Who / What Determines How Literal The Bible Is To Be Taken??

[Proud_Democratt]

The Fundamentalists are often accused of taking the Bible too literally......others say it's meant for "metaphoric lessons".

[jeff30997]

1. I see it more as a fairy tales book.

[achtung_circus]

2. These guys

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

[life_long_dem]

10. That looks like the "Gumby and Pokey"

animated version.

[Dr.Phool]

3. I used to debate fundies on a biblical errancy board.

They believe everything literally. Contradictions, logical fallacies, factual and scientific errors, etc. So I guess they do.

[rfranklin]

6. They are taught some bushwa that covers all the contradictions...

and are told that they will be tested by Satan's agents--of which I am one.

My favorite was asking a hot fundy chick about Lot's daughters having sex with him. Smoke was coming out of that befuddled brain.

[saltpoint]

4. Jesus used parables and metaphoric speech. For fundies to take

everything in the OT and NT as unswervingly literal is a disservice to Jesus' talents as a communicator.

For me, the people who have the widest possible skill with interpreting language and context should be listened to more closely than the fire-belching hatemongers like Pat Robertson and that ilk.

I wasn't around for the event that prompted the Jonah-and-the-whale account, but I believe a LITERAL interpretation of that event is asking a lot.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. I have read that

"being in a great fish" was an idiom meaning "being in a lot of trouble". Not to be taken literally at all. Both Hebrew and Aramaic are full of idioms and often used parables to explain things. Much of this is lost on the literalists.

[saltpoint]

16. Yes. I attended a talk in Chicago a couple years back and the

speaker believed that the Jonah-and-the-whale story is an account of a man who is consumed by the shamanic experience.

To be "spat out" was to be returned an enlightened journey-er, a more wholly aware person, an evolved being.

Who knows?

[charlyvi]

5. Your grasp of the laws of physics.

Jonah living in a whale, talking serpents and bushes, all species of animals fitting on an ark.....you get the idea.

[johnnypneumatic]

7. it should be taken and put on a top shelf, to protect the children

it should be rated X, no one under 18

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. It really comes down to the individual

Some feel that they should believe whatever a religious authority figure tells them. In my household, my mother had several translations of the Bible, and encouraged me to read them all and discuss the fine points with her. We also read books on early Christian history and on the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as The Lost Books of the Bible. In the past several years, I've read translations by Neil Douglas-Klotz of various parts of the Bible, and find them very instructive. My personal conclusion is that the Bible is a compilation of various stories that were originally oral; that no contemporary written account of Jesus still exists (if it ever did exist), and that the point of the Bible is to take the teachings seriously, because they do show a way of living that speaks of tolerance and understanding.

[tocqueville]

15. some teachings of Jesus yes, not the rest

if you talk of tolerance and understanding. The Cathars considered the Old Testament as the work of the devil or the demiurge (Satan). For them Jehovah was an horrible mean "god", taking humanity as hostage and rewarding only blind faith.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Yes, I was referring to the teachings of Jesus

sorry I didn't make it clear. One thing interesting in the Old Testament though-at first, both goodness and badness appears to come from God-but then suddenly there pops up the Devil. I've heard a theory that the concept of duality of divinity came after the Babylonian Captivity, when the Jews were introduced to the Zoroastrian religion and their creation story, where Ahura Masda, Lord of Light and Wisdom, creates the Lord of Darkness. You can read this creation story here at Post Three:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=292x1521

[libhill]

43. And as I recall

the Cathars were exterminated in a Crusade by the loving, tolerant mainstram Christians of the time...

[Meshuga]

9. The Bible taken literally...

...loses its purpose. It becomes a laughable book of absurdities. I don't blame people for making fun of the Bible when it is taken literally.

[tocqueville]

12. Depends what you are looking at

Geographical places, names of families, Kings are probably somewhat accurate, as much as an oral transmitted tradition plotted down on goat skin and translated in several languages before reaching English can be accurate...
By teh way it would be more interesting to ask is the Torah is accurate, at least it has the advantage to be written in the original language...

The religious part, the events etc are either fantasy or metaphorical to pass on a message that suited the powers at that time. Remeber that a MAJORITY of Christians (who are still catholics) don't consider the Old Testament more than an interesting background book. The Gospels are central for the majority, not the Old Testament.

It was the Protestants that focused on the Old Testament. Even if those guys had good reasons to protest the corruption of the Church, they were no more than an ancient version of the Talibans. The worse ones settled outside Europe... with the horrendous consequences we can see today... The one who stayed and the rest of the Catholics by the way learned how to STFU. OK some heads had to roll first...

