Can a person be a Christian if they don't believe the Bible?

[Ginevra]

Or they believe some of it, but not all. Or they are unsure. Or they believe in the example of Christ, but not the veracity of, say, literal creation or The Great Flood.

 

The thread on "We're all Hindus..." made me wonder what the different views of this would be.

 

What would you say of someone who wants to/purposes to be a Christian, but just doesn't believe a lot of the Bible?

[BillieBoy]

:lurk5:

[JWSJ]

There are so many very different versions of the Bible that I'd expect you might find a version you'd agree with.

 

IMO, the central theme to being a Christian is a belief in Jesus Christ.

 

I would have said a belief in the divinity of JC, but I've met a few Christians that didn't believe that. That was a strange conversation, for me.

[Joanne]

Or they believe some of it, but not all. Or they are unsure. Or they believe in the example of Christ, but not the veracity of, say, literal creation or The Great Flood.

 

The thread on "We're all Hindus..." made me wonder what the different views of this would be.

 

What would you say of someone who wants to/purposes to be a Christian, but just doesn't believe a lot of the Bible?

 

"Doesn't believe the Bible" is a very subjective evaluation. Emphasis on VERY.

 

Indeed, while I believe in God's creation of humans, I don't believe in a literal, 7 day Creation.

 

It's absolutely possible to be a Christian, believe the Bible is Truth and not take it literally.

[Jill- OK]

IMO, the central theme to being a Christian is a belief in Jesus Christ.

 

...a belief in Jesus as the Christ.

 

I would assume that someone using the label of Christ-ian would at the very least believe in the Biblical assertions about the Christ, and that they've been fulfilled by (the historical) Jesus.

 

But I don't know that I'd assume much, beyond that.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

There are many Christian denominations who do not believe in interpreting the whole Bible literally. I understand the creation stories and the flood stories metaphorically as well as millions of other Christians.

[OnTheBrink]

I don't know how someone could call themselves a follower of Christ and reject His teachings. I'm not talking about the Bible in its entirety and how it can be interpreted, I mean those who claim Jesus as their savior, but reject his teachings specifically.

[Joanne]

I don't know how someone could call themselves a follower of Christ and reject His teachings. I'm not talking about the Bible in its entirety and how it can be interpreted, I mean those who claim Jesus as their savior, but reject his teachings specifically.

 

Do you know of anyone like that? I've never met anyone. I have met people who believe that Jesus existed as a sort of super, great, extra special guy.

 

But reject his teachings and call themselves Christian?

:confused::confused:

[JWSJ]

...a belief in Jesus as the Christ.

 

I understand what you mean, but I've met many Christians that couldn't tell what being the Christ meant. They had no historical knowledge of Christianity at all.

[OnTheBrink]

Do you know of anyone like that? I've never met anyone. I have met people who believe that Jesus existed as a sort of super, great, extra special guy.

 

But reject his teachings and call themselves Christian?

:confused::confused:

 

Yes.

[katemary63]

I would think that to be a "Christian" you would need to believe what Christ himself believed.

[Ginevra]

Originally Posted by Joanne

Do you know of anyone like that? I've never met anyone. I have met people who believe that Jesus existed as a sort of super, great, extra special guy.

 

But reject his teachings and call themselves Christian?

:confused::confused:

Yes.

 

That would be extraordinarily bizarre. I've never heard of anyone holding to such an odd view.

[OnTheBrink]

And I've known several people with that view. *shrug*

[momofkhm]

Or they believe some of it, but not all. Or they are unsure. Or they believe in the example of Christ, but not the veracity of, say, literal creation or The Great Flood.

 

Before I was the Christian I am now, I struggled with this question in a way. I started to wonder how can you believe any of the Bible if you don't believe the whole thing? How do you chose what to believe and what not to? Do you believe the story of Jonah and the big fish? Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ? How do you chose? I came to the conclusion that I either believe the whole Bible or I believe none of it.

 

If you don't believe the whole Bible, then how do you know what Jesus taught? How do you even know who Jesus is? If you don't believe Jesus is who He says He is, then you are not, by definition, a Christian.

