something not literally true can communicate religious truth

[skjpm]

Whoops! Wrong forum! Can I move this to GD without retyping it?

The fundies who support the Passion also believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I find this wierd. Since many of the details of the movie are obviously not historically true--the fact that many of the actors are European, etc.--how can they support it? In supporting this movie, they are supporting a main contention of liberal historical criticism: religious truth can be taught by sources which are not "literally" true. A "dramatized" version of events can tell us a "true" spiritual story.

I think that the main events of the gospel are true, but I think the gospels are dramatized versions, written later, after much prayer and contemplation, and include scenes which are true to the character of Jesus, though they may not have actually happened. I believe in Jesus' divinity and resurrection, but I also realize that the best way to convey these truths may not be a strict historical account.

How can fundies condemn me for my "liberal" and thus Satanic approach to Scripture when they support a movie which is a clearly a "dramatization" and not a strict historical record? If a movie can convey the truth about Jesus, why can't a "dramatized" gospel?

The same is true of the Left Behind series. I think the book of Revelation is a political commentary done in the form of a poetic apocalypse. I think the Left Behind series is the same--a "fiction" which uses apocalyptic imagery to make political points. So, if Left Behind doesn't have to be literally true to make its point, why does the book of Revelation?

I think the Fundies need to realize that they are secretly liberal Bible scholars!

[skjpm]

1. Yes, this is the right forum. Thanks! eom

[Don Claybrook]

2. There would've been so much less religious strife through history

...if people had just read the Bible as poetry, and not prose.

I believe the Bible was intended as poetry, and I don't think that makes it any less "true".

Question: is Ode to a Nightengale "true"?
Answer: of course it is, but that doesn't mean it's an expository account of historical events that took place along some measurable timeline.

Poetry is to words like an extract is to flavoring. It's in a concentrated form, and it's meant to be more than the sum of its words. It evokes feelings and conveys a message far beyond its sometimes sparse wording.

If 'people of the Book' wish for the document to remain dynamic and pertinent in an ever-changing world, they would be wise to view it as a powerful work of poetry. To suggest otherwise would be as ridiculous as claiming that Leaves of Grass contained formulas for solving mathematical and scientific quandries.

From a guy raised in the church but now spiritual in his own, nonconforming way.

[seabeyond]

3. i am not a church goer

adn never have been though spirituality has always been with me and an interest in religion, so i know much of the bible, have read new testament. what i have been asking of late to people who are church goer, literalists of the bible is how do you take a part of bible literally and promote literal interpretation to flock, yet clearly much of the old testament is not taken literally.

i know they have been asked this numerous times, and i know they have a pat answer for this, i have asked those in the "flock" to tell me what their response is when it is pointed out that they pick and chose what to take literally and what not. and i have yet to get an answer

does anyone know how the rationalize justify validate this behavior

[seabeyond]

4. i am not a church goer

adn never have been though spirituality has always been with me and an interest in religion, so i know much of the bible, have read new testament. what i have been asking of late to people who are church goer, literalists of the bible is how do you take a part of bible literally and promote literal interpretation to flock, yet clearly much of the old testament is not taken literally.

i know they have been asked this numerous times, and i know they have a pat answer for this, i have asked those in the "flock" to tell me what their response is when it is pointed out that they pick and chose what to take literally and what not. and i have yet to get an answer

does anyone know how the rationalize justify validate this behavior

[stopbush]

5. Other "literal truths" of the Bible:

The sun revolves around the Earth

The stars are little objects that can fall to the Earth to be stomped on

A bat is a bird

My fav: the cockatrice - a serpent, hatched from a cock's egg, that can kill with a glance (ooo-h...scary!)

Look here for more fun Bible facts: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

[skjpm]

6. I believe that people recognized God in Jesus

And that God was making Godself known to us in Jesus. However, that's a difficult thing to put into words. Fully human/fully divine--what does that mean? How would you write about that? It's a wonderful paradox which is both true and yet beyond language.

I think the writers took actual events and mixed them with poetry so that we could also meet God in Jesus. I also think that Jesus is alive, and the apostles experienced him as alive, and walked with Him, but that, again, this is hard to picture, so they used stories of Resurrection to get the meaning across. These stories were, again, actual events mixed with poetry, which is the only way to describe Resurrection.

Most Christians can believe the basic doctrines without believing that the Bible is literally true--in fact, literal truth would not do as good a job at expressing Jesus' divinity and Resurrection.

So, I don't need the movie to show me what it must have really been like. That's forever lost. I do know who Jesus is to me now, and that's what matters.

[Mick Knox]

7. Painting with too broad a brush..

The church I attended while growing up recognized that the Jesus picture most recognized was De Vinci (or maybe it was michaelangelo) who painted himself with a beard .. and that there was no way he could be white. I dont remember the details of how they came up with this conclusion.. but it was taught.. and the church never put up his picture.

IMO, It does not take away from beliefs to recognize that this is a marketing ploy... both with religion in general and the movie.. nor do I think it detracts from the movie.

I dont think the revelation is particularly profound either.. all it requires is looking at a map... nor does it matter in the least.. but I know many probably do. Race classifying God and his son .. well its beyond me.