old

[Heather in Neverland]

They are not equal. However with such overwhelming success and support of books like The God Delusion, we know that more and more people think it's okay to call those who believe the Bible literally as "deluded" and/or "unintelligent".

 

To the OP, you might be interested in Already Gone

 

Thank you for the book suggestion!!! It's interesting to me because I am well-educated with multiple college degrees and I take the Bible literally. So I don't buy into the sentiments of books like The God Delusion.

[KarenNC]

:iagree::iagree: Especially since my dh and I have strong UU leanings and family members who are UU. I still think it is an option for Christians though even though UU's are non-creedal since UU's are free to be Christian;). It is not everyone's cup of tea though;)

 

An option, yes. A Christian denomination, no. The terminology raises quite different expectations. The way UU functions isn't the easiest to wrap one's head around if one is coming from a Christian background (speaking from experience;)), so I believe the distinction is very important.

[momofkhm]

I went to one Episcopal church that said many stories in the Bible are figurative and then I've gone to another who said they were literal. It's the difference between a fundamentalist parish and a not fundamentalist parish.

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

Edited November 21, 2012 by Shari
correction

[Mandy in TN]

I'll probably regret posting this as I haven't read replies; however, I think your list would be shorter if you asked for a list of Christian denominations in which young earth is a tenet of faith.

 

Mandy

[Mandy in TN]

I went to one Episcopal church that said many stories in the Bible are figurative and then I've gone to another who said they were literal. It's the difference between a fundamentalist parish and a not fundamentalist parish.

 

:iagree:For many churches young earth is not a tenet of faith, but a particular parish may be.

[Renee in NC]

Ann, I am sorry that is your experience in the Catholic Church. Maybe the difference for me is I did *not* grow up Catholic - I grew up Methodist and then was fundamentalist Baptist.

 

I was 28 years old before I found out Christ died on the cross for my sins, not just to open the door for the good people. I have told some of my very good Catholic relatives that and they think that is preposterous.

 

That is so hard for me to understand - was the Mass different then? I have only been in a few parishes (and most of them less orthodox), but they all have used the Liturgy (reading through the Bible every 3 years), the Stations of the Cross, the Nicene and Apostles' Creed, etc. All of those things point to Christ!

 

From what I understand, the American Church basically fell apart theologically after Vatican II and it is slowly finding its way back to the Church and its teachings.

[Ellie]

Yes, I agree with you...which is why I stated that Catholics do not take the Bible literally. Just keeping my answer as simple as possible!

 

Liz in NC

But I didn't say that Catholics don't take the Bible literarlly. They do; they also believe the Traditions of the Church.

[elfgivas]

in my experience in seminary and in various parishes since, most denominations seem to have a part that believe in "literal scripture" and a part that believe in "inspired scripture".... and most points in between. all consider themselves to be scripturally based, they just have a different understanding of the nature and authority of scripture.

 

the conservative branches of many denominations often have more beliefs in common than they do with the liberal branches of their same denomination. this is sometimes also true between faiths, not just denominations. (ie. liberal jews, christians, muslims and hindus often have a much more similar belief system than they do with the fundamentalist branches of their own faiths. the same often holds true for the fundamentalist folks of faith.)

 

so we could find united methodists with a literal understanding of scripture and united methodists with an inspired understanding of scripture. same for most denominations.

 

some denominations are centred farther to the left or the right of the spectrum (eg. the uniting church of australia, the united church of canada, the united church of christ in the states tend to have the heart a little to the left, although i have experienced congregations in all three that are definitely far right of centre).

 

hth,

ann

[StephanieZ]

Not looking to stir up a debate here, but I am wondering if there are any Christian denominations that do not take the Bible as literal truth. By this I mean that the church does not teach as absolute truth the 6-day creation, a worldwide flood, etc. Is there such a thing as a Christian church that sees Genesis as more figurative than historical, but still teaches Jesus as divine?

 

It may just be my geographical location that I am dealing with primarily fundamentalist denominations, but more and more I feel that I've got to leave my brain in the parking lot to enter the church building :crying:

 

Of course!!!!!!!

 

Most "mainline" old protestant denominations have many (not necessarily all) churches that are this way! Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Quaker. . . are a few.

[jewellsmommy]

Than you so much to those who've replied! I appreciate every response and have put many of the book suggestions on hold at the local library.

 

Where I live is overwhelmingly Southern Baptist, and ALL of my homeschooling friends believe a very strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. To answer Heather in NC specifically, I feel like I have to check my brain in the parking lot when I must disregard my education and belief in science, my background in literary theory, and most church history I've read in order to listen to (and supposedly support) my pastor's message each week.