[Richard D]

23. Accuracy of the Torah . . .

There are special scribes who reproduce the Torah. It's all done by hand. If even one part of one letter is malformed, the entire scroll is discarded and the scribe starts writing again from the beginning. So it's accuracy as a reproduction goes back a long long time.

[Proud_Democratt]

29. Indeed.......and there's nobody trying to sell you

an Amplified, Living, or New American Standard version of it either.

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. The individual reader

The question you pose assumes that there is one Christian Authority that Determinaes All things. While the fundies certainly like to think that they are that Authority (and of course, they disagree with each other), there is no unified, ultimate Christian authority or methodology.

So the question is moot, and exhibits a false conception that Christianity is one, ultimate, unified voice.

It comes down to the individual - whcih is very much the tradition of the Congregationalists and the United Church of Christ, as well the Unitarians and a few other denominations.

[napi21]

14. It all depends on what religion you follow.

That's why the founding fathers demanded separation of Church and State. No religions can ever come to an amicable conclusion.

[tocqueville]

17. Revealed religions are antidemocratic by definition

Democracy is the rule of the people through exchange and acceptance of ideas and solutions, constantly renewed.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism (in all their variations) have a BOOK that CANNOT be wrong. Just follow the recipe
and the Church leaders will be pleased. Even better if they are the rulers. Vote for the Pope, the Ayatollah etc... and he will sooner or later abolish democracy. Iran is a very good example.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tocqueville]

24. prove me the contrary....

ant let the freepers out of that, they are on the other side. And I am neither juvenile, ignorant or even agnostic...

Historic records show that if you don't enforce (and I mean enforce) a tough separation of Chuch and State, the fundie nature of all revealed religions will sooner or later take over and turn the country into a theocracy.

Revealed religions have a facit. Theyt don't need science, don't need enlightment, don't need questions. All these are their enemies. The fight for democracy has alway been a fight AGAINST organized religion. Organized revealed religion has always chosen the side of the rich and the powerful, and exceptions confirm the rule.

I state again that revealed religion (God has talked to me so I am going to tell you what "he wants") leads in the end to violence becauses the masses are not always willing to accept the new "revelations". Jesus might have preached in a "buddhist manner" but was very soon "translated" by Paul with the consequences we know. Then texts become canon, then the Emperor understands that it is a good idea to be on the side of "God" (gives me more clout)
etc... etc..

Christianity (all denominations) has been at war against humanity in 2000 years, Islam (all denominations) 1600 and Zionism the last 100 (at least against a certain group). Because people NEED to be converted, according to some. Show me a country where a religious majority when in power hasn't persecuted or in the best cases "tolerated" the others if they followed strict rules ?

Show me that a revealed religion (Bible, Koran, Torah) is DEMOCRATIC in essence. Read the ten commandments :
I am a JEALOUS GOD, so fuck you if you don't do as I want.

My opinion is that religion must be contained to the PRIVATE sphere and never be let out of it. It isn't a problem for the non prozelyters like Budhism, pantheists etc... but the other ones are real danger if not contained. And it doesn't matter if some verses of that or that book says that you should love everybody.

Prove me that REVEALED religions are IN ESSENCE DEMOCRATIC, then I'll take back my statement.

[Rabrrrrrr]

34. Since someone deleted my post, I can't respond well.

as I don't remember what I wrote, though I do remember calling your THINKING juvenile, but I don't remember calling YOU juvenile. There is a significant and important difference between labeling behavior and labeling the person.

But, you are the one who says that all revealed religions are inherently antidemocratic, so the burden of proof is on you.

And I will prove it false thusly: the Congregational movement was an inherently democratic one, reacting against the heirarchy and top-down structure of the Anglican Church. The Congregational Church as a denomination, which is only loosely organized because of their strong belief in democratic process and autonomy and the will of the individual, as well as those Congregational Churches that joined the United Church of Christ, continue to exhibit strong democratic tendencies.

So, there, you are wrong. As in a mathematical proof, I proved one instance in which your theory is wrong, and thus your theory is wrong.

Now, if you said "Some expressions of some revealed religions are anti-democratic", I couldn't argue with you because you would be correct. Yes, "some" are. But not "all".

[tocqueville]

36. a possible exception isn't a proof

there is an exception to the Thermodynamics second law, that makes fridges possible. But the law is still true.

