Does anyone actually believe???

[Buffy]

I appreciate your patience, Buff.

My pleasure! Its such fun having discussions with reasonable people! How refreshing! :xx:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[paultrr]

The method that is used to interpret the Scriptures determines the results of one's theology. It is the difference in the hermeneutical approach that spawns the divisions in the realm of theology. Some Christians allegorize, or feel it means something other than what the plain words say in almostall the contexts. Those who uphold the literal approach believe a normal or plain interpretation of the Scriptures presents a harmony of doctine that is consistent with itself.

 

The allegorizers believe that the Holy Spirit reveals to the serious student the things of the Spirit, so that he may understand the secrets that are hidden beneath the surface of the words. This is seen as in contrast to say statements made in the books attributed to the Apostle Paul, like "For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand." (1 Cor 1:13). They use the term literal to denote a rejection of allegorizing everything in the Bible. A common saying is, if the Bible does not mean what it says, then what do we use to determine if a man's interpretation is correct? To fundamentalists the Bible itself is the sole rule of all faith an practice. They would stand upon passages like those that say all scripture is given by inspiration of God. You are correct that a literal approach of this nature is a hallmark of fundamentalists as well as normal evanglicals. However,while some evangelicals tend to favor say the ID approach on creation Hard core Fundamentalists take Genesis at its word and tend to as a whole believe the earth was created in seven literal days.

 

On Revelations itself another reason they accept a literal interpretation of the Scriptures lies in the very nature of those Scriptures most often allegorized, the prophetic Scriptures. Most allegorizers tend to accept literally most of the Bible, but when it comes to prophecy, all of a sudden it makes better sense to make all of that symbolic or say the message of some senial old man. Something from a statement by a DTS:

 

We believe that the accepted canon of the Bible is the literally inspired Word of God. We believe that the Holy Spirit so moved the men who wrote the Bible that they had no choice but to record His inspired revelations accurately. We hold that there is no part of the Scriptures which is not inspired by God, but that every word of God is true. We believe that the original writings were wholly accurate, and that God Himself has maintained a level of accuracy in translation as to assure all that His word is still true.

 

We believe that a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is the only valid method of interpretation, excepting only those passages which the Bible itself declares to be allegorical or symbolic or typical, and which the Bible itself interprets without any spiritualization by men.

 

 

On Angels

 

We believe that before God created the material realms of heaven and earth, He created a host of spiritual beings called angels. We believe that all angels were created simultaneously and in sinless perfection, and remained so until Lucifer, the chief of all the angels, rebelled in pride against God, seeking to usurp God’s sovereignty.

 

On The Dispensations

 

We believe that God’s entire relationship with man is roughly divided into seven periods wherein man was responsible to God in different stewardships.

 

These seven periods, or dispensations, are known as:

 

Innocence

Conscience

Human Government

Promise

Law

Grace(Our period in history)

Kingdom

 

On The Blessed Hope

 

We believe that the next event on the prophetic calendar is the rapture of the Church; that no other prophecy that remains to be fulfilled must in any fashion precede that event, but that every remaining prophecy is to be fulfilled following the rapture.

 

We believe further that many of the things prophesied to take place following the rapture are rapidly progressing in preparation upon the stage of the world, and that an understanding of the geo-political stage, coupled with an understanding of prophecy, leads the candid mind immediately to the imminence of the rapture of the Church.

 

On The Tribulation

 

We believe that, simultaneously with the rapture of the Church, there will begin upon the earth a period of seven years, which will be characterized by the climactic judgments of God being poured out upon the earth. We believe that this period will culminate in the Second Coming of our Lord to the earth to establish His kingdom.

 

I think that last part speaks of exactly how literal they take Revelations.

 

Further in other writtings one can find:

 

This creation account, as set forth in Genesis 1, and touched upon elsewhere in the Bible in numerous places, is unique to “origins” literature of the world. That reality alone should be a signal of the importance of maintaining the integrity of the record.

