensory evidence and reason and therefore warned against taking the literal as the highest understanding. They clearly favored symbolic interpretations, and I already proved this to you.

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of worshipping somethat you know isn't true, but rather "symbolic"...

Why do you think that symbolism makes something untrue? It is in fact quite the opposite. If we take Genesis as an example (since that was the original topic), we can see that it is speaking about the Creation. If one is speaking about the Creation that includes the world as we know it today (with time and space as we conceive it), then what one is speaking about is something beyond the limits of our understanding and therefore can only be spoken of symbolically. This does not mean that the thing being expressed is not real, it only means that in order to understand it one must get there by way of symbols. The symbols themselves are dead and not real, but what they are able to point to is more real than the ground you stand on. Since the Creation is Infinite, it therefore cannot be expressed in our limited language without completely distorting it. Symbols are a kind of path, if you will, that leads one back to the original meaning. They must be meditated on and understood internally. This can only be done by oneself; no one can explain it to you like they would do with something of this world. Since we each contain the source within ourselves, we are able to use symbols to connect the external, sensory world as we understand it to the more subtle worlds within.
This reminds me of a Zen saying: "Do not confuse the finger that points at the moon with the moon itself." When we interpret symbols literally, they become dead and meaningless. We must look beyond the apparent reality to what it is really pointing at. This is the purpose of symbols.