The essence of revealed religion is that it is ... revealed. God comes in one form or the other to the prophet and a book is written (the first thing that Moses did when he came back from the Sinai and saw the Golden Calf was to slaughter and torture half the tribe to start with. Even God became pissed at him because that was a bit too much, so he never saw the promised land...) and the FINAL SOLUTION IS GIVEN. I should have added previously that regarding the Jews the big battles were more biblical than actual. But a lot of the actual Palestine conflict is based on the right to land, given as a Holy right at least from religious Jews. Which is not very "democratic".

This prophet for some strange reason is ALWAYS the LAST PROPHET (Christianity/Sunni-Islam) or is to come to IMPLEMENT what has ALREADY been written (Jews, Shiites). So for the most zealous believers the goal is to convert as many as possible so the prophecied return is possible. This goes often through some form of eschatology that one can trigger through war (see rapture and Mahdi theories). How can something democratic (which means in itself the right to DENY religion) can be compatible with a fervent belief which isn't even a human ideology - but the word of God itself ? When Bush says "God told me to invade Iraq", how can he be wrong if you believe that he is a good Christian and really get messages from God ? Fortunately it happens that most Americans don't believe that, but if Bush had another personality and was a charismatic person, they'd might believe it.

My point is that revealed religion and democracy are two fundamentally opposed businesses in essence, since democracy can only generate NEW solutions and constant interrogation over lifestyles. There is a difference too with religions like buddhism which can be more considered as a philosophy and a lifestyle, which allows a far greater range of "deviance"from the original teachings.

I don't deny that that some churches specially at early stages can be "democratic" in the meaning that they don't elect a "pope" and respect the local secular laws (mostly they are so small that they don't have a choice). But historic facts prove that when those "democratic" churches come into power, and I mean SECULAR power (that they STRIVE after it is intresting in itself), then we are talking of a completely different business.

Besides those churches or religions recognize themselves that they are NOT democratic. It's not their purpose. Their purpose is to proselyte "the word" whatever it may be. If for some reason they seize power, why in earth (or heaven) should they go AGAINST their own beliefs, because the majority of the population is against it ? If they believe that homosexuality and abortion is a horrible sin, why tolerate it ?

I can give you that under certain circumstances the manifestations from certain Churches can be considered as "democratic" within a secular, Church/State separated framework. In France for example the official position of the Catholic church and the Islamic clerics is that laicity (secularity) protects their right of expression and worship and have OFFICIALLY declared that they won't seek to overthrow it. But it wasn't the case 100 years ago at least for the Catholic church which openly opposed the Republic and wanted a restoration of monarchy. It doesn't bother me that revealed religion isn't democratic. As a private belief of "the perfect solution" WITHIN a democratic system it's completely acceptable. But when this religion start to says "the state should implement me" and actively works for it, then all dangers are on the table. That's why the French Constitution's first paragraph says that besides the fundamental rights, secularity is "non-negotiable". Which means that to change the actual satus of separation of Church and State you either must have such a popular movement supporting it in its vast majority that a new constitution can be implemented (which is theoretically possible but not likely) or a violent overthrow.

To sum up : the essence of the revelation ("go and tell your people to do exactly so to gain paradise") doesn't allow democracy by definition. And even if some congregations of wiser people organize in a democratic way (which is an internal and completely different topic BTW) or EVEN proselyte a democratic world order, most of the major religions have always acted the opposite way.

Sorry I am still not convinced...

[trotsky]

45. Technically a fridge is not an "exception" to the 2nd law of thermo.

A common mistake made when referring to the 2nd law is to disregard the fact that it applies only to isolated systems. If you look at just the fridge, you see its contents remaining cold and might think that it's an exception to the law. But the fridge is not an isolated system. It releases heat into the environment. It consumes electricity. Add up the cold in the fridge and the heat added to the room (and the work done by the power plant) and you'll see that the net entropy increases. No exception, no violation of the 2nd law.

[Rabrrrrrr]

47. An exception is not a proof, no; but it does nullify your theory

All I'm saying is that, at minimum, you at least need to nuance your theory to "most revealed religions" or perhaps "many", maybe "some", perhaps "a few", and least likely, "none".

and p.s., there are no exceptions (that humans have ever encountered and which finding was then made public and tested and verified by peers) to any law of thermodynamics.

[trotsky]

44. That's not a proof.

For one, you are describing one particular church, not a religion. Unless you want to call the "Congregational movement" a religion in and of itself?