 

The doctrine of fiat creation is affirmed in both Testaments (Gen. 1:1-2:25; Psa. 33:9; Jn. 1:1-3; Rom. 1:20; Heb. 11:3), to mention but a fraction of the references. This theme is foundational to the balance of the Bible...The events of Genesis 1 undergird:

 

 

The affirmation of man’s dignity; he is made in the very image of God. He is not an evolved beast.

 

The religious and moral responsibility of humanity; i.e., the relationship of a “created” being to the “Creator” (cf. Psa. 100:3; Rom. 9:21); man is required to obey his God.

 

The regulations regarding marriage – the exclusively male/female relationship that constitutes a valid marital union – along with the one-man for one-woman arrangement. These laws are grounded in this document.

 

The origin and consequences of human sin are here detailed.

 

The first glimpse of Heaven’s method of redemption is previewed in the Mosaic record (Gen. 3:15), together with the selection of the Hebrew nation as a redemptive instrument in Jehovah’s plan (12:1ff).

These elements, and much more, are intimately related to the integrity of the Genesis record.

 

In closing they also say, When men see an alleged conflict between the Bible and science, they need to be patient – and wait for “science” to catch up with the Words of divine revelation!

 

Again how literal are they is a good question in itself.

 

For a link on Fundamentalism try: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html

 

Fundamentalists see themselves as the guardians of the truth. That was something rather taught in their schools. Bruce Lawrence, defines fundamentalism as " the affirmation of religious authority as holistic and absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is expressed through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical dictates derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced ." I might mention that notice should be made to that last part about publically recognized and legally enforced. I've personally witnessed Fundamentalists actually advocate that last part. it rejects the philosophical rationalism and individualism that accompany modern times, but it takes full advantage of certain technological advances that also characterize the modern age(ie Television and radio). It rejects science as any authority period since there is no need of anything outside of the Bible and how they interpret such.

 

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences funded a multiyear project that brought scholars from around the world together to study Fundamentalism. Ultimately they produced 5 volumes containing almost 8,000 pages of material. I quote the rest from their findings:

 

1.) religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity;

2.) fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified;

3.) it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence's point about language -- outsiders cannot understand it);

4.) fundamentalists envision themselves as part of a cosmic struggle;

5.) they seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in light of this cosmic struggle;

6.) they demonize their opposition and are reactionary;

7.) fundamentalists are selective in what parts of their tradition and heritage they stress;

they are led by males;

8.) they envy modernist cultural hegemony and try to overturn the distribution of power.

 

I think the rest can be gathered on you're own. In short, notice they focus on this great cosmic strugle they believe in,seize upon historical moments, reinterpret them in light of the struggle, and are reactionary. The modern Moral Majority as far as leaders go has its roots in this. These are the guys who lead this whole movement which today has a strong voice inside of the Republican party and even some democrats in their fold. One question you might ask yourself is even if you find some aspects of their teachings in common do you really want these guys pulling the strings out there?

[Biochemist]

My pleasure! Its such fun having discussions with reasonable people! How refreshing! :)

Yes, but now we all know that if we really want to make you grumpy, we can just say you sound like Falwell.:xx:

[Buffy]

Yes, but now we all know that if we really want to make you grumpy, we can just say you sound like Falwell.:xx:

Ha! You haven't been reading carefully enough here! I'm pretty much impervious to namecalling: if you really want to get me going though, just say something incredibly, boneheadedly stupid!

 

"The most common element in the Universe is Stupidity" -- Harlan Ellison

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

The method that is used to interpret the Scriptures determines the results of one's theology.

Agreed.

They use the term literal to denote a rejection of allegorizing everything in the Bible....You are correct that a literal approach of this nature is a hallmark of fundamentalists as well as normal evanglicals.

I am still not sure I have seen anyone use "literal" in this usage. I usually hear folks say "conservative" when they shy away from nuanced interpretation.