 

My dh was raised Methodist and he has never taken a literal stance on Biblical stories. BUT, all our friends, our small group, and our h.s. co-op take a fundamentalist stance and look at me like I have two heads when I say I don't believe young earth theory or that dinosaurs didn't die in a worldwide flood. It's really hard to be the odd duck. I have begun to wonder if I can actually *be* a Christian and not take the Bible as literal truth. In my neck of the woods, those are mutually exclusive.

 

Thanks again for the opposing views.

 

 

It is such a shame that you have had an experience like this. Speaking as a southern baptist and a science lover (majored in biology), I have never felt that anyone should "check their brain at the door." Perhaps sitting down with your/a pastor would help. It could also be your specific church. I hope that you won't abandon an entire faith because of this experience. I don't mean to be out of line here in any way, but I will pray that you will find resolution for these problems.

[Renee in NC]

But I didn't say that Catholics don't take the Bible literarlly. They do; they also believe the Traditions of the Church.

 

They take the Bible literally but Tradition is what interprets it? Is that what you are trying to say?

[asta]

From the Vatican's website:

 

Liturgical Translations.

 

For authenticity in the Liturgy, it is essential that the translation of the texts not be so much a work of "creativity" as of a faithful and exact vernacular rendering of the original text, which itself is the fruit of the liturgical renewal and draws upon centuries of cultural and ecclesial experience.

 

While fully respecting the genius of each language and avoiding a rigid literalism, an appropriate translation also carefully avoids paraphrase, gloss or interpretation. The explanation of the riches contained within the liturgical texts is the concern not of liturgical translation, but of the homily and of sustained catechesis.

 

The substantial unity of the Roman Rite is an expression of the theological realities of communion and of ecclesial unity and contributes to the rich plurality of the Church. Within their respective historical and cultural contexts, of course, the same may be said for the other Catholic liturgical families of venerable antiquity. To this end, the practice of the recognitio of the Holy See as desired by the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 36; cf. S. Congr. of Rites, Instr. Inter Oecumenici, 20-31; canon 838) stands as a guarantee of the authenticity of the translations and their fidelity to the original texts. By means of this practice, a concrete sign of the bond of communion between the successor of Peter and the successors of the other Apostles, translations become truly the expression in the local Churches of the heritage of the universal Church. The Holy See may not divest itself of this responsibility, and the bishops, who bear the responsibility of overseeing and approving the translations, likewise regard their own role as a direct and solemn trust.

[Dirtroad]

It may just be my geographical location that I am dealing with primarily fundamentalist denominations, but more and more I feel that I've got to leave my brain in the parking lot to enter the church building :crying:

 

Perhaps beginning your quest with a very insulting comment to those who may disagree with you or partially disagree doesn't invite conversation, experience/advice, or other options. I did not read all the thread.... forgive me "if I am beating a dead horse".

 

To be specific also.. I have a master's degree in Reproductive Physiology through the College of Ag & 2 BS degress in scientific areas (one chemistry oriented manufacturing & the other animal biology oriented). There is not checking the brain at the door.... and there are CONSTANT challenges & questions that arise.

 

There are many who disagree with Genesis. There are many who dismiss the entire Old Testament. But, things to consider when analyzing these things.... When Jesus speaks and quotes scripture.... Where does it come from?

When Jesus says that HE is sent to save us from our sins... where is SIN defined?

Where in scripture is the first reference "implied" that we need a Savior?

How can you pick & chose what you trust? It is all old & handed down verbally until written... why can't we mix & match what fits us best?

 

Things to truly ponder.... how do you decide which scripture to dismiss & which to embrace (ones that feel good? fit your life choices? least offensive? least controversial? least debate in the evolutionist circles? makes most sense after prayer & study? ... how to decide?)

 

Perhaps more thinking & not depending on the complete "trustworthiness" of man's own rules (or even emotionally reacting to the shock of something different).... would help others understand Genesis more literally or seek to find evidence to support the Scripture.... and not as just a bunch of cute stories for Bible school and for evolution teachers to mock.

 

I understand where many get their idea of Genesis not being literal.... I have been there. I have been there on MULTIPLE levels. Through much THOUGHT (really, honestly) and prayer, reading of scripture, and reading of scientific arguments that support Genesis... I have come to completely disagree...but would not say that you or anyone thinking differently are "leaving your brain at the door" when seeking conversation.

