TULIP (God calls some to atheism)

[Meriweather]

I am certain that I have the best understanding of the gods or at least the men who wrote the Bible.

Based on the original language, cultures, and histories of Biblical times? Or is that best understanding based on Modern English and modern Western culture?

 

[presonorek]

Can you, or can you not, identify symbolism? Is this something with which you, personally, struggle?

I have 42 years experience as a Baptist. What you are saying is full blown heresy in the Baptist world. Baptist Churches dominate large portions of the Southeastern United States. The doctrine you are promoting is called partial inspiration. Parts of the Bible are divinely inspired by God and other parts are not divinely inspired by God. The problem with this approach is that there is almost an infinite number of combinations a person can select from in order to create their own belief and value system. A large portion of the United States is most familiar with the Baptist theology that the Bible is the literal word of God. Catholics are a rarity in a lot of areas throughout the United States. I imagine Holly lives in an area that is predominantly Baptist or at least evangelical Christians. Yes, your description of allegory, symbolism, and metaphors are hard concepts to grasp if you are heavily influenced by Baptist dogma.

I think you may have a very different background than most people participating in this forum. Calling something allegory or a metaphor in a Baptist Church is grounds for expulsion or it would at least merit a stern retraining from a more grounded member of the congregation. I’m not exaggerating. It is common for Christians in the south to take the Bible literally.

 

[presonorek]

I didn't read the whole thread, but from what I did read, it's a shame that a lot of people here are assuming that TULIP is Christianity. This thread is about Calvinism, which is wrong and evil.

I think people in this thread kind of glossed over my reference to Calvinism and didn’t notice it. I would venture to say that most people posting in this thread neither know what tulip means nor did they bother to look it up. If someone in here was an indoctrinated Calvinist then they would find my assertion that God chose me to be atheist to be very funny indeed. I don’t think anybody in this thread is guilty of accepting Calvinism as Christianity.

 

[Meriweather]

I have 42 years experience as a Baptist. What you are saying is full blown heresy in the Baptist world. Baptist Churches dominate large portions of the Southeastern United States. The doctrine you are promoting is called partial inspiration. Parts of the Bible are divinely inspired by God and other parts are not divinely inspired by God. The problem with this approach is that there is almost an infinite number of combinations a person can select from in order to create their own belief and value system. A large portion of the United States is most familiar with the Baptist theology that the Bible is the literal word of God. Catholics are a rarity in a lot of areas throughout the United States. I imagine Holly lives in an area that is predominantly Baptist or at least evangelical Christians. Yes, your description of allegory, symbolism, and metaphors are hard concepts to grasp if you are heavily influenced by Baptist dogma.

I have more than 42 years as a Catholic, and Catholics and Orthodox comprise, by far, the greatest majority of Christianity. Our belief is that the entire Bible is inspired by God--including those half-dozen books thrown out by Baptists. If you want to talk "Partial Inspiration" look to the Baptists--there is no such thing outside that minority sect.

Your "large portion" of the US is not the majority. Nor do the majority believe in the literal Bible. Do you know that the push to view the Bible as literal began as an Evangelical movement? I am guessing that is most of your life, but keep in mind that it took a group of people to push people into trying to take the Bible literally. It appears that more people elected to accept atheism than to see the Bible as literal. Nice job, wasn't it. If you are to be believed, you are one who also chose atheism over a literal Bible. Meanwhile, Catholics, Orthodox, and yes a number of Protestant denominations continue as they always have to identify parables, metaphors, allegories, symbolism and other literary forms found throughout the Bible--a Bible inspired by God for all people of all times--not just the 1970s for relatively small numbers and small areas in the United States.

 

[Meriweather]

I think you may have a very different background than most people participating in this forum. Calling something allegory or a metaphor in a Baptist Church is grounds for expulsion or it would at least merit a stern retraining from a more grounded member of the congregation. I’m not exaggerating. It is common for Christians in the south to take the Bible literally.

I lived in the South for several years. It is equally common for Christians who do not follow Baptist doctrine to continue to identify the various literary forms in the Bible. The push in the 1970s may have impacted those who were already Baptists and Evangelicals, but it had little--if any--impact on anyone else.

 

[presonorek]

I think you may have a very different background than most people participating in this forum. Calling something allegory or a metaphor in a Baptist Church is grounds for expulsion or it would at least merit a stern retraining from a more grounded member of the congregation. I’m not exaggerating. It is common for Christians in the south to take the Bible literally.