Something from a statement by a DTS:

 

We believe that the accepted canon of the Bible is the literally inspired Word of God. We believe that the Holy Spirit so moved the men who wrote the Bible that they had no choice but to record His inspired revelations accurately. We hold that there is no part of the Scriptures which is not inspired by God, but that every word of God is true. We believe that the original writings were wholly accurate, and that God Himself has maintained a level of accuracy in translation as to assure all that His word is still true.

 

We believe that a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is the only valid method of interpretation,...

Paultrr- This is a pretty odd excerpt. I don't intend to be in the position of defending Dallas Theological Seminary, but this statement is not theirs. The first paragraph is OK, but the subsequent paragraphs (starting with the last sentence I excerpted) get increasingly sectarian. I looked at the DTS statement of faith: (http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/fulldoctrinalstatement.aspx) and it does not contain most of these elements. I assume this is a doctrinal statement from a DTS graduate, rather than the seminary itself. DTS is not a church, it is a school. Students can graduate and do whateer they want.

For a link on Fundamentalism try: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html Fundamentalists see themselves as the guardians of the truth.

Given that the main point in your link is that "fundamentalist" is very difficult to define, perhaps we should refrain from using it as if it had a specific meaning.

[IMAMONKEY!]

OK so my typing isnt that great.... so sue me.... :)

Im the newest member at the moment, so i might as well start things off with my views on life. Being young and nowhere near the age to have kids, i think we were put here on Earth simply because we were. I think that there is a diety, A "God" if you will who has supreme control over All Existence. But then we get into these ugly situations where people ask, "well sure there has to be something that created it, but then what created that?" You can simply reply the religious way by saying "God was never made, God just simply is!" But that is what we call faith which seems so useless since going out there and chaging the world yourself would be a lot more effective. Then we also get into the prospect of leaders and such "rallying for the good of the people and leading them through the fire", but in the end that leader is not the one offering protection, but the one looking for it. You can hold all the cards and still go home broke. Because in a sense, you are only an observer with one viewpoint. You will never hold all the cards. Then we get into the whole sense of "well thats great so is God that Outside Observer?"

 

He probably is but far be it from me to decide whether he is or is not. And another topic i owuld like to discuss is how the human mind works... :) ahhh... the human mind. an intricate work of art. And yet through scientific studies we have come to realize that the brain is nothing more than a large clump of nerve cells that act like a machine would... then how is it that we arent like computers? What makes us tik? :xx: i havent the slightest clue and im not sure anyone does. Maybe it is because of the size of our brains that we can focuse on a particular subject, lay out all the probable consequences and in the matter of a millisecond, deduce which one would be best to set in motion for the good of the body. Another thing... i do not think that having kids is for the joy and such... for some maybe, but if having kids was just for joy, then all the animals in the world with a few exceptions would be extinct. Bugs don't feel joy. We know they dont have emotions because their brains are just not fit for it. NO... having kids cannot be for joy. It is a simple Human drive to pass down ones genes and make the species survive. Thats what it was about, what it is about, and what it will always be about... well maybe for a while. As we go forward, we go through physcological phases. I mean look at me! im only 13!!! And i think my statements are quite logical. Sure im working myself into a corner and contradicting myself, but thats all you will ever do when discussing these things. They are the.... "untouchable questions" if you will... They can only be answered by an outside observer which we will never become because it strictly defies all laws of our universe. anyway... The human species has gone through changes... phases of sophistication. These phases start as why, how, and what questions. Take food for example. (this is an idea from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams) We first start out as asking ourselves this: Why do we eat. Then we ask ourselves: How do we eat. Finally we ask ourselves the final question: Where shall we have lunch? There may be a fourth phase in the future. If you think about it, If you were to go to an earlier psychological phase and try to explain something from a later phase, noone would understand you or grasp the principle of it. It is like walking up to a knight from the Medieval times and saying "hey! You wanna go to McDonald's???" He'd kill you thinking you were a demon. Like i was saying. You cant explain higher sophistication to other people in a lower sophistication phase. They simply cant grasp it. I recently read "Voyage from Yesteryear" which is a very impressive work. It explains this better than i just did.