 

If you these awful experiences & do not agree with your church.... you can always go to other churches. Perhaps those who answer your thread and do not believe in a literal interpretation can help you find this answer. However, you may find there is much to learn where you now attend... but it might stir the pot of everything you have every been taught & challenge many things that we are supposed to believe in the world today. Hope you find what you seek. ;)

Edited September 14, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Renee in NC]

From the Vatican's website:

 

Thanks asta! The avoiding rigid literalism part is important, as is the not paraphrasing, glossing, etc. As for the OP's question, though, the Church doesn't inflict a timeline on Creation because it isn't important - the fact that God created the world is.

 

I am a "don't know"-earther, BTW.:D And I don't think it is important.;)

[WishboneDawn]

double post

[WishboneDawn]

Perhaps beginning your quest with a very insulting comment to those who may disagree with you or partially disagree doesn't invite conversation, experience/advice, or other options. I did not read all the thread.... forgive me "if I am beating a dead horse".

 

 

Shari's comments were in the context of, "I feel...". She was not making a general statement about others who attend certain churches, or telling others how they should feel, just stating she alone felt.

 

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between something like, "I feel spiritually empty in a church that doesn't take the Bible literally," and "Churches that don't take the Bible literally are spiritually empty." The second I'd take offence to but the first is simply someone relating their experience.

 

Shari's comment wasn't insulting. It was an honest comment on how she feels in certain situations.

[sagira]

I am Catholic, and I agree with the Catholic view of things. I think it's just important that we know God created the universe, whether His methods incorporated evolution to continue things, or whether He created earth millions of years ago or hundreds of thousands of years ago doesn't really matter. We don't know everything and He'll answer our questions when we get there (heaven).

[Melinda in VT]

For me, the issue of taking the Bible literally isn't even just about the big things. For example, one of the scriptures in church yesterday was the one that says husbands should love their wives as they love their own bodies, because no one hates his body. (Paraphrasing here obviously.)

 

But isn't that what triggers many eating disorders? Hatred of one's body?

 

So I'm sitting in church once again wondering about the idea of Biblical inerrancy/literalism. I can accept that Paul might not have known about eating disorders, but I can't accept that God didn't/doesn't know about them.

[Dirtroad]

Shari's comments were in the context of, "I feel...". She was not making a general statement about others who attend certain churches, or telling others how they should feel, just stating she alone felt.

 

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between something like, "I feel spiritually empty in a church that doesn't take the Bible literally," and "Churches that don't take the Bible literally are spiritually empty." The second I'd take offence to but the first is simply someone relating their experience.

 

Shari's comment wasn't insulting. It was an honest comment on how she feels in certain situations.

 

She feels this way b/c of her inference to the beliefs, education, & thinking ability of the poor people who sit in the pews with her. That is the issue that I was speaking on. She is placing a HUGE amount of judgement (perhaps unintentional) on those poor people who must not be thinking with their brains & believing all that stuff.

 

I completely understand the feeling of confusion or lack of understanding or not fitting in (been there)... but not the insult of those who go there and believe who by her implication "do check their brains at the door".

 

Again, I understand her confusion... but the comment was very harsh & judgemental Sorry.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Dirtroad

[asta]

She feels this way b/c of her inference to the beliefs, education, & thinking ability of the poor people who sit in the pews with her. That is the issue that I was speaking on. She is placing a HUGE amount of judgement (perhaps unintentional) on those poor people who must not be thinking with their brains & believing all that stuff.

 

I completely understand the feeling of confusion or lack of understanding or not fitting in (been there)... but not the insult of those who go there and believe who by her implication "do check their brains at the door".

 

Again, I understand her confusion... but the comment was very harsh & judgemental Sorry.

 

Oh, relax.

[My3Boys]

I would agree with Catholics. I was raised CAtholic and was not really taught the typical Bible stories in school and the ones I was taught I was told merely illustrated a point. I was also taught evolution in Catholic school and nothing about Creationism.

 

I would say the more "liberal" or "mainstream" (choose your tearm) of most denominations allow more wiggle room in interpreting the Bible. These are some denomiations I see that way and their more literal counterparts in parentheses. BTW, I may not have this completely straight and it does not mean that some of these literal churches may not have liberal congregations and vice versa. I am just going more by the offical party line!

 

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod)

 

United Methodist Church (Free Methodist Church, I think)

 

Presbyterian Church, USA (Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterian Church)

 

Disciples of Christ (Church of Christ)

 

Episcopalians (Anglican Orthodox Church)

 

United Church of Christ, including Congregational churches

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding the parentheses here, but the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), is definitely not part of the Presbyterian Church USA. They are separate. The PCA split and formed about 30 years ago due to the increasingly liberal positions taken by the PCUSA.