I lived in the South for several years. It is equally common for Christians who do not follow Baptist doctrine to continue to identify the various literary forms in the Bible. The push in the 1970s may have impacted those who were already Baptists and Evangelicals, but it had little--if any--impact on anyone else.

In my neck of the woods up in Northern Alabama calling parts of the Bible allegory, metaphor, or symbolism is fighting words even if you said it in the line at the grocery store. Here in North Carolina people are more tolerant and diverse.

 

[Meriweather]

In my neck of the woods up in Northern Alabama calling parts of the Bible allegory, metaphor, or symbolism is fighting words even if you said it in the line at the grocery store.

I doubt it. I just took a look at statistics for those in Alabama who believe the Bible should be taken literally. It was fifty-one percent. A robust debate might occur, but it is unlikely a fight would break out.

 

[Ringtone]

I didn't read the whole thread, but from what I did read, it's a shame that a lot of people here are assuming that TULIP is Christianity. This thread is about Calvinism, which is wrong and evil.

I think people in this thread kind of glossed over my reference to Calvinism and didn’t notice it. I would venture to say that most people posting in this thread neither know what tulip means nor did they bother to look it up. If someone in here was an indoctrinated Calvinist then they would find my assertion that God chose me to be atheist to be very funny indeed. I don’t think anybody in this thread is guilty of accepting Calvinism as Christianity.

Bear in mind, however, that all metaphoric language, including that at large (allegory), has a literal meaning too.

 

[Meriweather]

Bear in mind, however, that all metaphoric language, including that at large (allegory), has a literal meaning too.

Of course. The themes and the lessons. The reason discussions of the Great Flood are so frustrating is that people want to muse about water and far away animals. Oh. And why God killed babies. I despair that our literary skills are vanishing and the knowledge our ancestors tried so hard to pass onto about God is dissipating.

 

[buttercup]

In my neck of the woods up in Northern Alabama calling parts of the Bible allegory, metaphor, or symbolism is fighting words even if you said it in the line at the grocery store.

I doubt it. I just took a look at statistics for those in Alabama who believe the Bible should be taken literally. It was fifty-one percent. A robust debate might occur, but it is unlikely a fight would break out.

Since the bible is a collection of books with a number of different genres of writing, it should be taken in the way the specific author intended it to be taken. It's not a one-size fits all. The claim that all of it is metaphor (I'm not saying that you said that, just sayin...) is demonstrably false, as archeology has backed up the bible many times, and it has also been corroborated by non-biblical sources.

 

[Meriweather]

Since the bible is a collection of books with a number of different genres of writing, it should be taken in the way the specific author intended it to be taken. It's not a one-size fits all. The claim that all of it is metaphor (I'm not saying that you said that, just sayin...) is demonstrably false, as archeology has backed up the bible many times, and it has also been corroborated by non-biblical sources.

Of course. Non-fiction is also a literary device and it should not be dismissed or even overlooked. For example, Thomas Jefferson believed the resurrection was fiction whereas I am adamant it is non-fiction. I get that different people may disagree what is a purely factual account and what is allegory. I go along with Thomas Aquinas about people who, on faith, take every word in the Bible as literal fact. In much nicer words he said faith is great for people who do not have the time to study and learn the facts.

My criticism of some of the atheists here is that they only go half way. They determine that some of what is in the Bible is not literal fact. Then they jump to the conclusion, "There is no God." They fall into the same category as people who take everything on faith and believe--both sets of people are those who live busy, fulfilling lives, that leave no time to do pursue facts. Ironic, isn't it, that atheists and people of faith only (as opposed to faith based on reason) cannot see how much alike they are? We must belong to the same human family!

 

[presonorek]

I despair that our literary skills are vanishing and the knowledge our ancestors tried so hard to pass onto about God is dissipating.

A book that survives four hundred years will still be around in a million years.

 

[presonorek]

Bear in mind, however, that all metaphoric language, including that at large (allegory), has a literal meaning too.

And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24 NASB

I can think of three ways of viewing this verse. If I take it literally then there is only one way to view this verse.

 

[Meriweather]

A book that survives four hundred years will still be around in a million years.

My concern is not whether books will still be around.