 

I do believe in the Great Flood. I believe in a literal 6 days of creation. My dh believes in 6 periods of time. I believe that God called the trees into being and they were full grown trees. My God is a powerful God who can do anything. DH believes God called the trees into being and they grew from seeds. DH believes that God is logical and things go in order. We both believe that the Bible is not specific about this event, it is left up to interpretation. It can be read as 6 - 24 hour periods or it can be 6 periods of longer time.

 

Do I pass judgment on someone who only believes part of the Bible and not the whole thing? No.

 

Is that about as clear as mud?

[Mary in VA]

I would think that to be a "Christian" you would need to believe what Christ himself believed.

 

:iagree: Christ quoted extensively from the Old Testament and referred to events in the Old Testatment as if He believed them to be true, including the Flood and Daniel's prophecies.

 

I suppose you could put your faith in Christ and not believe those things, they are not essential for salvation. But it seems illogical to believe in Christ as your Savior and then not believe in the things He said and believes.

 

Mary

[Jill- OK]

I understand what you mean, but I've met many Christians that couldn't tell what being the Christ meant. They had no historical knowledge of Christianity at all.

 

I have no doubt that there are folks who don't have much historical context for Christianity (I think a good percentage probably lack at least something in this area, including me)...but I guess I don't count understanding what "Christ" means as historical knowledge, if you use "Christian" to describe yourself.

 

I mean...I would assume that someone using a label would have at least a rudimentary understanding of what it was, or they wouldn't be using it, you know? (I would consider this the bare bones of Christianity; Jesus, as the Christ.)

 

But that's one person's opinion. ;)

[WishboneDawn]

I would think that to be a "Christian" you would need to believe what Christ himself believed.

 

But then we'd all be Jewish! :)

[Orthodox6]

In a mixed-religion environment, the answer is whatever one wishes the answer to be. The definition of "Christian" varies with the individual. The authority of the Holy Bible varies with the individual. Even which books belong to the Holy Bible vary with the individual.

 

Websites for specific religious groups will present the position pertinent to those groups.

 

My answer to the question, then, won't matter to anybody other than another Orthodox Christian ! :)

[Ginevra]

Before I was the Christian I am now, I struggled with this question in a way. I started to wonder how can you believe any of the Bible if you don't believe the whole thing? How do you chose what to believe and what not to? Do you believe the story of Jonah and the big fish? Do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ? How do you chose? I came to the conclusion that I either believe the whole Bible or I believe none of it.

 

If you don't believe the whole Bible, then how do you know what Jesus taught? How do you even know who Jesus is? If you don't believe Jesus is who He says He is, then you are not, by definition, a Christian.

 

This is pretty much what it comes to for myself. I think if you start saying different parts don't mean what they say, then how can you have any certainty about the parts that pertain to Jesus?

 

OTOH, I don't believe the other parts. I think they are ridiculous. :leaving: But then, why should I believe one part (even if it is the central part) if I think the flood is ridiculous? I know there are millions of people who happily straddle both of these ideas - I'm a Christian and That Creation story is metaphoric, but whenever I have read "liberal" interpretations, the logic doesn't cut it for me. For example, I have never heard an old-earth creation view that does not have holes. So, that just brings me back around to saying, I don't believe this stuff is true. So, if it's not true, then how can we depend on anything in the Bible? :willy_nilly: It makes me dizzy.

[WishboneDawn]

That would be extraordinarily bizarre. I've never heard of anyone holding to such an odd view.

 

It's a view as old as Christianity. Some early Jewish Christians were Ebionists, they held that Jesus was fully human. We take our view of Jesus Christ for granted today but it took centuries of discussion and debate to come to the view we commonly have now and there are STILL denominations and Christian groups who don't hold with it.

[katemary63]

But then we'd all be Jewish! :)

 

Sorry, I just don't get it. I am slow....

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't know how someone could call themselves a follower of Christ and reject His teachings. I'm not talking about the Bible in its entirety and how it can be interpreted, I mean those who claim Jesus as their savior, but reject his teachings specifically.

 

And I've known several people with that view. *shrug*

:iagree:

[WishboneDawn]

 

If you don't believe the whole Bible, then how do you know what Jesus taught?