Secondly, a revealed religion, according to Wikipedia (not my favorite source, but it's handy), is one which perceives a symbolic center in a set of revelations allegedly given by a deity, and often transcribed into a sacred text.

That's about as anti-democratic as you can get. One deity, dictating to one person or a small group of people. As long as the religion is about one god, it's not democratic.

[Rabrrrrrr]

46. I never said it was a "proof" - I'm not out to "prove" anything.

I did, however, show through my one example that the poster's theory is false because there is at least one instance in which it is false. It's simple mathematics. His theory might proive correct in many, perhaps most, instances, but not all - and his theory implies all.

And when speaking of Christianity (or any religion, really) one has to look at specific manifestations, because there is no one Christian religion - Christianity is a hodge-podge of independant churches and and also a whole host of denominations, and each one needs to be looked at separately. Same with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. <-- there is no One Unified All-Grand Organization that oversees or manages any of them; all religions are made up of the individual expressions of that religion.

[trotsky]

48. No, you didn't show anything.

He claimed that revealed religions are anti-democratic. Your "counter-example" was of the organization of a particular church. If you don't see why that's an apples-to-oranges comparison, I'm sorry.

[Rabrrrrrr]

50. So then show me where "Christianity" exists in its "pure" form.

If you can show me "Christianity" in the purity of its "revealed" form, then you will have made a valid point.

But, since no "Christianity" exists - only specific manifestations of it, in the form of denominations and also as independant churches - the only way one can rightfully talk about "Christianity" is instead to talk about those specific manifestations.

Same with "Judaism" or "Islam" or "Buddhism": no "pure" or "revealed" or "meta" form of any religion exists - only specific manifestations.

[trotsky]

51. But even those specific manifestations aren't the religion itself...

just organizations created by humans around it.

I don't know if we need to have an example of "pure" Christianity, but just look at the basic structure: one all-powerful God who makes the rules and doles out punishment (and rewards). He chooses to speak to some, but not all. People are not given input into the rules they live under, nor are they even given the choice whether they want to take part in the cosmic play. They can't leave and choose another universe like they could another country.

That's not a democracy.

[Rabrrrrrr]

52. But your interpretation of the "basic structure" is precisely why

you can only speak of specific manifestations of Christianity, not "Christianity" as an absolute pure form.

Only some parts of Christianity view it as you view it: one all-powerful God who makes the rules and doles out punishment (and rewards). He chooses to speak to some, but not all. People are not given input into the rules they live under, nor are they even given the choice whether they want to take part in the cosmic play. They can't leave and choose another universe like they could another country.

In my tradition, the United Church of Christ (formed partly from the Congregational tradition, and some others), we believe that God is still speaking (that's our current ad campaign and theme), that God speaks to everyone, that God calls to everyone, and also that everyone has a choice whether to listen and follow, or, as you put it, to 'take part in the cosmic play'. It's all our choice. Though we are sensible enough to believe that no, we can't go to another universe. And within the UCC you will find people who do not believe that.

So how can talk of "Christianity" as though it is one structured perfectly formed and agreed upon religion? It isn't, and one can't. Some will interpret it as you do, others (such as myself) will not. And neither of us is correct, and neither of us is wrong.

You can only talk of specific manifestations.

[trotsky]

53. I'm really trying to understand your distinction.

But it's just not there. You still believe in a central, all-powerful god. This god set up the rules, we didn't vote on them. And your "choice" isn't really a choice, just a choice on whether to acknowledge your god's rules.

Just to refresh:

democracy, n.
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Any religion which believes in a central, all-powerful god is not democratic - by definition. Unless your god is up for re-election soon?

[kwassa]

54. God didn't set up the rules for the church, and still doesn't

The church, or denomination, sets up the rules, and many are run democratically. This was the essential idea of the Congregationalist church, that the congregation run it, not some outside authority. It is true of many different faiths.

The distinction is there, you are choosing not to see it.

[trotsky]

55. Again you are describing the church, not the religion.

One religion (Christianity), many churches.

If I'm the only one that sees a distinction there, then I know I'm nuts.

[Rabrrrrrr]

57. I think I'm understanding you better, but I still think you are missing

the distinctions: there is no "Christianity" - there are only specific manifestations of it.

Even if you want to say something like "I'm talking about the religion as revealed in the Bible", even that is not "Christianity", because the writings in the New Testament were written years and even generations after Jesus; and much of it was written as part of a long debate about what Christianity should be, from a wide variety of people in a wide variety of locations were practicing rather different forms of the faith; and all of it is up for interpretation, and none of it was handed directly to us from God.

