/lit/ - Literature

>>10414912
Yes, obviously only the new testament though, I'm Christian not Jewish.

>>10414912

Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: Yes

>>10414939
Are you kidding?

>>10414912

I don't think Christians are terribly consistent most of the time, and when they are it's usually at the cost of coherence and intelligence

>>10414912
The book was written by flawed men about a perfect one and the God who created him, and existed for thousands of years on animal skin written in candle soot before being translated many times.

Don't expect everything to be perfect.

>>10414939
>t. nu-christian, recently started taking it seriously nigger
lol ok yeah the Jewish parts are fake and actually about your ancestors, the new testament parts (all also about Jews) are real

>>10414912
I sure hope they don't because if they did, they would literally want to murder gay people because their god said so.

>>10415016
>DUDE, LIKE, ADAM AND EVE WERE REAL PEOPLE LMAO
You have to be joking.

>>10414912
Some do, some don't.

>>10415027
Try the redpill, scum whore. There are very many good reasons to take it literally. Sorry if it doesn't conform to your feminist-liberal brainwashed mind

>>10414912
First, you can't just lump all Christians together. There are many types and they believe different things.

But to answer your question, most of them take some parts literally and other parts non-literally. Only certain, small protestant sects take the whole thing literally.

And of course, if you take the whole thing non-literally, you are Jordan Peterson mode.

>>10414912

I'm a cultural Christian. At least for me the answer is no. I read the Bible like literature and I apply to my life in the ways I think are important.

>>10414912
>Do christians take the bible literally?
This approach to the whole issue indicates that you do not know of the varying genres within the Bible. The Bible is a collection of 66 books + Apocrypha. Very few know that Genesis is written in poetic language, for example.

>>10415047
Please point me to where this redpill is. Idiot.

>>10415078
>>>/pol/
and
>>>/r9k/
Thank me later

>>10415078
The Hexaemeron by St. Basil the Great

The Bible is a library. You don't go into the history section looking for poetry.

>>10415047
>There are very many good reasons to take it literally.
Not even one.

>>10415027
every scientist accepts monogenism, so yeah Adam and Eve were real

>>10414912
It's meant to be literal, actual history, but since it became extremely obvious even to the ancients that this is impossible, they've tried to erase this fact. Now that there's no doubt that it's purely made up, their reaction is to simply stick their fingers in their ears and ignore reality however best they can.

>>10415212
>every scientist accepts Adam and Eve were real singular ancestors of homo sapiens
Name one? Then, name ten.

To Christians who do not believe the Genesis creation account as literal history, at least be honest that you just don't believe it, rather than trying to pretend that it's something other than what it is. It's better to be honest.

>>10415047
Why do people like this exist on /lit/? You say absolutely nothing but buzzwords. Your prime mode of argument is ad hominem.

>>10414912
Protestants are not Christians; they’re heretics.

>OT
Actually happened in the symbolic sense. We're symbolic creatures, and the OT actually happened in that sense at least. The closer you get to the end the more the events that happened are physical events.

>NT

Yes. By all accounts.

>>10415266
I thought that was Catholics?

>>10415287
>Actually happened in the symbolic sense.
What do you mean?

>>10415305
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Ibs67ke6c

>>10414912

>did fish, birds, and mammals get created in less than a week
no
>was Jesus sent by God to save humanity
yes

>>10414912
Look up Tolkiens concept of a Sanctifying Myth. That'll give you an idea of how Orthodoxy interprets a lot of the Bible. In short, it depends on which book of the Bible is being analyzed and its literary format and intended audience. Books like Genesis, Exodus, and Judges may be grounded in a historical event, but are for all intents and purposes allegorical or metaphorical. The Deuterocanonical books are just books of law, so they must be put in context of their intent for the Brews at the time. Books like the Gospels are written as eye witness accounts and are treated as such. Etc etc etc

How do you christians decide what actually happened and what is allegory?

>>10415369
If it's something that would embarrass you in front of your secular friends, then it's not literal.

>>10415369
New Testament 100% happened, rest is more complicated

>>10415233
yes but its a ~metaphor~

>>10415243
Because /lit/ exists on the same website as /pol/. There's no way to avoid them coming here.

I think a lot of people believe their "holy writ" just enough to justify their other wackier agendas,which are almost always self serving and profitable. This includes Ayn Rand.

>>10415372
So Jesus curing hordes of people from all kinds of ailments and diseases, bringing back people to life and dividing a small and limited amount of food without end all happened?

>>10415233
It wasn't taken literally in the first place. People didn't exactly write nonfiction like today back then.

inerrancy doesn't mean literalism, it means that God has made it so that the text contains a distinct, accessible message

>>10415078
>>>/lgbt/

>>10415020
Are you sure you’re in the right place?

>>10414912
It's the truth, manifested in a way that anyone can believe and understand. Metaphors, analogies, explanations that were written by such commonfolk at the time. Also heavily influenced and changed im sure. The turth is in there though.

>>10415230
Didn't say that, did I? Maybe you should learn to read. Since you are so incapable, I'll reveal my inference. Monogenism essentially claims we—of all races— came from one common descendent. This scientific consensus fits seamlessly with the story of Adam and Eve. So don't fucking say your hurdur tripe
>every scientist accepts Adam and Eve were real singular ancestors of homo sapiens
when you are painfully unable to see what I actually said.

Too, if you look to polygenism as a counter, you are like a retarded racist from the 19th century.

>>10414912
I didn't and neither did anybody I know. Everybody appreciated the Bible, but in symbolic sense; lots of metaphoric wisdom and whatnot.

>>10418452
Origen is a bad example, he believed in reincarnation and all sorts

>>10417000
Yes. And, of course, the Resurrection literally happened. Without it Christianity would be a pointless religion.

THERE IS NO GOD, AND MARY WAS HIS MOTHER.

>>10419026

Well what's wrong with that?

>>10415047
Yes this looks completely reasonable

>cultural 'christians' refusing to humble themselves before God
everyone who considers it as "helpful and symbolic metaphors" or any such nonsense are tricking themselves and using the church for their own ego. I highly consider these people either stop corrupting the church with their presence and false faith, or confess your blasphemy to your priest.

>>10420078
Cultural Christians are all going to go to Hell with the rest of the de facto atheists.

>>10420078
>>10420092

Well, sorry, I have trouble with that thing called "faith."

>>10416974
You're joking right? Please tell me you know bait when you see it

>>10420115
just empty yourself to God and follow God endlessly, longing for God. Drink holy words like sweet water in an endless desert.
what else can be done?

>>10420078
I'm incapable of having a belief (in the sense I'm completely apathetic towards possible existence of paranormal and paranormal itself), but I think Bible's breddy good stuff anyway.

>>10419026
agreed, that image could use Augustine, who specifically counselled Christians against using the account in Genesis as a literal scientific one... they would be laughed out, even back then..

>>10417000
the exception proves the rule

>>10420078
>>10420092
this turns people away

>>10415016
lmao.

>>10421426
Can I get a ref for that please? It would be a good source to have handy

>>10419031
Why would Jesus carry around a small version of what killed him?