 

I don't think the problem is one of liberal interpretation. I think it's with your meaning of "believe" and as long as you think of believing as, "accepting scripture as literal fact," then you'll be stuck at this question.

 

Augustus didn't hold a literal belief in genesis. He might be a good place to start on the issue.

 

Edit: I meant Augustine of course. I don't think Augustus concerned himself with Jewish Scripture. :)

Edited August 22, 2009 by WishboneDawn

[Lovedtodeath]

 

But then we'd all be Jewish! :)

Jesus said that the Kingdom would be taken from the Jews and given to a people more worthy. :001_huh: He also said that he fulfilled the law, so living by it was no longer necessary... on and on

[cougarmom4]

It all depends on the definition of 'Christian.' A quick perusal of online dictionaries helps us to see that this definition is going to vary from person to person...to some it is a member of a specific religion, to others it is one who is good, kind, loving (as I highlighted in the definition below). I suppose if someone sees that as their definition of Christian, then I could see how they view themselves Christian without a belief in the Bible.

 

This is why I feel it can be presumptious of anyone to declare someone else Christian or not.

 

-------------------

Merriam-Webster's--"one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"

------------------

yourdictionary.com says:

Chris·tian (kris′c̸hən, -tyən)

noun

 

1. a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus
   
2. a masculine name: dim. Chris; fem. Christina, Christine
   
3. Informal a decent, respectable person
   

 

adjective

 

1. of Jesus Christ or his teachings
   
2. of or professing the religion based on these teachings
   
3. having the qualities demonstrated and taught by Jesus Christ, as love, kindness, humility, etc.
   
4. of or representing Christians or Christianity
   
5. Informal humane, decent, etc.
   

 

---------------------

dictionary.cambridge.org states:

Christian

adjective

1 of or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ:

a Christian charity/organization

the Christian faith

 

2 describes a person or action that is good, kind, helpful, etc.

Christian

noun [C]

someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ

[WishboneDawn]

Sorry, I just don't get it. I am slow....

 

No you're not...I sort of mistook the comment. :) My mistake.

[Ginevra]

I don't think the problem is one of liberal interpretation. I think it's with your meaning of "believe" and as long as you think of believing as, "accepting scripture as literal fact," then you'll be stuck at this question.

 

I don't think I think believing means accepting scripture as literal fact. It's that whenever I've seen someone's "explanation" of a scripture that they are not interpretting as literal, the "explanation" doesn't hold water. So, it ends up seeming to me that they are making excuses for what the scripture says, because they don't want to believe it says that. So, if one looks at, say, The Parting of the Red Sea, and says, "Well, I don't think that is literally what happened...", then why believe that Mary was truly a virgin? Why believe Jesus actually rose from the dead? Why believe Jesus actually cast out demons? If you start saying all those things might be metaphors, too, then the foundations of the faith, the usually-viewed bare minimum of Christianity, are also uncertain.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Ginevra
subject-verb agreement

[Denise in Florida]

What would you say of someone who wants to/purposes to be a Christian, but just doesn't believe a lot of the Bible?

 

Yes, they can be a Christian!

 

This has been a painful issue in my experience IRL. There are some ladies in an organization to which I belong who take great delight in declaring who is and is not really a Christian. They are not unique in this area of the world. I was horrified to find myself talking to a friend and being reluctant to say I was a Christian. I ended up saying something like 'yes I am, but not like that'. She had had some very hurtful comments made to her by others. I do have a strong commitment to my faith and I had to resolve to stand up and claim Christ even if I have issues with some of my fellow Christians. (I think this deepened my faith and lessened my connection to religion.)

 

This is not a comment on the OP, this thread has been very civil, just an explanation of why some of us are nervous about this sort of discussion.

[Melinda in VT]

I'm currently struggling with this very issue myself. Am I really a Christian?

 

(That's a rhetorical question. Please, don't answer.)

 

I've been thinking about this passage from Leaving Church by Barbara Brown Taylor:

 

"I will keep the Bible, which remains the Word of God for me, but always the word as heard by generations or human beings as flawed as I. As beautifully as these witnesses write, their divine inspiration can never be separated from their ardent desires; their genuine wish to serve God cannot be divorced from their self-interest. That God should use such blemished creatures to communicate God's reality so well makes the Bible its own kind of miracle, but I hope never to put the book ahead of the people whom the book calls me to love and server.

