SecretMethod70

Thagrastay, it's like this...and this is starting to get beyond the intent of this thread so I'm likely not going to bother responding after this...I can understand how one would interpret the Bible literally, that's not an issue while I don't agree with it at all times. But not interpretating something literally is not a matter of rejecting that something as much as it is embracing the fact that the people of the times that wrote the Bible did not write literally nor did God speak literally at all times. Perfect example are the parables of Jesus. I suppose you can tell me that there actually was a specific man who fell victim to thieves on his way to Jericho that Jesus had in mind and exactly three people passed up this specific man, a priest, a levite, and a samaritan. Now, while I don't agree with the idea that Jesus' words are an historical account of something, I can understand where the idea could come from. Likewise, it's no rejection of the story of the good samaritan to say there was in fact no such specific man but that Jesus was only making a point through parable. Thus, when Jesus - more importantly, God Himself - speaks in parables (so long as you accept this point) and never says "now I am speaking in parable...now I am speaking in literal truth," the Bible is left open for interpretation...what is parable, what is literal truth, what's something inbetween? If Jesus is the Word of God, and Jesus speaks in parables, who's to say that parts of the Old Testament can't be more accurately looked at as sorts of parables than historical fact...namely the creation story.

The very issue and lack of understanding comes from the fact you think quoting the Bible "verbatim" is in itself all that is necessary to prove the Bible's intent. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong or right - that's not my place - but only that to not recognize that words can be taken with many meanings is astounding to me, whether you accept those meanings or not. I seriously and honestly wonder how you manage to read poetry if you look at language in this way.

To respond more directly to you, yes, it is open to interpretation. One can believe that everyone will recognize Jesus as their Lord in this life, or one can believe that this may be something to take place beyond this life. Interpreting the Bible is no different than looking at poetry, to use something I mentioned earlier. You may read a poem and take its words literally - and without the author to specifically question in person there's nothing to say you are wrong - and I may look at a poem and interpret it figuratively - and without the author to specifically ask, you may still say I'm wrong because "that's not what the author wrote." Although, we all know that most of the time in poetry given a figurative interpretation versus a literal interpretation, the figurative one is more likely to be accurate despite "what the words say." In regards to the Bible, I don't mean this as a proof that my belief of interpretation is more accurate than yours - again, who am I to know for certain - only that the Bible is much like poetry in this sense that it can be looked at from many different perspectives and many different meanings can be gleaned from it, all keeping the words of the Bible in high regard, in their own way. Point being that, just like in poetry, interpreting the Bible beyond "what the words say" is not a rejection of said words but only a different way of accepting said words.

Another example, which I won't bother expounding on too much because I think I've made my point, is the account of the Pentecost. Perhaps one can believe that cloven tongues like fire actually sat upon the apostles, but it's not a rejection of the truth of the text to say that that is a poetic description of an experience of "enlightenment" (for lack of a better word, and I mean this in no regard to the Buddhist use of the term) among the apostles. It still accepts the text as true and as divinely inspired, but it simply takes the words to intend something different. How one can expect to "convert" other people as most fundamentalist Christians feel is their duty without even understanding the basis for what others believe and the real human experiences which lead them to believe such things is beyond me.

To address more specifically your criticisms of my religion, which I mentioned moreso as a reference point for my beliefs than a source of my beliefs, there is nothing in Catholicism whatsoever which prohibits the reading of the Bible. Obviously, in fact, it is highly encouraged. Furthermore, and this is not to say there aren't some who would disagree with this, but only to say that those who do disagree with this go against what the Catholic Church stands for, there is nothing discouraged about questioning your faith in Catholicism. I obviously didn't come to my own beliefs without questioning them many times and bringing these questions to those who make it their life's work to deal with them. Of course, some gave more satisfactory and complete answers than others, as would be the case with any humans. Summarily, my point is that I don't believe what I believe because "the Catholic Church told me so"...in fact I don't know of a single Catholic who thinks that way.

As far as "dogmatic policies of interpretation" are concerned, it's so inaccurate a perception that I don't even know what you're talking about. Interpretation is something that was never discussed in the 8 years I went to Catholic gradeschool, or the 2 in which I went to classes leading up to my confirmation - and I would say at this point that, back then, I had no idea what Catholicism was about. Thus, the flaw in most religions today - especially Christian ones - that many people understand what they're "supposed" to believe and how they're "supposed" to live, but they have nothing of the limited understanding we're capable of concerning WHY. "The Bible says so" is not a why and that mentality can be looked at as the source for many evangelical failures past and present. One cannot convert someone without understanding that person and who they are...and the experiences which lead a person to have the faith which they do other than Christianity is part of that. And that's exactly why I'm astonished atthe concept that God, the all-loving, would punish non-Christian humans for the failures of their counterparts to be effective teachers. I would have told you I believed - and felt - that an all-loving God would not do that long before I learned that the Catholic Church believes the same. But I also believe, as does the Catholic Church, that there is something inherent in human beings, and in the understanding of Jesus' life and the Bible (key word being understanding - as in beyond just the words), which leads them to Christianity. I view most conceptions of "conversion" as nothing more than barriers to this as they give prime examples of Christians exhibiting the exact opposite ideals than those Jesus taught about - tolerance, compassion, understanding, etc.

Pointing out that there are flawed humans in Catholicism is a no-brainer. Anyone can say that about any religion. The rest of your statement goes to a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be Pope which I won't bother addressing because, frankly, I don't feel like it. Suffice it to say that non-Catholics place a much higher importance on the Pope than the Catholic Church even does.

Ultimately, it's not a matter of me thinking you should agree with me by any means. Continue to interpret the Bible in the literal way in which you see fit - that's a choice you and only you can make. I'm only trying to create an understanding that, while you may not agree with it, reading the Bible as something other than literal is not something that is blasphemous and heretical by default. Feel free to respond to me through PM if you wish, unless it actually has something to do with the original intent of this thread, in which case post it here.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling