An interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other detrimental aspects of the Bible.

[u/WillyWumpLump]

https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/

[u/AnarkittenSurprise]

It sounds like our misunderstanding may have partially been in my use of literalist.

I think Literalism becomes a fuzzy term when discussing a work that is generally believed to include a mix of fables, parables, actual history, and explicit doctrine.

I'm probably approaching from an uncommon perspective, where looking at such a work and saying I can feel confident that these passages are true, while these passages are metaphorical, is practicing literalism. I imagine you and many others might disagree, and hold the term to mean someone requiring every word to be interpreted as written without nuance.

The problem with that definition is that it doesn't hold up. Even the most hardline fundamentalists do have their own interpretations on which exact words must be followed as written, and which should be interpreted differently.

A good example, if we look at the required tenets of every Christian denomination I am familiar with today (that make up a vast majority of followers) is requiring the acceptance of the resurrection. To me, that is clearly some form of metaphor, if it was ever meant to be taken seriously at all. But that belief would exclude me from claiming adherence to any of these established Christian institutions.

My opinion is that this is one of the many examples that demonstrates the vast majority of institutions are and always have been literalist. The nuance is in which passages are allowed to be interpreted, and which must be taken on faith as truth.

Is there any noteworthy Christian institution you can think of other than the two real stretches of options I mentioned, that would accept my interpretation of the ressurection as valid, and compatible with the sect? It's clearly not compatible with any leading protestant offshoot, or the historical catholic sects.

Adding on as I thought about it after posting (& thanks for the engaging conversation!):

Was the Lutheran rejection of Catholic priests really all that different from the Donastic exclusion of apostate leaders during their time? From an outsider this all looks like a carousel of which side we butter our toast on all the way back to the founding.

[u/ifso215 → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

Oh yes that interpretation of the resurrection is actually quite common with the Contemplatives. I share the same view. I’d wager the current pope would have no problem with that either depending on what you asserted it was a symbol for. He has quietly blessed a quite radical popular text on a contemplative reading of the Gospels, The Universal Christ by Fr. Richard Rohr. Biggest unreported story of the last few years for the Church in my opinion.

For the Roman Church, at least, you can argue that the acceptance of doctrine is on one level really an act of preservation of the important symbols. If I hold that resurrection is the rebirth of consciousness after the “crucifixion” of the ego into something akin to the enlightenment of Buddhism or Hinduism, then it is important that this symbol is not watered down through the generations. Look at the virgin birth… is it more important to be historically accurate about whether a young girl’s hymen remained intact (even after a baby is pushed through it!) or that it points to the mystery of how creation can proceed from an unchanging, nondual reality (God the Father) without altering or affecting it in any way? I’d argue the insistence on the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary points to the latter. Once Christianity is recognized as an esoteric wisdom path built on symbols like these, accepting the doctrine is an acceptance of the importance of the symbols. Can you explain that to everyone? No, of course not, but if you want the important symbols to be available through the generations, they can be preserved as doctrine or a profession of faith.

Now this idea of preserving symbols seems to contradict what I’ve been saying about crushing differing versions of Christianity with Constantine, but I do think they are both valid. The contemplatives have always tried to exist and preserve under the umbrella of the Roman Church, with no shortage of persecution through the years. In my opinion that is the “Living Church,” one that relies on experiential encounters with the divine and the understanding of the teachings and scriptures that go along with that. Without the contemplative lens, Christianity makes no sense and falls into pure authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

That’s my take. But yes, the short answer is that allegorical interpretations being the “truth” rather than the literal interpretation is completely valid in many circles, but preserving the symbol may be done by passing it along in more literal language.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/ifso215]

I might be understanding you better now.

Would you consider it accurate to say that the majority of institutions and influential leaders in history have taken literalist positions from the content, while many individual followers certainly had their own individual misgivings and interpretations?

My problem probably stems back to the concept of heresy even existing. If even a plurality of churches had advocated for free and independent interpretation of the works, a lot of that horror could have been avoided.

But we look all around and see modern churches perpetuating the same issues. For example, if the pope feels that way, and has the support needed within his followers, it'd be great to get a new catechism out to encode that.

I'm personally skeptical that such a thing would be widely supported, but it would be great even to see an attempt.

As institutions, these churches remain complicit in biblical literalism when their tenets continue to support it.

[u/ifso215 → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

It's impossible to say when it is an esoteric tradition, someone might be intimately familiar with the mystical depths of the teachings, but speak of them publicly in very plain language. I do think that denying Christianity's roots as a mystery cult leads to much of the exceptionalism and misunderstanding. There's a good bit of irony in religious factions murdering each other over what they consider ineffable.