"I will keep the Bible as a field guide, which was never intended to be a substitute for the field. With the expert notes kept by those who have gone before me I will keep hunting the Divine Presence in the world, helped as much by the notes they wrote in the margins while they were waiting for God to appear as by their astonished descriptions of what they saw when God did. I know that nine times out of ten, the truth scripture tells us in the truth about the human search for God."

 

I don't have a lot of answers right now, and I don't know where I'll end up, but I find it oddly comforting to know there are others on a similar search.

[Ester Maria]

Jesus said that the Kingdom would be taken from the Jews and given to a people more worthy. :001_huh: He also said that he fulfilled the law, so living by it was no longer necessary... on and on

I beg your pardon, but didn't Jesus also say that he "didn't come to abolish the law or the prophets", i.e. not to take away the law?

 

That's one thing I've been trying to understand about Christianity, and never did. :confused:

[Storm Bay]

Many people think Jesus was a good man who are not Christians. Many even accept him as a prophet who are not Christians. Many agree with many of his teachings that are not Christians.

 

To be a Christian, one has to accept Jesus as the Christ--that's where the word comes from--following Jesus Christ (as the anointed one of God, not just as one of many prophets). While you don't have to accept every part of the Bible as literal or teachings that Jesus is God to do that, you have to accept him as Lord (Romans 10:9, 10) and believe that he is the only way to the Father, etc.

 

But I don't see how you can accept Jesus as the Christ, the messiah, without believing much of the Bible, whether or not you take it all as literal. There are certainly many figures of speech, including parables, in the Bible which arent' even meant to be taken literally.

[Storm Bay]

I beg your pardon, but didn't Jesus also say that he "didn't come to abolish the law or the prophets", i.e. not to take away the law?

 

That's one thing I've been trying to understand about Christianity, and never did. :confused:

 

 

If you read the epistles and put it together with what he taught, he did fulfill the law given to Moses. For example, he is the passover lamb, so Christians no longer need to do the passover. Same with sacrifices. The law was not given from the beginning. If you take the Bible chronology literally, or even just the part from Adam, you can see that thousands of years passed before that law was given. If you don't take the chronology literally, far more time passed before that law was given. But there was always a standard for men and women to live by if they were to follow God,

 

The epistles are very clear that we are not to live in sin, and that we are to still abide by many things such as not murdering, not committing adultery, not lying, stealing, etc. We are still to love God and our neighbour. Jesus summed the whole law into two main commandments, also. When he paid the price for sin, that changed many things, according to the Bible. The law couldn't do that, because no one but a perfect man could complete the whole law without sinning. But if someone fulfilled the entire law and never sinned and then gave his life to pay that price for others who have, then that law is now null and void for anyone who accepts this by making him Lord. This is based on the OT where someone could pay the debt of another and it would be completely wiped out.

 

Many Christans, but not all, are dispensationalists--ie they believe that not every part of the Bible is directly instructed to them even if it is for their learning (different dispensations or administrations.) The rules in Eden, for example, were different than the rules out of Eden, which were different than those after the flood, after the law of Moses, after Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses, etc. (these are just a few examples).

[Slkmcphee]

Do you know of anyone like that? I've never met anyone. I have met people who believe that Jesus existed as a sort of super, great, extra special guy.

 

But reject his teachings and call themselves Christian?

:confused::confused:

 

Which teachings are so controversial that they couldn't accept them but still self-apply the title? Just wondering... I've never seen THAT.:001_huh:

[Storm Bay]

It's a view as old as Christianity. Some early Jewish Christians were Ebionists, they held that Jesus was fully human. We take our view of Jesus Christ for granted today but it took centuries of discussion and debate to come to the view we commonly have now and there are STILL denominations and Christian groups who don't hold with it.

 

 

There are many Christians today who believe that Jesus was fully human--but of divine conception, perfect, the second Adam, the only way to the Father, the saviour etc. There has never been a full embracement of the Jesus is God theology in Christianity ever. If you study the history of it, you'll see that Constantine split the Christian church in two when he decided that that doctrine was true.