 

The PCA does take the Bible literally, believing it to be the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

 

Again, if I misunderstood something here, correct me, please!

[Dirtroad]

Oh, relax.

 

If you turn the words around and point to those who do not believe it is literal and say they are the unthinking mass of people.... would it not be bothersome to you? Yes... it would.... and one should be aloud to speak of it.;)

 

BTW.... I am relaxed. Completely... or I would never admit understanding her search... admit having been in a similar situation many years ago.

 

****

 

My3Boys, you are right. PCA left PCUSA and they are HUGE differences in how the respect & interpret the scriptures. PCA greatly value the Old Testament as truth and many in PCA believe the Old Testament continuously points us to CHRIST and reveals the definition of Sin and great need for redeemer. They really dig deep and it is all Holy Scripture.

[My3Boys]

If you turn the words around and point to those who do not believe it is literal and say they are the unthinking mass of people.... would it not be bothersome to you? Yes... it would.... and one should be aloud to speak of it.;)

 

BTW.... I am relaxed. Completely... or I would never admit understanding her search... admit having been in a similar situation many years ago.

 

****

 

My3Boys, you are right. PCA left PCUSA and they are HUGE differences in how the respect & interpret the scriptures. PCA greatly value the Old Testament as truth and many in PCA believe the Old Testament continuously points us to CHRIST and reveals the definition of Sin and great need for redeemer. They really dig deep and it is all Holy Scripture.

 

Yep. You can't pick and choose. That's like saying man's wisdom is superior to God's, IMHO. It's either all true or untrue.

[Meriwether]

:iagree:

What do you mean by "literally?" To read the Bible literally means to read it and understand it in the sense it was intended.

 

Sometimes this requires a straight-forward reading (the flood really happened), sometimes this requires a metaphorical reading (Jesus is door--but not a wooden one with hinges), sometimes this requires reading with anthropomorphizing in mind (God doesn't have arms--he is spirit), etc.

 

I am a Christian who understands the Bible literally, but I never, ever check my brain at the door. I find Bible study and the Christian life incredibly rigourous.:)

[melmac]

From Matthew 12

40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

 

Jesus spoke those words. I can't imagine not believing that story or any other story from the Old Testament.

[WishboneDawn]

If you turn the words around and point to those who do not believe it is literal and say they are the unthinking mass of people.... would it not be bothersome to you? Yes... it would.... and one should be aloud to speak of it.;)

 

But that's not what Shari did at all. She was speaking of her own feelings.

 

She felt she had to check her brain at the door. She wasn't saying everyone who went to a literal church did or had to. Just that for, some reason likely shaped by her personality and experiences, she did.

 

If someone said they felt they were betraying their faith by attending a liberal Christian church for instance, even as a liberal Christian, I'd be fine with that. They aren't saying liberal Christianity is a betrayal of faith, just that that's how they feel about themselves. That's understandable considering how different our experiences as Christians can be. Heck, I can even understand that it might not only feel like a betrayal, it might actually and truly constitute a betrayal for that person. Still okay with it. Still about personal feelings and experiences.

 

I just think there's a line where we should be fine with people expressing their opinions about themselves. If they step over that, then look for insult I suppose but I think Shari was pretty clearly well within the boundaries.

 

Ya know, this could be an interesting thread and discussion just on it's own.:)

[TravelingChris]

By the way, we are members of a PCA church and we believe in the Bible but we are not young earth believers. You can believe the Bible to be true but still recognize different literature forms and different emphasis of stories. Dinosaurs and young earth ideas are not salvation issues. The elders knew what my husband does and no one asked us any questions about our beliefs in how old the universe is since it doesn't matter to our salvation. Since my congregation has a number of scientists and engineers, I doubt that young earth beliefs are prominent. I do think most of us are creationists but not young earth believers. In fact, I just looked up some references and while creationism is a belief in PCA churches, you can be an old earth creationist. That is what we are.

[Pip]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the parentheses here, but the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), is definitely not part of the Presbyterian Church USA. They are separate. The PCA split and formed about 30 years ago due to the increasingly liberal positions taken by the PCUSA.

 

The PCA does take the Bible literally, believing it to be the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

 

Again, if I misunderstood something here, correct me, please!