 

Anyway i better go it is way past my bedtime and moms getting angry. Smell you later shrinks! lol :)

[Biochemist]

Pretty articulate for a 13 year old. It would be helpful for us if you broke some of the dozen or so ideas above into separate posts. Welcome to the forums.

[Smokinjoe9]

Welcome IMAMONKEY, stick around it just gets better and better.....

 

Anyway, I would like to say a little more about The Rapture. I have studied this pretty hard, battled day after day trying to find it in the Bible, even make it fit if I could, guess what, It's Just Not There, no matter how you spin it, literally or otherwise. I was sad to find this out because, I know some people who actually believe they will magically disappear before the tribulation of the wicked,(I hope they do).

I find the same problem with the interpretation of the 7 days of man/God. Again, these things are not hard to find in the Bible they are clearly stated and when interpreted within the context they are written fairly simple to understand.

I have studied the Bible and enjoyed it. I will continue to study it, but I don't really see any hidden messages, (I know, if they are hidden you can't see them), Parables yes, metaphors yes, blah, blah, blah, IMO, it is just what it is. At the time the various scriptures were written the world was a very different place.

So yes, maybe the flying ball of light from the sky is a meteor and maybe the flying scorpions are helicopters, I will say this much there is a theme throughout the Bible that I kinda like, Kindness.....I don't know where I am going with this I just try to cram as many thoughts as possible in to my response because I don't have the time to really be articulate. Maybe next time....

[Smokinjoe9]

Where's my pocket Bible when I need it?

[BEAKER]

Welcome IMAMONKEY, stick around it just gets better and better.....

 

Anyway, I would like to say a little more about The Rapture. I have studied this pretty hard, battled day after day trying to find it in the Bible, even make it fit if I could, guess what, It's Just Not There, no matter how you spin it, literally or otherwise.

"Hey Joe; I say where you goin' with that gun in your hand?" ...Oh I ment to say did you see post 82; or you just don't agree that these passages seem to fit?:xx:

[paultrr]

Agreed.I am still not sure I have seen anyone use "literal" in this usage. I usually hear folks say "conservative" when they shy away from nuanced interpretation. Paultrr- This is a pretty odd excerpt. I don't intend to be in the position of defending Dallas Theological Seminary, but this statement is not theirs. The first paragraph is OK, but the subsequent paragraphs (starting with the last sentence I excerpted) get increasingly sectarian. I looked at the DTS statement of faith: (http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/fulldoctrinalstatement.aspx) and it does not contain most of these elements. I assume this is a doctrinal statement from a DTS graduate, rather than the seminary itself. DTS is not a church, it is a school. Students can graduate and do whateer they want.Given that the main point in your link is that "fundamentalist" is very difficult to define, perhaps we should refrain from using it as if it had a specific meaning.

 

You are correct. It is a school. But this is what is taught in general by them. They do still hold to a literal seven day creation account accross the board. They still teach dispensationalism. The above was from some class lectures on these subjects. As to them being sectarian. In a fasion they actually are and tend to not favor most mainline denominations. They tend to see denominations in general as becoming rather liberal in their point of view. Some of their teachers and students come from within denominational groups. Their general point of view would be that as long as these denominations teach the basic fundamentals of the faith and uphold them everything is fine. I was also answering the other question asked about what is Fundamentalism in general as well as a bit on the rapture subject.

[paultrr]

"Hey Joe; I say where you goin' with that gun in your hand?" ...Oh I ment to say did you see post 82; or you just don't agree that these passages seem to fit?:xx:

 

I agree with Beaker on this one. When I started out as a believer back then I used to believe it was true. But over time I found it to be a stretch to find such in the Bible. For one, if I was going to quote scripture there are passages that mention the gathering of the elect and the second coming and go on to say "that day will not come till that which restrains is removed". The common interpretation of restrain tends to imply its God's spirit that restrains. But the two events are tied together into one day in those passages. Its more an outcrop of dispensationalism that has spread accross other denominations that teaches the whole seperate rapture story. However, that does still leave the tribulation in tack which brings one back to who is setting up what?