 

Too often I see people think that there are only 2 camps--you either think he's God or you think he's not the son of God and only a regular man. But that's incorrect because there are at least 3 camps on this.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Karin

[HRAAB]

I don't know how someone could call themselves a follower of Christ and reject His teachings. I'm not talking about the Bible in its entirety and how it can be interpreted, I mean those who claim Jesus as their savior, but reject his teachings specifically.

 

Outright reject or have a different interpretation? I would say if they outright reject Jesus' teachings, then no. I guess that makes no sense to me, accept Jesus as their savior and then reject his teachings? Why would you want Him to be your savior if you reject His teachings?

 

But I admit people can have all sorts of ideas when it comes to religion.

 

Janet

[Orthodox6]

St. Constantine did not make the decision ! [LOL at the thought !] The Ecumenical Council, led by the Holy Spirit, made the decision ! The dissenters continued with their position, only outside of the unified Church.

 

There are many Christians today who believe that Jesus was fully human--but of divine conception, perfect, the second Adam, the only way to the Father, the saviour etc. There has never been a full embracement of the Jesus is God theology in Christianity ever. If you study the history of it, you'll see that Constantine split the Christian church in two when he decided that that doctrine was true.

 

Too often I see people think that there are only 2 camps--you either think he's God or you think he's not the son of God and only a regular man. But that's incorrect because there are at least 3 camps on this.

[Ginevra]

But I don't see how you can accept Jesus as the Christ, the messiah, without believing much of the Bible, whether or not you take it all as literal. There are certainly many figures of speech, including parables, in the Bible which arent' even meant to be taken literally.

 

I'm definitely not talking about figures of speech being taken literally. Obviously, the saying, "Why do you worry about the speck in your brother's eye when you ignore the plank in your own eye?" doesn't mean there really is a 2x4 sticking out of your eye!

 

I'm saying, for those who would question if a donkey actually spoke to it's master, Satan was an actual snake talking to Eve about an actual fruit on an actual tree, a flood really covered every single landmass on the entire planet and drowned literally every single living thing except the ark's lucky passengers, and so on and so on...if one can accept that those are not stories meant to be understood literally, how can a person then suppose that anything else in the Bible must be taken literally? How can they then believe Jesus was really, honestly, straight-up literal when he said, "I and the Father are One."? How can they be suddenly defensive that Jesus was born of a literal virgin? See what I mean?

 

I'm not saying this because I want to disbelieve the doctrinal parts of the Bible. I'm saying this because I find the whole matter confusing and untrustworthy. It would be simpler to just believe it is all literally true. Only, I don't.

[Lovedtodeath]

how can a person then suppose that anything else in the Bible must be taken literally? How can they then believe Jesus was really, honestly, straight-up literal when he said, "I and the Father are One."? How can they be suddenly defensive that Jesus was born of a literal virgin? See what I mean?

 

I'm not saying this because I want to disbelieve the doctrinal parts of the Bible. I'm saying this because I find the whole matter confusing and untrustworthy. It would be simpler to just believe it is all literally true. Only, I don't.

It takes Holy Spirit, a humble attitude and discernment and comparison with other scripture.

He also said "That they (his followers) may be one just as we are one." I am pretty sure he wasn't speaking literally there.

 

The flood is always presented as literal.

[Lovedtodeath]

I beg your pardon, but didn't Jesus also say that he "didn't come to abolish the law or the prophets", i.e. not to take away the law?

 

That's one thing I've been trying to understand about Christianity, and never did. :confused:

I will have to research this in order to make any sense.

[Lovedtodeath]

For example, I have never heard an old-earth creation view that does not have holes.

One of my favorite topics! What kind of holes? (PM if it is too debateable)

[Ruby]

Just curious why you would even entertain the idea of being a christian without the bible as your base. Why the need for Christ at all? If it is a curiousity of whether or not he ever existed, and in what capacity then okay but to believe in the traditional sense that he is your savior....I don't understand and not take the whole package? Not trying to be snarky or rude. Just puzzled. Ruby

[justamouse]

I don't think the problem is one of liberal interpretation. I think it's with your meaning of "believe" and as long as you think of believing as, "accepting scripture as literal fact," then you'll be stuck at this question.