 

Okay, I didn't word it clearly. The first denomination is the liberal one. The one is parentheses is the conservative alternative. So, PCUSA is a lieberal Presbyterian denomination. If you want a conserbative Presbyterian one, try PCA or the Orthodox Presbyterians. The ELCA is a liberal Lutheran group. If you want conservative Lutheranism, try the WELS.

[Peela]

I grew up in a Uniting Church school and it didnt take the Bible literally as fundamentalists do. We were taught evolution.

Fundamentalism is a strong phenomenon but I never knew about it till I started homeschooling- jus tnever came across it. It's not as strong in other countries as it is in the U.S.

[SquirrellyMama]

For me, the issue of taking the Bible literally isn't even just about the big things. For example, one of the scriptures in church yesterday was the one that says husbands should love their wives as they love their own bodies, because no one hates his body. (Paraphrasing here obviously.)

 

But isn't that what triggers many eating disorders? Hatred of one's body?

 

So I'm sitting in church once again wondering about the idea of Biblical inerrancy/literalism. I can accept that Paul might not have known about eating disorders, but I can't accept that God didn't/doesn't know about them.

 

I have often wondered the same thing about some passages in the bible. Like Matthew 7 where it talks about parents not giving their kids a stone when they ask for bread. There are abusive parents that would give their kids something bad when they ask for good. So, I asked one of our pastors about it today. This is what he said to me:

 

 

Re: Matthew 7, most parents do want to give good to their children. Do they always? No, not even the best parent always gives good gifts or always has the child's best interests in mind. But generally, almost every parent has at least some good desires for their children. I think that is what Jesus is referring to. For example, in an abusive parents' worst moment, they are definitely not doing what is good. But often immediately after the abuse, they have extreme guilt and remorse. They hate what they have just done. They apologize. They buy gifts for the child to "pay for their sins." They do love the child. But of course they also don't love the child either, at least at times. Our sin makes all of us "double-minded".

 

 

Similarly in Ephesians, even the most righteous person will, at times, not take good care of his/her body. But the general pattern is that we do "look out for number one". We get sleep. We shower. We eat when we're hungry. We comb our hair. And even when we abuse our bodies, it often is to provide relief or find peace or to comfort ourselves. For example, if I drink alcohol to excess, I am harming my body, but my deepest inner desire is to bring peace to myself and forget my pain and my problems. So in that sense, I am still loving myself. I am trying to do what is good for me (even though it truly is not good for me). In fact, perhaps most-- if not all-- sins we commit are doing what we think is best for us. We might be greatly deceived, but we typically think it's best for us. If I am selfish, it is because I think my choice is better for me. If I am greedy, it is because I think it is better for me.

 

 

[Veritaserum]

Fundamentalism is a strong phenomenon but I never knew about it till I started homeschooling- jus tnever came across it. It's not as strong in other countries as it is in the U.S.

 

:iagree: I grew up believing the Bible while also believing in evolution. Seeing how some people feel that the only options are to take it all literally or believe it's all false, I (and most Christians I know) have apparently done the impossible. :tongue_smilie:

[jewellsmommy]

For me, the issue of taking the Bible literally isn't even just about the big things. For example, one of the scriptures in church yesterday was the one that says husbands should love their wives as they love their own bodies, because no one hates his body. (Paraphrasing here obviously.)

 

But isn't that what triggers many eating disorders? Hatred of one's body?

 

So I'm sitting in church once again wondering about the idea of Biblical inerrancy/literalism. I can accept that Paul might not have known about eating disorders, but I can't accept that God didn't/doesn't know about them.

 

I know this is a little off the point but...I would say that many people hate the image of their body but that is not quite the same as hating the body itself. And, there are many other mental factors that way in as well. In the same way, individuals who suffer from self mutilation do not hate their bodies. It is often an expression of emotional pain and the feeling of lacking control in one's life.

[My3Boys]

Okay, I didn't word it clearly. The first denomination is the liberal one. The one is parentheses is the conservative alternative. So, PCUSA is a lieberal Presbyterian denomination. If you want a conserbative Presbyterian one, try PCA or the Orthodox Presbyterians. The ELCA is a liberal Lutheran group. If you want conservative Lutheranism, try the WELS.

 

Okay, I get it now. Sorry for the confusion.

[asta]

If you turn the words around and point to those who do not believe it is literal and say they are the unthinking mass of people.... would it not be bothersome to you? Yes... it would.... and one should be aloud to speak of it.;)

 

Actually, it would not be bothersome to me. It has nothing to do with me.

 

I have to agree with WishboneDawn on this one.

 

 

a