 

[Ringtone]

Of course. The themes and the lessons. The reason discussions of the Great Flood are so frustrating is that people want to muse about water and far away animals. Oh. And why God killed babies. I despair that our literary skills are vanishing and the knowledge our ancestors tried so hard to pass onto about God is dissipating.

I encourage you not to despair as entropy is an inescapable imperative that in this fallen world entails the intellectual and spiritual as well. God is bringing things to a close, to that overwhelming conclusion. That conclusion is the end of evil and the beginning of full disclosure. Ultimately, life is about one thing: exploring the reaches of God's mind while enveloped in a love that surpasses all understanding, and the glorious journey never ends.

 

[Ringtone]

And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24 NASB

I can think of three ways of viewing this verse. If I take it literally then there is only one way to view this verse.

But what do you mean by taking it literally? Ah! Christ is communicating a literal meaning. Make no mistake about it.

 

[Ringtone]

I think people in this thread kind of glossed over my reference to Calvinism and didn’t notice it. I would venture to say that most people posting in this thread neither know what tulip means nor did they bother to look it up. If someone in here was an indoctrinated Calvinist then they would find my assertion that God chose me to be atheist to be very funny indeed. I don’t think anybody in this thread is guilty of accepting Calvinism as Christianity.

I followed the reference to the Augustinian acronym and, thus, to Calvinism and your witticism. In this wise, my hermeneutic is Arminianism. I just think you're too smart to allow yourself to be overcome by the myth of fatalism when you know in your heart of hearts that God exists and made a way for us all. . . .

Guilt or pride? No one is innocent. You can rise above these things. God's not asking you to make excuses or even make amends. The former are vain and the latter was accomplished by another . . . and the glory of his accomplishment is beyond your reach.

God makes things simple for us: acknowledge who you are in the scheme of things and surrender.

 

[presonorek]

I think people in this thread kind of glossed over my reference to Calvinism and didn’t notice it. I would venture to say that most people posting in this thread neither know what tulip means nor did they bother to look it up. If someone in here was an indoctrinated Calvinist then they would find my assertion that God chose me to be atheist to be very funny indeed. I don’t think anybody in this thread is guilty of accepting Calvinism as Christianity.

I followed the reference to the Augustinian acronym and, thus, to Calvinism and your witticism. In this wise, my hermeneutic is Arminianism. I just think you're too smart to allow yourself to be overcome by the myth of fatalism when you know in your heart of hearts that God exists and made a way for us all. . . .

Guilt or pride? No one is innocent. You can rise above these things. God's not asking you to make excuses or even make amends. The former are vain and the latter was accomplished by another . . . and the glory of his accomplishment is beyond your reach.

God makes things simple for us: acknowledge who you are in the scheme of things and surrender.

There are tons of atheist that never discuss religion at all. It is just a topic that interests me. That makes me vulnerable to the silly claim that I am mad at God or I wouldn’t be discussing Him. What would your argument be to an atheist that has an interest in classic cars and wouldn’t discuss religion if you paid him? Is that atheist mad at God too? or is it just the atheist that enjoy the topic of religion that have some sort of complex?

 

[Meriweather]

I can think of three ways of viewing this verse. If I take it literally then there is only one way to view this verse.

If we give you an inch, you will take a mile.

Now comes the aphorism! Keep in mind Jesus ended this lesson with these words: "With God, all things are possible." In Biblical times there was also the saying that two friends can enter through an eye of a needle; the whole world is not large enough for two enemies to enter. In other words, no place is too small for two friends; but not even an entire world is large enough for two enemies. In Jesus' day people were astonished when Jesus said it is easier for a camel to enter through an eye of a needle (take this literally) than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (People of the time believed that riches were the sign of God's blessing, welcome, and approval.) If a rich man couldn't enter into God's kingdom, who could? Jesus' answer, Give God an opening the size of a needle and all things are possible.

So, that is the literal interpretation of the verse. Out of curiosity, what are the other two ways of viewing the verse?

 

[Meriweather]

Is that atheist mad at God

Atheists have no belief in God. Often times when the rare atheist is mad about religion it is because they are frustrated people of faith do not see religion (or Bible accounts) the same way they do and then elect to become atheists, as well. Their conclusion: People of faith must be very, very stupid. (Which granted, stupidity can make us all angry.)

The solution: Share what one believes and why; allow others to share their beliefs and why they hold them. Hope that no one on either side will tell the other side what the other side "really" believes.