[IMAMONKEY!]

Woah... couple big words there... i May have advanced ideas for my age, but i gotta say my vocabulary isnt that much advanced even though i am going to go into honors English next year. i have already explained where i stand on the whole GOD thing. He may exist, and he may have created the Earth in Seven days, but i think that the Earth is just a molten ball of rock spinning around a constantly burning sun forming heavier elements through nuclear fusion... er wait... or is it fission.... oh well, back to the point. There is a diety of some sort that controls the universe, but i dont think he works directly with it. I think it this diety, "this GOD", acts indirectly with us because to him time is nothing so he can change time any way he wants to get the required result. What is his result? Personnaly i dont think his result is for us alone. There is definitely an alien race out there, just maybe not on the same level of advancement as us. Therefore i dont think God would single us out for no reason whatsoever. I think most aetheists must feel very secure since they dont have to worry about a God or a Devil. BUt when you deduce it with cold hard logic you come to the same conclusion every time. No matter how improbabale it is that life could exist anywhere else, it has and it will again and may be now. Mars has life on it in the form of small bacteria. They have studied Alpha Centuari and found it has planets within the orbital range of Earth. If this is so, then the chances of another habitable planet are very good. Hence God cant be ...uhhh... singling? (single-ing) us out. The chance of more life out there is to great and if people say God is loving, then wouldnt he care for the life throughout the rest of the UNiverse? I believe there is a god, But i dont believe in miracles. I believe in fate. Not extreme fate becuase i think fate can be changed by us, but in the greater scale, we cannot effect it. :) wow im dizzy.... alright i better go.... this is my opinion on God. He works indirectly through the universe to affect us... OH! one more thing! about the Apocalypse or whatever its called.... Judgment day... its a bunch of bull... there will be no judgment day, where God comes down from the heavens and judges us all... no... the BIBLE is talking of a more significant event.... I think it is warning us of a War to come. Where we will all be judged. Something will happen that day, but i dont believe that it will come soon... The possibility of an alien race that is coming in a gigantic ship the size of the Earth could be the thing that triggered the tsunami, not the oncoming apocalypse. Maybe Jesus was an alien... maybe ill sprout wings and fly to the moon. IM just saying that although improbabale it is possible that Jesus was a messenger of them and then when he died they left and now coming back, the gravity from such an enormous ship could easily trigger world disasters. :xx: Im a believer of a god that works indirectly and does not reveal himself to us no matter what. Ill be in the science forums talking about my ideas in space travel and reaching ALpha Centuari, but until then, i have to go to school... you guys are lucjy you dont have to go to school... :)

[Tormod]

Imamonkey - welcome.

 

I think you should read our Rules and calm down a bit. You are taking up too many points which should be discussed (and most of them already have been discussed) in separate threads.

 

A good tip is to stop throwing ideas around as they were facts (like "there are aliens out there").

 

So your space travel and Alpha Centauri ideas do not belong in this thread, but in the watercooler or strange claims forum for the time being.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Sry... i got carried away... im just so excited... i love chat forums... especcially science ones!

[Biochemist]

...I have studied this pretty hard, ... guess what, It's Just Not There {the rapture}

Frankly, SJ9, I have never found discussions of the rapture per se, or the timing of eschatalogical events very productive. I believe that the term "rapture" was not coined until the 1800's, although (as I understand it) there was some discussion of pre-tribulation removal of believers before then. Most of the textual support for the notion comes from passages like Mathew 24 (particularly v 40,41) but these are very difficult passages to interpret.

At the time the various scriptures were written the world was a very different place.

Agreed.

[Biochemist]

I agree with Beaker on this one....

I suspect I agree with Beaker as well, although I don't hold to the opinion particularly strongly. The miracle here is that you, me and Beaker all agree on something.

 

Now that is proof of God's existence.