Should Christians take it literally, Veeky Forums?

Catholics aren't Christian

>it's okay guys
>our religion is totally okay because we say you don't have to do what it says anymore

I honestly don't get you people.

We're the Only Christians

You don't believe the bible, you're as Christian as muslims

The Bible is only God's writings.
The Pope is God's best bud.

We believe that the Bible is a great, but in the end it's written by men, and men are fallible.

God gave us the ability to reason, and one should not ignore reason.

The pope is antichrist
The bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church

A nonsense doctrine that doesn't even make sense in the context of the religion that promotes it.
>be perfect god
>be fully good
>somehow fail to prevent your creation being tricked by a talking snek
>HURR DAT MAKES US ALL BORN EVULL!!!11

Total non sequitur. Even if being tricked was all it took to make Adam and Eve "sinful", how or why does this also apply to us, thousands of years later?

God decreed it before the foundation of the world, so that every mouth may be shut.

That's a a pretty nice leap in logic you made there.

Try Galatians 4:21-31 and read a bit about St. Augustine

answersingenesis.org/sin/original-sin/

Are Prods secretly an Atheist False Flag?

>"the bible is fallible human writing"
>No it's not it's God-breathed
>Lmao u atheist

Mr Dawkins, is that you?

>anime

Anime is the true way to Jesus Christ, haven't you watched Superbook?

anime is blasphemous idolatry.

>taking anything in the Bible literally
>taking anything in any religious text literally

>Try Galatians 4:21-31
Are you implying the bible has one coherent message?

I suggest you try Galatians 1:6-9. Notice how it literally says - "EVEN IF WE" - "WE", as in the apostles.

I can go all day, senpai.

>Christfag detected
>removechristians.exe

Prods say that about art, too.

Wet your mind's dick in the beauty of Subcreation, heretic

I'm not implying the bible has one coherent message, I was just calling out your poor bait for what it was. The issue of whether or not to interpret Genesis literally has been debated between leading Christian figures and scholars since pretty much the inception of Christianity. You just boiled it down to a shitty greentext to insult people and get responses, which I guess you sorta succeeded in.

i think catholics would agree anime is disgusting blasphemous degeneracy

Why the fuck are you posting a bible passage, meant to express a message, if the bible itself does not have one coherent message and the passage which I linked you, which, mind you, appears earlier in Galatians than yours, makes yours obsolete.

I mean, you've literally post nothing now but buzz words, good fucking job senpai, you are as retarded as the book you are attempting to defend, go figures you can into simple logic, right?

>The issue of whether or not to interpret Genesis literally has been debated between leading Christian figures and scholars since pretty much the inception of Christianity
Name one (1) who thought the Earth was older than 6000 years.
Name one (1) who thought Adam and Eve weren't real people.
Name one (1) who thought the flood wasn't global.

Define literally?

Literal, as in, this is a true and accurate scientific explanation of the beginning of the cosmos.

Then no, of course not.

There are as previously noted some fundamentalist strains of faithful people who cling to this view. Whatever...

Literal, as in, these are the true thoughts of historical authors talking to their historical audience in their time and place and within their cultural framework relaying what truths they believed God had revealed to them.

Then yes.

All the Biblical books, IMHO, should be read with a cultural background point of view. What did the culture think and know of the world at the time of authorship, and what message/instruction was that author trying to convey to that specific audience in the book.

The biblical books are better read that way, whether you are religious or not, the biblical books are not perfect history, or anything else, especially science as that view of the world was many years away. The biblical books are a little bit of everything literary picked up throughout thousand of years from many different sources and canonized at religious councils in the Early Christian Church.

huh, wow that really made me think

>posts bible passage
>gets btfo with another bible passage from same book
>can't even formulate another counter argument
>is still going to save what is left of his tattered ego
Hows it feel to get BTFO so hard?
I honestly wouldn't know?

me neither senpai

Maybe next time you should actually try to have knowledge in a subject you are trying to argue.

Could help?

>this quote makes your quote obsolete but its all actually incoherent cause I said so
>I'm gonna ignore the rest of what you said and call you a retard
>BTFO hehe, chalk another one up for logic xd

>quote says to only believe in the words of christ
>your quote says believe what I (paul) am saying
>both quotes made by same person
>logically coherent argument of a theist

You should try harder, senpai.

>24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
>Which things are an allegory
>an allegory

Now let's go back to what you said originally

>it's okay guys
>our religion is totally okay because we say you don't have to do what it says anymore

So what the fuck is your point? You complain firstly that people don't do what the religion says but when I give you a quote where they refer to Genesis as an allegory you start spewing bullshit about how actually it's all incoherent. How do you want me to back up the views of a faith without using the scripture? I don't see what you're trying to go for here which is why I called your post bait.