I think I do get now what you are saying about the revealed religions not being democratic - certainly given your base assumption, you are correct in the sense that they are not democratic between whatever God did the revealing and the people to whom it was revealed. But I have two things to say on that: 1) Does it even matter if they aren't democratic? Is being democratic de facto better than any other system? Would it not be just as acceptable to rate the Divine-human relationship not on democratic principles, but on parent-child principles? I'm not saying we should; but I'm also not willing to say that a democratic system is the qua sine non methods of evaluating whether a religion is "good" or not, and 2) your understanding of "revealed" is deficient anyway, so your criticism of it as "non-democratic" doesn't hold up: I know of no major religion that is "revealed" according to the definition you offer of a god that lays down a set of rules then demands that the people do exactly that in order to be "saved" or escape punishment. There is some of that in most forms of Judaism and Islam, but that is not the overarching theme nor the foundation of them. Some forms of Christianity might even follow that principle, but that's a very small percentage of world Christians.

There are certainly many legitimate and valid reasons to criticize specific religions and the people who follow and the leaders who fuck it up, but the attempt to use 20th century American political ideals to condemn monolithically all religions of the world is insane.

Attack and criticize where it's needed; but do it specifically, not generally, and about religions that actually exist.

[trotsky]

58. Are you saying there is no god, only specific representations of it?

That's kind of how I take your spin. In which case, I couldn't agree more. So that's why I'm pretty sure you aren't saying that.

Let's take a look at my "deficient" understanding of what it means for a religion to be revealed. You're actually melding what I said in two different spots here, so no wonder you targeted that to criticize.

First off, in post #44, I pointed out how Wikipedia defined a revealed religion. Do you disagree with that definition? Here it is again for convenience: A revealed religion is one which perceives a symbolic center in a set of revelations allegedly given by a deity, and often transcribed into a sacred text. If you don't agree with that definition, please offer one up of your own.

The other part of that, a god laying down a set of rules and doling out punishment/rewards, well that's the basic vision of most American Christians. Sure, some might think that he eases up on the punishment from time to time, but the basic model is still there. How can you say that you know of "no major religion" set up like that? Do we live in different countries or something?

[papau]

27. I liked both of your last two posts

St Peter's priesthood of all believers seems quite democratic to me. We even have Exodus 19:6 -"ye shall be unto Me "a kingdom of priests" Of Course Pius IX's 1870 Vatican I did establish the infallible priest - the Pope - which is another story and indeed true for only one branch Christianity - and of course all the small c catholic churchs do go with a hierarchy structure.

But we also have every one equal - democratic - in the concept of the "priesthood of all believers" - meaning to at least some folks that every man is his own priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers

The priesthood of all believers is a Protestant doctrine founded on the First Epistle of Peter, 2:9:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." ....in likening the whole body of believers to the priesthood of ancient Israel, it removes the possibility of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity. God is equally accessible to all the faithful; no Christians have been set above others in matters of faith or worship. In this, it meshes with texts that say that God is no respecter of persons, and in him there is neither Hebrew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. (Galatians 3:28)

The idea is in Lutheranism, Methodism, and in the "congregational polity" of many modern Baptist movements.

While fundi types may well gain power, they also lose power. Catholics have lived with Church state separation in the US without attempting to end such separation so as to take over the country, so I guess our formal church -state separation is working. In any case I guess I read the history differently as I do not see organized revealed religion always taking the side of the rich and the powerful - indeed the church as moderated and even opposed the wishes of the rich and the powerful a great deal better than the government of the US is doing today. Indeed tolerance of other beliefs by the Christian church does not seem to be a problem these days IMHO, although some see tolerance as not good enough and expect the Church to praise their reveal wisdom of the truth that their is only secular wisdom.

[Rabrrrrrr]

33. Unfortunately, my post was deleted, and I have no idea

what I said or how I said it.

I don't think I said anything rude, other than to point that one person's POSITION and THINKING was juvenile, but sometimes people feel the need to take statements like that as attacks on their personhood, which I'm sure it wasn't (but who knows, every now and again I slip and make it personal).

Oh, well. Anyway, thanks for the compliments.

And it's not just in Lutheranism, Methodism, and modern Baptists: it's all the rootstone and the foundation of the Congregational movement, and still is.

[papau]

35. Interesting info - I'm ROLF at the thin skin/unsure convictions of some!

I'd be interested in seeing the definition of rude or juvenile that was used to take down your post - because your post did not attack the prior poster - you just called the approach taken in the prior post rude/juvenile.

[tocqueville]

37. the internal organisation of a religion is a separate question

and the Catholic democracy is only a democracy at top level among pairs. The rest is hierarchy. Besides the masses don't elect the Pope.

"The priesthood of all believers" is of course tempting. But it works as long as they have the SAME FAITH and the same "translation" of the Bible (in this case) : "God is equally accessible to all the faithful" : very nice ! but the non-faithfull ? what will happen to them when they are a minority ?

So both solutions above are only partial solutions WITHIN an autocratic system. Even in some types of monarchies, some are granted democratic privileges by the King.

What I meant is different : it's the relation between a revealed religion and the "non-revealed" masses. Show me an historic example where in countries with a revealed religion in complete power through a priesthood or a king, or both, the religious or agnostic minority has been granted the SAME rights and never been persecuted ? and if you find one, it will be an exception.

The later (same rights) has only happened in modern secular democracies.

Because a divine revelation is by essence non-democratic. It pretends to be the ONLY TRUTH. If it is the problem is solved. But as long as the truth has to be proven, and people argue about it it's OK. After all we are on Democratic Underground and we can freely discuss. But try to discuss the virginity of Mary with the Pope or the Holiness of Mohammed with Ayatollah Khomeini. In the first case it's a dead end and in the second case you'll be beheaded. And if you had the same discussion 300 years ago you'd end up dead in both cases....

Protestants seem to get away with my presentation, but historically it's not true. During the religion wars in Europe as much evil was done by both sides (Protestants were very good at destroying places of worship Taliban-style, which caused enormous cultural and historical damage), even if the Protestants often present themselves as "victims". A lot of the congregations that flew to the new world were VERY reactionary forces that opposed the current secular order and turned rapidly into witch-hunters. And in countries were Protestantism won completely, like the Scandinavian countries, catholics were practically forbidden and the only ones that were even more persecuted were the Lapons. As late as in the beginning of the twentieth century lapon shamans were hung both in Sweden and Norway because they BROKE THE LAW: they refused to CONVERT. And that was perfectly legal and practically nobody protested, even among progressives.

So of course you van find nice Jesus-followers here and there that wouldn't harm a fly and even recognize your right to be from another religion or even agnostic. BuT the day the THE ONES WHO KNOW BEST take power, they are to be be killed first with the other "infidels"....

[papau]

38. I agree your history is accurate, but not your conclusions, nor the

implications you draw.

I agree the Catholic democracy is only a democracy at top level among pairs - the rest is hierarchy. But the Pope is not the head of all of the catholic world - only the Roman one - and until 1870 it was an administrative position and not "infallible".

I have never heard of a Protestant faith that defined itself by some particular translation of the bible - and even the 1926 BCP folks are really into poetry and do not demand the KJV. I believe "The priesthood of all believers" is very real, but I note that some do limit it to Christians helping other Christians. It would seem that the non-faithful/atheist are by definition not interested in the subject. Indeed, does democracy demand we consider an atheist a priest for the purpose of the "priesthood of all believers"?

I do not see how you come to your conclusion that the Protestant side in being built on St Peter's "priesthood of all believers" is a partial Democratic solution within an autocratic system. The system is not autocratic - the part of the system that is "catholic" is autocratic - and many would argue that even here it is more like having police/law/Constitution in a democracy that it is like having a dictator out to screw those under his control and to use those folks to gain more control of others.

For your chosen subset of life you suggest a causal relationship among the parameters you used to define it, but I fail to see the logic. A country with a ruling king or ruling tribe or ruling color or ruling language or just being ruled by the very very wealthy have indeed persecuted those not in the group. Your point seems to be that minorities, including the religious or agnostic minority, are among the groups persecuted in a non-democracy or in a poorly designed, minority rights not protected, democracy. And of course I agree. But secular non-democracies have screw minorities though out time, so it is hard to see how secular can be equated with minority rights.

You assert a divine revelation is by essence non-democratic - yet every man his own priest proves the assertion wrong, IMHO. We agree that divine revelation does not posit that here is a truth among many truths - but that choice you must make is the essence of free will and every man his own priest.

I agree that there is intolerance in religious discussions - just as there is in discussions of art or science "truth de jure" - and the former has led to evil deeds. But this proves nothing more than intolerance can harm folks.

