You forgot the bit where god literally destroys everything the man ever had and owned. Oh but it is alright because god gave him a new family and other stuff after that. What if Job said fuck you god you don’t exist, after being left with nothing? Would god have just fucking smitten him where he stood or what? The story only works because Job keeps his faith but that does not absolve god of all the shit he did to Job.
BUT when you realize it’s an allegory for “keeping strong and continuing to work through adversity instead of giving up” and the mystical beings were made up to help the story … much like the snake that licks the file in aesops tales … it makes sense.
Almost exactly 50% of Christians in the world are Catholics, who acknowledge that the Bible is allegorical and not literal truth.
If you are referring to fundamentalists (typically evangelicals), yes most of them do believe in the literal truth. Evangelicals in the US are about 24% of the population, and most likely Less in the rest of the world.
Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 3 Paragraph 107 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches
The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
And 116 further reinforces there is a literal interpretation of scripture that exists. If someone thinks the Bible is simply allegorical then they aren’t a Catholic at all, nevermind Christian
I don’t think your quote at all addresses the concept of whether Catholics doctrine declares the Bible to be literally true. Inerrant, yes.
I think there is confusion because the church believes that some passages should be taken literally and other symbolically, and the church will tell you which is which.
There are so many flavors of protestantism, it’s hard to give a blanket answer.
For example, high Anglican practice and theology are almost indistinguishable from Catholic, except that the head of their Church is an archbishop (and above him theoretically the King of England) rather than a pope, and their priests can get married. That makes some historical sense, because the church was created simply because Henry the 8th wanted to divorce and the Pope wouldn’t allow it.
Most mainline Protestant churches believe that it is the individual’s right and responsibility to read and interpret scripture for themselves.
For the sake of semantics, the Church of England was created in 597, what Henry VIII did was excommunicate the Bishop of Rome / Pope over a divorce, thus joining the Reformation movement, albeit not for good reason.
I think it depends on the Anglican denomination. The Church of Ireland still likes to keep itself distinct from Roman Catholicism in many ways, but this is getting ahead of the conversation.
Give an answer to how interpreting the Bible as part literal and part figurative is different from how a Baptist would.
You forgot the bit where god literally destroys everything the man ever had and owned. Oh but it is alright because god gave him a new family and other stuff after that. What if Job said fuck you god you don’t exist, after being left with nothing? Would god have just fucking smitten him where he stood or what? The story only works because Job keeps his faith but that does not absolve god of all the shit he did to Job.
BUT when you realize it’s an allegory for “keeping strong and continuing to work through adversity instead of giving up” and the mystical beings were made up to help the story … much like the snake that licks the file in aesops tales … it makes sense.
Most Christians do not consider Bible stories to be allegorical and suggesting as much can be called heresy.
Many, many things could be different and better if more people realized more of those stories are allegory.
Almost exactly 50% of Christians in the world are Catholics, who acknowledge that the Bible is allegorical and not literal truth.
If you are referring to fundamentalists (typically evangelicals), yes most of them do believe in the literal truth. Evangelicals in the US are about 24% of the population, and most likely Less in the rest of the world.
Me when I make things up
Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 3 Paragraph 107 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches
And 116 further reinforces there is a literal interpretation of scripture that exists. If someone thinks the Bible is simply allegorical then they aren’t a Catholic at all, nevermind Christian
I don’t think your quote at all addresses the concept of whether Catholics doctrine declares the Bible to be literally true. Inerrant, yes.
I think there is confusion because the church believes that some passages should be taken literally and other symbolically, and the church will tell you which is which.
So how’s that different from protestantism, except from a church existing to tell you which is which?
There are so many flavors of protestantism, it’s hard to give a blanket answer.
For example, high Anglican practice and theology are almost indistinguishable from Catholic, except that the head of their Church is an archbishop (and above him theoretically the King of England) rather than a pope, and their priests can get married. That makes some historical sense, because the church was created simply because Henry the 8th wanted to divorce and the Pope wouldn’t allow it.
Most mainline Protestant churches believe that it is the individual’s right and responsibility to read and interpret scripture for themselves.
For the sake of semantics, the Church of England was created in 597, what Henry VIII did was excommunicate the Bishop of Rome / Pope over a divorce, thus joining the Reformation movement, albeit not for good reason.
I think it depends on the Anglican denomination. The Church of Ireland still likes to keep itself distinct from Roman Catholicism in many ways, but this is getting ahead of the conversation.
Give an answer to how interpreting the Bible as part literal and part figurative is different from how a Baptist would.