>it's another autistic catholic vs protestant shitposting thread

>You complain firstly that people don't do what the religion says but when I give you a quote where they refer to Genesis as an allegory you start spewing bullshit about how actually it's all incoherent.

Posting another, earlier quote from the same book is spouting incoherent nonsense?

>How do you want me to back up the views of a faith without using the scripture?

You are understanding that you simply cannot back up your faith which is based on these scriptures, because these scriptures are literal nonsense.

Look.
>Paul said only believe in what Christ actually said
>>Something he did not personally know
>anything else, even what we are saying is potential heresy and let him be accursed
>Paul then defined things within the scripture

How does that make sense to you? Which do you believe? The part which meshes with what you want to believe? Or the part which doesn't? Or the whole nonsensical picture? You are now denouncing my passage, even though same gospel, but upholding yours.

You guys pick and choose what you like. It's directly related to my original post?

>no replies
Yeah, that's I thought.

What alternate interpretation actually is there?

Is the truth of Genesis dependent on a literal interpretation? Does Christianity become a lie if Genesis isn't history? I'd say no.

anime is mortally sinful

What kind of shit is going on at Memri TV?

Yes, but only literally non-literal

Taken 'literally' it doesn't even make coherent narrative sense. Fundies do mental gymnastics to defend their version of events that has nothing to do with the bible.

Of course not. Taking Genesis literally means that Satan didn't tempt Adam and Eve into sinning in the Garden and is hence unthinkable.

As many have already said, if you do not take Genesis literally you are committing a grave error indeed. Which is it? You believe God does not have the power to create a worldwide deluge? Does God not have the power to create human beings? How about the apple? Do you believe the apple didn't exist?

These are all forms of doubt. If you doubt yourself, to hell shall you be destined.

The Vatican approved of Pokemon's message.

Pokemon spreads the word of God you filthy atheist.

Because what you posted was shitty fucking bait you idiot.

Well? Can you name one?

>Believing he didn't is somehow the same as believing he couldn't.

Into the trash

These are questions that weren't really answerable in any capacity until recently, but I'll do my best
>Name one who thought the earth was older than 6000 years
Origen found the concept of a literal 6 day creation as being retarded, so he probably found the earth older than 6,000 years.
>name one who thought Adam and Eve weren't people
Irenaeus of Lyons viewed them as allegorical for Jesus, though whether or not he ruled out their actual existence I am unsure
>Name one who thought the flood wasn't global
This one is also fairly recent and as far as I know nobody really talked about it all that much.

I get what you're asking but you used questions that are either modern or infused with a modern understanding, which isn't really fair to people who lived over 1,000 years ago

>Origen found the concept of a literal 6 day creation as being retarded, so he probably found the earth older than 6,000 years.
Says the world is less than 10,000 years old in Contra Celsum.
>Irenaeus of Lyons viewed them as allegorical for Jesus, though whether or not he ruled out their actual existence I am unsure
Yes, ancient Christians viewed scripture as allegorical in addition to being literal, not instead of.
>This one is also fairly recent and as far as I know nobody really talked about it all that much.
It was quite a big deal and talked about a lot actually, especially in the early days of Christianity when they had to defend the historicity of Genesis against pagans. Both Augustine and Origen wrote quite a bit answering skeptic objections to the flood covering the highest mountains and Noah being able to carry a pair of all animals in the ark.

I was gonna say no until I looked it up - turns out they actually reunited in 2014, so it may be a legit concert banner.

I gegged & jegged dem dubz.

New International Version
where "'the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.'

Moreover, Origen was posthumously condemned as a heretic, so relying on him as a source is pretty foolish.

No, protestants get out. Catholics, Orthodox, Hermeticist, gnostics and perennial traditionalist come in.

>Hermeticist, gnostics
You rang?

It's never been taken literally.

>Origen

Yes. No holy book was written with the intention of being "interpreted differently". Be it the Torah, Qu'ran, Bible, or any of the various other ancient holy books, they were not written with the future in sight. They were intended for the times they were penned in. Not to illegitimize other religions, but if you aren't taking your book literally, you're worshipping wrong.

The words of a heretical theologian do not describe the beliefs of the typical Christian, or even the church itself throughout history.

t. autistic atheist communist papist

What's wrong with him?

I mean, he was a heretic, but not for his interpretation of the Genesis.

Yes it has. The entire religion of Islam takes it seriously.

>No matter how retarded it is, I must defend it to stop other retards who don't understand religion from questioning even the slightest detail in the Bible!

His interpretation of the OT lead to the heresies of Rome

Christians, yes
The rest of us, no

The problem is that it isn't presented as an allegory. If Genesis isn't the literal truth, how can you be sure Jesus being the son of God is the literal truth?

Christians aren't Christians

Guess which one is the true religion of Christ.

Le I was born in the wrong century meme? Thumbs up if agree xD

>the SOLE infallible rule of faith
With dozens of versions and countless contradictions.

Literally everything that doesn't come from faith is sin. Anime isn't any more sinful than music, movies, vidya, etc. Yet we aren't Islamic state idiots looking to ban all of those things.

Does it really matter what religious texts say when every scrap of evidence insists on it being billions of years old? This isn't even a debate anymore, it's a universally accepted fact. You can scrap through christians that lived thousands of years ago to discover who kept an open mind to new information or not, but their writings aren't going to change reality.

Islam has largely moved on from literal creationism to theistic evolution. Only the most hardline middle eastern shitholes try to maintain the old narrative.

It's what the Koran says, to do otherwise is to go against the will of God.

Many others in this thread are arguing for the literal interpretation of Genesis for a reason.

That brings up a new question: when something in a religious text is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be completely and utterly incorrect, what then? Deny reality or try to change the interpretation?

Stop sucking cocks and accept it bitch

Stop sucking KJV while you're at it, the RVS are more accurate.

Don't tell me you're thinking of evolution, which is obviously bullshit?

Oh evolution is real, it just that Muslim didn't agree with that organisms RANDOMly evolve to adapt to the environment, but Allah instruct the organisms to evolve that way.

>Cherrypicking from the Word of God
>This is metaphor
>This is not a reliable account
>This was written by X and shouldn't be taken literally
>This actually means this in the original text
>The Word of God turns out to be whatever you want to be mang
>So tell me, why is X so?
But it says so in the Bible! It's the word of God!

> Not understanding the esoteric allegory behind the story of the garden of Eden

It's a condensed story of how people change when they come from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and come near or settle in a massive city

> see Babylon and Mesopotamia
> see ancient Egypt

People being the social and experimenting creatures that they are. Will constantly be tempted to indulge in things that go against the natural order of things once they no longer have to participate in having to survive strictly based on their own merits.

This allows people to have free time. Free time for people to cheat on eachother, figure out new ways to conquer and destroy others for ones one benefit, build aqueducts and farms to allow people to be even more condensed to have even more free time to use their creativity to alter the natural order.

Whatever text from the original draft of the Bible that's dribbled down to the current year was most likely based off of people's experience with witnessing rulers who lorded over others as a "God" status and proceeded to commit very "ungodly" things. They also witnessed that upon discoveries of new technologies people changed, not always for the better.

To break it down: Adam (males) and Eve(females) lived in the garden of Eden (Earth) for quite some time. They were serving as stewards of the Garden (only eating what they kill, not extracting more resources than which could be replaced by natural means) . There existed a tree of knowledge (technology, ways to stray away from the natural order of things), and God told us that we will ultimately die off if we pursue the depths of knowledge towards our own extinction.

until a snake (the ancient symbol of wisdom) tempted them that they could extract all of the resources from the Earth in order to become gods.

The thing is that we aren't perfect, and the closer we fly towards the sun of a perfect "utopian" society the worse we'll be burned.

Adam got cucked by Satan and Eve.
Even the first man was not safe from getting cucked.
We are all doomed.

...

...

It depends on whether they want to grow spiritually or not.

It also depends if you're talking about something in Genesis that is meant to be taken literally.

>Origen

Known papist heretic. Are you serious?

>Irenaeus

An even bigger heretic than Origin? A binitarian???

...there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Preface, Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Notice that Irenaeus states that only the Father, the Son, and those who possess the adoption (Christians) are God. This is a binitarian, not a trinitarian view.

TOPKEK

Christ died to get rid of that

Because when Adam and Eve sinned, they died. The Holy Spirit fled them as they let sin enter into their bodies. They lost the glory they had before they sinned, were ashamed of being naked, and tried to hide themselves.

God made Adam in His image, and made Eve out of Adam.

Once they fell from grace and spiritually died (he who has the Spirit has life; he who has not the Spirit has not life) they were only capable of making children in their own fallen and spiritually dead image.

You don't have a sin problem; Jesus paid for your sins on the cross before you were born.

You were born spiritually dead, reached your age of accountability, and have failed to be born again in the Spirit. Hence, you are dead right now, dead meaning "separated from God", who is Life.

You do not have the Holy Spirit in you.

If you remain in this condition, you are telling God you want to go on trial, condemned already for not believing in Jesus, to prove that you are as He is.

After that trial is over, and it is a foregone conclusion, you will suffer the second death, which is to be permanently separated from God, from all that is God, and cast into a fiery lake with all sorts of evil people and demons, including their leader, the devil.

aka your spiritual father.

That's how Adam's sin effects you. You were stillborn.

I don't think the ancient Hebrews ever took it seriously.

>'God' died
Christians pls