The Protestant wars were more tribal wars, as most wars are, than a proof that being Protestant leads to intolerance. Indeed the catholic wars do not prove that being catholic leads to being intolerant. Folks with opinion rarely are ready to concede that the other fellows opinion is equally valid - and that goes for the non-faithful/atheist speaker just as much as it does for the religious speaker. That does not prove that all are intolerant,

While persecution of minorities including catholic in Sweden/Norway proves little to my mind, the reference to Saami noaidi/lapon shaman who were considered to possess witchcraft powers, and thus often accused of sorcery during the 17th century, is interesting. The Swedish and Norwegian racial supremacy ideas was the basis of much evil, but the statement that in "the beginning of the twentieth century lapon shamans were hung both in Sweden and Norway because they broke the law : they refused to convert" is news to me.

I believe we agree that we should run the country so that those who think they know best for others what religion/ethical/secular idea should be outlawed are not given power without strong rules governing minority rights. Indeed that appears to be - to me - a basic part of what being a progressive is all about.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. The "priesthood of all believers" is fundamental to....

unprogrammed Quakers who don't have "hireling priests" and talk of "that of God in all of ua."

We have no clergy at all and all decisions, including theological ones, are made as "the sense of the meeting." This is not simply consensus, but a spiritual common understanding that the meeting comes to. Needless to say, there are always some really tough questions that come up that we tend to put off for a while-- often until a dissenting voice or two goes away.

But, it's as "democratic" as it gets.

[papau]

40. Seems like a very democratic structure! :-)

:-)

[PATRICK]

19. "Literal" is as abused as "liberal"

This really where, since education is under assault by ignorance with a historical lineage, that it wouldn't hurt to fit it in the curriculum(of teachers at least).

All sacred texts lose an aspect of the "literal" before the ink is dry. The intent of the author, much less his ability to understand and communicate events properly is doomed before the ink dries. Despite the naivete that both innocent people and powerful institutions love you can't help having evolution and conflicts. Which is one visceral reason primitive literalists fear science and evolution and critical analysis.

Look at it more as social dynamic. The community safeguards the meaning from nutjobs who would first interpret then add or subtract from the faith and thus the texts. The first battle of course is in CHOOSING the texts in the first place, the final process begun by the Diaspora Jews in building a Canon of the only part of their religion left intact- Scripture. Christians had to learn the hard way from their enemies within and without who cut and added from the communal worship texts.So the idea of Scripture is one by nature grounded in communal choice and struggle. The passing generations and poor translations did their damage but it could have been worse had criticism and scholarship not been forced early on.

Skipping far far ahead, the printing press came at a critical time to allow already disgruntled masses metastasize into religious revolt against the authoritative institution who had calcified and abused Scripture too much to withstand rational and spiritual critique. The Catholics fell back on tradition, a safe bet getting back to their better roots and the process of maintaining a living and literally faithful Faith. The Reformers, having broken away as sort of a spiritual Diaspora fenced in their own religious center around the text itself. Catholics refused to accept what scholarship and spiritual reform considered as "literal" and balked into their own narrowness of Scripture vs. traditional. In a fight absurdities abound, I suppose.

The smoke cleared but the divisions and damage down- if not downright calcified, literal is seen for the double thing it is. Namely what the text means scientifically studied and accurately translated and spiritual interpretation which makes sense since a mere collection of words has no relationship to revelation and faith in itself, nor even the limited perspective consciousness of the author(or more properly the author's community and parade of interpretative communities that followed). The spiritual nature of Scripture must match genuine literal knowledge. Simple mistranslations that fell into the general ignorance of the times and slipped by have caused mammoth and terrible diversions such as the subtle mistranslation of a bad grammatical sentence by Paul that led to a cruelly Platonic description of "original sin". All from mistranslation of a conjunction. So in the ancient authority war between the Vatican that still hates "relativism" and the Reformed Churches that absurdly tout the pre-eminence of "individual" interpretation, the idea of both "literal" and "spiritual" continues its muddled way in a Christian mainstream patiently, quietly, trying to get a better grip on the new scientific tools to enhance a literal understanding.

Bloviators who trumpet the word "literal" are light years and centuries lost in old arguments not "eternal" truths. Under their value system they could just as well be Moonies or Marcionites(close to Jehovah's witnesses) but all the cults hate the real meaning, the communal meaning, and any authority at all beyond their own. An openness to truth in all its forms has been one of the mainstays and correctives of the mainstream. But the "believers" have never been united, the literal has never been so clear that wild fantasies don't continue to foster cults, and much of Scripture can never have the absolute value in itself, in the words themselves, to substitute for a living faith community. People locked into various sides of an internal argument who spout absolutism(for themselves more than for God) are in fact rendered absurd and hypocritical by what Scripture is much less by its message.

The people with the mojo are the loons since the mainstream is too hidebound(Reformed Churches and catholics and Orthodox alike) to let a little thing like better understanding of Scripture and mutual peace to get them back together again. So who is totally faithful to the literal Scripture today? Practically no one, and certainly no segment of the divided authorities and "churches". What is the literal meaning? That God made the world in seven days as some sort of historical text witnessed in a vision? Or that it obviously is a myth used to explain faith and meaning as all other cultures tried to do. Words and mythmaking are not unique. Only the particular form is. And the meaning and reason for that particular form, even more than actual reporting of actual historical events(which also comprise Scripture), is the the literal meaning and intent of the writing. People interposing their own
will and intent upon that better be in the line of that intent and faith and not abusive fantasizes who seek to change and deny real literalism for their own narrow cult traditions and historical blunders. Knowledge of the forms and authors and events were swiftly lost in large, threatening portions. Science, born of disgust with the wars of religion for one thing, has redeemed some of physical literalness, at least enough to expose the fractured debate and the abuse of the very terms.

And thank God for spellcheck or the above would be even more inpenetrable than it is already.

[Joey Liberal]

20. The Bible doesn't mean anything to me

But then again, I'm against slavery. The Bible has rules for slavery.

[Turbineguy]

21. It was written by, of, and for

people who thought the earth was flat and the center of the Universe. So there's a lot that is plain wrong, and some parts should be taken metaphorically.

But the parts that deal with human behavior can be taken as it is. After all, the human race had been around long enough for people to have a good grasp of human nature. OK, the parts about sex should be taken in light of the birth control methods available at the time oif the writing.

[pansypoo53219]

25. well, after reading almost 1/2 of a book by Bishop John Spong

not much at all.

[SPKrazy]

26. Who Determines It?

I think it depends on the doctrine of the Church that reads them (if you are speaking of a Church)

some religions believe in the inerrant writing of the bible, others see it as full of metaphor, and analogy, along with some literal things like the 10 commandments.

but the who in those cases has not been me, except in deciding where I fit in.

I've attended fundie churches and while I liked some things about their services (mainly the tight fellowship and the effort to make people feel welcome, and the passion of the preachers) I didn't like the intolerance of others, or the literal reading of the bible.

I am a liberal, and had to find a Church (because my wife and I want to raise our family with a church background) that fit my and my wife's beliefs.

I attend a very liberal church, but I can't say that I buy the whole doctrine hook line and sinker.

Some there are more conservative than others, and there are some more liberal than I. But none of us are anywhere near being fundies. (although there were a couple of wealthy families that donned "W" stickers in 2004. Only one still has the sticker on his truck. And he is a very wealthy corporate lawyer, who came from family money in the first place.

The priest and his family had vehicles that had Kerry and Democrat stickers all over them.

But I'll have to admit, that while I agree with the politics, and the general beliefs of the Church I attend, I miss the animated and passionate services from the fundie realm. Our priest is also a philosophy teacher at a local university, so you can imagine that his sermons are well thought out, interesting, and well, a little boring too.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

28. Some say orange juice is just for breakfast

others say it's not just for breakfast anymore.

Who/what determines that?

[OneBlueSky]

30. the fundies are hypocrites . . . they quote parts of the Bible that . .

suit them to support existing prejudices . . . but they ignore other parts that don't square with their beliefs or way of life . . .

[Proud_Democratt]

31. like interacial marriages ....

and homosexuality.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

32. I do.

for me, that is.

[JVS]

41. The reader's conscience.

[libhill]

42. Only the theocratic ass hats

who desire to take political control of our country, and imprison / execute anyone who doesn't buy into their fairy tales. The Bible is a work of literature, nothing more. It is so full of absurdities, anachronisms, and contradictions, that only a moron could take it literally. Visit www.jesusneverexisted.com for a good breakdown on Bible origins and untruths.

[nemo137]

49. Our reason.

Supposedly, we're supposed to use scripture, reason, and tradition as our guide. Some go too far towards scriptue, though.

[InaneAnanity]

56. I think anyone who reads it...

...in a non sing-song voice is taking it too literally.