 

Augustus didn't hold a literal belief in genesis. He might be a good place to start on the issue.

 

Edit: I meant Augustine of course. I don't think Augustus concerned himself with Jewish Scripture. :)

 

Heh, that's what I was going to say. Augustine himself didn't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

You're going to have different answers, but the one that matters most is your own. Christianity is a journey and the only arrival point is death. So, relax. Sit back, read a little, ponder a little, and ask God to show you the way for YOU, not anyone else. You have your lifetime to figure it out, and He isn't in a rush.

 

And don't worry about missing it, getting it wrong, or living up to other people's expectations. Because they don't matter.

Edited August 23, 2009 by justamouse

[Storm Bay]

St. Constantine did not make the decision ! [LOL at the thought !] The Ecumenical Council, led by the Holy Spirit, made the decision ! The dissenters continued with their position, only outside of the unified Church.

 

That is highly controversial, and it did split the church. I don't care to argue this, because I'm not going to argue about who is a Christian and who is not based on that doctrine (God looks at the heart); but I do believe that Constantine had an enormous influence on that decision going through as being the one doctrine.

 

Merely to document the point that it a. split the church in two, a good read on the history of this time is (the title is designed to stir attention, so it's controversial) When Jesus Became God. A link to one of many groups around today who still insist that Jesus was fully human (albeit the perfect man, the son of God, the Word in the flesh, etc) (that I do not adhere to or belong to) is http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=56 .

[Lovedtodeath]

And don't worry about .... living up to other people's expectations. Because they don't matter.

:iagree:

[chaik76]

I don't think I think believing means accepting scripture as literal fact. It's that whenever I've seen someone's "explanation" of a scripture that they are not interpretting as literal, the "explanation" doesn't hold water. So, it ends up seeming to me that they are making excuses for what the scripture says, because they don't want to believe it says that. So, if one looks at, say, The Parting of the Red Sea, and says, "Well, I don't think that is literally what happened...", then why believe that Mary was truly a virgin? Why believe Jesus actually rose from the dead? Why believe Jesus actually cast out demons? If you start saying all those things might be metaphors, too, then the foundations of the faith, the usually-viewed bare minimum of Christianity, are also uncertain.

It's also a matter of what you think are the bare minimums of Christianity. For instance, I don't believe that the parting of the Red Sea needed to be miraculous or that there actually needed to be demons in people. in order to believe the fundamentals of Christianity. So one of the questions within the original question is, "What are the fundamentals of Christianity, and, if you agree with those fundamentals...must you believe in them to be Christian?"

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, my concept of Original Sin is significantly different from most others...does that make me not a Christian? I've heard some say so, but of course, Orthodox Christians believe they have the correct view of ancestral sin (just as an example), and of course, we believe we are Christians.

[justamouse]

For example, I have never heard an old-earth creation view that does not have holes.

 

 

I keep saying this a lot around here. *g*

 

Go borrow THE LANGUAGE OF GOD: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Dr. Francis Collins from the library.

 

Fr. Collins is a medical Dr, a chemist, and the leading biologist on the Human Genome project. He also believes in an old earth, evolution, and tells you exactly what irrefutable proof in science proves it.

 

(He gives the example of how people believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the church and pope used to call any other believe heretics and satan worshippers. Think about it-it's the same thing, really.)

[Garga]

You're going to have different answers, but the one that matters most is your own. Christianity is a journey and the only arrival point is death. So, relax. Sit back, read a little, ponder a little, and ask God to show you the way for YOU, not anyone else. You have your lifetime to figure it out, and He isn't in a rush.

 

And don't worry about missing it, getting it wrong, or living up to other people's expectations. Because they don't matter.

 

OP: I agree with you that once you start saying, "This part isn't true, but this part is" you can run into trouble. How do you know which part is the true part and which isn't? To solve that, it would be best to view the bible as the literal truth, so you don't try to start picking which is truth and which isn't.

 

But, I'm also aware that at the same time, your own personal opinion might not match up with what the bible says.

 

So, as that quoted post says, believe as much as you can, put on hold the things you personally can't believe yet, and wait for God to show you.

 

I had a pastor who said he would find something in scripture that seemed to contradict itself and sometimes he had to wait years before he understood it. But, given enough time and study, there were many things that were resolved for him and he saw how those things worked together and didn't contradict. I can't think of any his examples at the moment, and he's dead now, so I can't ask him.

 

P.S. But if you don't believe that Jesus has saved you from your sins by paying the price for them (death), and that he rose from the dead, that's a deal breaker. You're not a Christian if you don't believe Jesus is your messiah. (Romans 10:9) And the whole death/resurrection thing is the whole point of being a messiah.

[Lovedtodeath]

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, my concept of Original Sin is significantly different from most others...does that make me not a Christian? I've heard some say so, but of course, Orthodox Christians believe they have the correct view of ancestral sin (just as an example), and of course, we believe we are Christians.

:bigear:Tell me more!

 

I keep saying this a lot around here. *g*

 

Go borrow THE LANGUAGE OF GOD: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Dr. Francis Collins from the library.

 

Fr. Collins is a medical Dr, a chemist, and the leading biologist on the Human Genome project. He also believes in an old earth, evolution, and tells you exactly what irrefutable proof in science proves it.

 

(He gives the example of how people believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the church and pope used to call any other believe heretics and satan worshippers. Think about it-it's the same thing, really.)

HUH? She said old earth creation and this post says old earth evolution:confused:

[Ginevra]

The flood is always presented as literal.

No, actually, it's not. There are "explainers" out there who realize that the flood story is so utterly chock-full of absurdities that they work from the angle that it wasn't a literal, world-wide flood. I'm no scholar of Hebrew or original translations, but I've read that the word translated "earth" is something else, like "land". And that you can feasibly read the story with a view towards it being one heck of a huge flood, regionally, as it covered "the land", ie., all the land in the surrounding region.

 

One of my favorite topics! What kind of holes?

 

Okay, there is the "day-age" theory. Each "day" is a figurative day, not one 24-hour day.

This has a hole, because then plants existed for some long "age" before God worked out that it would be necessary to make the sun. That's a pretty big oversite, IMO.

It also has a hole, because the pattern of six literal workdays and then a day of rest is presented as the model in Exodus for working six days and resting on the Sabbath. (Saturday, BTW, not Sunday.)

 

There is also the "gap" theory. As I understand the "gap" theory, all the unexplained phenomena gets squished in there between the earth being "formless and void" and then the next verse where God begins creation "for real". That has a hole if you believe that death did not come before the Fall. (I have serious doubts about the Fall, too, but I digress.)

 

Anyway...

[Joanne]

I'm saying, for those who would question if a donkey actually spoke to it's master, Satan was an actual snake talking to Eve about an actual fruit on an actual tree, a flood really covered every single landmass on the entire planet and drowned literally every single living thing except the ark's lucky passengers, and so on and so on...if one can accept that those are not stories meant to be understood literally, how can a person then suppose that anything else in the Bible must be taken literally? How can they then believe Jesus was really, honestly, straight-up literal when he said, "I and the Father are One."? How can they be suddenly defensive that Jesus was born of a literal virgin? See what I mean?

 

I'm not saying this because I want to disbelieve the doctrinal parts of the Bible. I'm saying this because I find the whole matter confusing and untrustworthy. It would be simpler to just believe it is all literally true. Only, I don't.

 

See, I have no problem with a figurative, metaphoric, spiritual understanding of the Bible.

 

In fact, well, while I believe in miracles and the Bible tracks actual history, I also think it speaks in *story*. The Truths of those stories stand whether the stories happened or not.

 

I don't believe God needs me to believe Jonah survived inside a whale to know "obey God" is the lesson. :D

 

Here's my summary: I will never be surprirsed when science confirms the Bible. I will never be surprised when historians confirm Biblical stories. But I don't need those stories to be an accurate or intended to be accurate literal telling in order for the Truth of the Bible and the message in it to be the Word.

 

I don't need to pick and choose what "stories" are real or not. I need only to know of the stories, know their context and meaning and ask God how it pertains to me today.

 

I have no problem seeing the Bible detains that way while also knowing the details of Christ's conception, birth and death are real in every sense.