Why do people believe in Biblical Literalism? Sure you can bitch about religion as a whole but Biblical Literalism is fucking lunatic. Not even a number of the Church Fathers including St. Augustine took Genesis literally.
>>922561
That's not true honestly and it's intellectually dishonest to frame it like that
It's never been de fide, but from the beginning there have been people who thought it was written as literal history and others who didn't. It's just not a big thing because whether or not it was literal or not was never a matter of salvation itself.
>>922561
In Catholicism and Orthodoxy the ultimate authority is the church. They can read really, well creative metaphors into the bible because crazy ideas are always kept in check by an active counsel of Bishops. Bible can be interpretted to mean anything you want so you need a final authority.
When the Protestants came they realized that having no heirachy in the church means you need a new way to decide what interpretations are correct and which are not. If you are allowed to read the bible metaphorically than anything goes! Who is to say I can't read a ton of heretical metaphors into the text? So the way around this was to get rid of metaphorical readings altogether.
If Genesis is a metaphor why not have the crufixation also be a metaphor?
>>922579
>If Genesis is a metaphor why not have the crufixation also be a metaphor?
Yes, why not? Does the method of execution actually matter? Does it even matter that it was an execution? All Christian theology needs is the sacrifice of the Son.
>>922654
The part where the Son is sacrificed is metaphorical, the part where the Son becomes bread is literal?
>>922561
Tbqh, very few theologians believe in the Bible literally, but they do spread religion to the masses *as if* it was to be believed literally.
I sincerely doubt that when a priest or bishop is talking about the Garden of Eden to his congregation that he actually believes what he is saying is factual history, and not metaphorical.
The problem is, that these same people don't have a problem with their congregation believing it.
>>922561
What's wrong with it?
>>922829
It kinda denies the whole thing about evolution as well as contradicts what we know about faraway stars and the time their light needs to get here
>>922561
Where do you draw the line between what is to read literally and what is to be read figuratively?
>>922943
Considering much of the bible is allegory, imo it's best to be read figureatively.
Actually, the Christian faith demands Biblical Literalism.
If one does not believe in the literal existence of Adam, Eve, the snake, and the forbidden fruit, then the idea of original sin and the redemption through Christ is null (since Christ came to supposedly free man from the original sin of the Genesis narrative).
>implying I'm a Christcuck
>>923513
I don't see how it's a contradiction. Quit shitposting.
>>922962
The Bible is 66+ books. It doesn't make sense to say "read it figuratively" or "read it literally". It's taken on a book-by-book basis.
>>924301
He's kinda right. If you disbelieve in Adam, then where does original sin come in?
>>924374
Original Sin is an allegory for the innate, degenerative desires of humanity.
>>924384
>Original Sin is an allegory
Well, there you go. Now Christianity falls in on itself, if you argue that.
Jesus can't die to redeem an allegorical concept.
>>922783
The sacrifice is metaphorical anyway since it's not like Jesus stopped existing or was otherwise inconvenienced for more than 3 days.
I don't see what any of this has to do with the bread being literally the Son of God.
>>924401
>The sacrifice is metaphorical anyway
Kek, all 3 of the major sects consider you a heretic now
>>924391
Jesus explains that believing in Him and His teachings leads to Salvation (liberation from sin). His Resurrection is a model for the resurrection of humanity. We can all resist our temptations and begin an ascetic path.
Remember, Christ was a man in the desert. Christ was a man before crucifixion. Christ was also a man after Resurrection.
>>923513
Mankind can still have the ontological status of being "fallen" without it being due to the literal unfolding of the genesis story. That is just what we use to explain this status to the plebs.
Christianity is a relic of the past.
People look at the bible "allegorically" to try to keep it modern, but the further we get from the bronze age the more you have to twist it.
>>924482
>Mankind can still have the ontological status of being "fallen"
Through what mechanism?
>>924459
I'm sorry to inform you, but a man cannot be God. Turn towards true monotheism, and worship God alone. That's how you can truly emulate Jesus.
>>924510
>a man cannot be God.
Jesus can.
>>924401
You're getting closer. What actually happened is that God literally died on the cross and passed us the torch.
>>924555
>christ literally dying on the cross
where is there any proof of this?
>>924551
I'm not a Christian
The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [al-Ma'idah, 5:75]
>>924566
>not a Christian
>The Messiah, son of Mary
Pick one.
>>924510
>but a man cannot be God
But God can enter the form of man.
After all, if Jesus taught how to liberate oneself from sin and that doing so leads to Salvation, isn't Salvation union with God?
>>924592
I can believe he's the Messiah without believing he's God.
>>924498
Way to completely ignore the thread
>>924595
>But God can enter the form of man.
No. No, He can't. God is perfect. Man is imperfect.
>>924632
And you'd be wrong
>>924644
Yes yes he can
>>924632
If you believe He is the Messiah, then you believe He spoke the truth.
If you truly believed He is the messiah then you believe Him when He said "before Abraham was, I AM."
ITT people who will burn in eternal hell fire lmao
Get fucked
>>924650
Great refutation, my friend.
>>924655
>If you believe He is the Messiah, then you believe He spoke the truth.
Of course.
>If you truly believed He is the messiah then you believe Him when He said "before Abraham was, I AM."
How do I know he said that?
>>922579
protip: it is
>>924735
>"before Abraham was, I AM."
You know he is referring to the Old Testament God. "I am" is how God addresses himself to Moses.
>>924655
why does Jesus have scissors?
>>925005
For pruning the vine.
>Jesus here, I came to earth to die to fulfill an allegory
Makes total sense
>>924735
>How do I know he said that?
By faith.
>>926416
>to fulfill a prophecy
FTFY
>>922561
>adam and eve are supposed to have perfect genes
>eve has a double chin
>>926430
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSDytNu73Hg
>Oh but he fulfilled them """""spiritually""""""
>>924374
>>924384
>>924391
Original sin feels like a hack and a way to firm up some edges by implication.
The idea is that even if you lived perfectly your whole life you'd still need salvation. No one ever has (I can't remember if the Bible even claims Jesus did), so it seems beside the point, but it does a few other things. It reinforces the need for salvation (and specifically redemption) in a general sense and the universality of the need for salvation. It reinforces that salvation cannot come through righteous living alone. It implies that there's no getting by on a technicality with God, which is a very handy thing to have. Really, for a good design (for a religion or for a universe) there should be more of that so autists like me don't have their suspension of disbelief tested as much, and their sense of comfort about how everything has been thought of already. Gaps leave room for questions, and unanswered questions A) foster doubt and B) divide people because they'll have their own differing answers.
>>924644
>God
>can't
nigga are you new?
>>926468
But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
- Acts 13:45
>Why do people believe in Biblical Literalism?
Do you honestly believe it's been conceived as anything but literal?
>>922910
And that's surprising why? It was thought up by sheepfuckers two thousand years ago, of course it contradicts current knowledge. The contradictions don't imply that they knew what they're writing was false but just wrote it for le metaphors.
>>926539
>Jews are blasphemers
Says the Greek anti Jewish hit piece that directly contradicts Paul's letters.
>>924401
The suffering isn't.
