What is the word for someone who follows the teachings of the bible, but doesnt belive in the stories?

Christian.

i dont believe in any of the stories, but i follow the teaching. christians are the opposite

Scholarly.

@iRemy_y I know, only kidding, it was the first thing that popped into my mind. But it’s pretty much true because most Christians follow the teachings of the bible but know that the stories aren’t actual fact, but merely “metaphors”. Only Creationists believe the bible to be factual, but I bet inside they’re really doubting themselves too.

Which “teachings”? Do you follow the teaching that homosexuality is an abomination? Do you eat the flesh oh a fish without scales, or of an animal that cleaveth not the hoof? Or perhaps do you read and reread the sermon on the Mount and try to behave accordingly? I’d have to know more before I could answer this question.

There are some Christian denominations who might agree with that. Methodists are pretty liberal in their interpretations, as are ELCA Lutherans.

The only word I can think of would be an exegete, or someone who interprets the text (and thus doesn’t necessarily believe literally in the stories, maybe). But that’s only an oblique relationship to what you’ve described.

@HumourMe

Actually: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/

It concerns me even if the poll is unreliable, even if only 30% of Americans believe these stories literally. That’s a lot of people.

@absalom 40% of all polls are bullshit anyway.

@absalom They say they believe the stories are literal, because they feel they have to as it’s an obligation as a Christian but I would put my life on it that inside they believe the opposite. Kind of like children covering their ears screaming, “I’m not listening, I know I’m right, I believe it!” When really they know they’re wrong and don’t want to listen to the truth, rather they want it to be true…get my drift?

@Fluthermucker: Yes, I think the latest USA Today poll revealed the same findings.

@HumourMe: I dig and I agree. (I sometimes ask my religious friends, many of whom are otherwise very literal, how they can believe in talking snakes.) But we can’t really know what goes on in their heads. I.e. maybe they do believe.

@absalom thats what i thought.
@pdworkin NO! I’m talking about the ones like: though shall not kill, though shall not envy thine neighbor, etc. the moral guidelines to being a good person. like not envying your neighbor for what they have, and instead thanking the lord for what you have. except i don’t thank the lord. i don’t believe in a higher power.

Very few modern day Christians take at face value everything in the bible. The extent that people don’t question something is the extent of their mental laziness in just filing away a story. Like ya big boat, two by two,. sweet story..Yet, I think most believers do not discount a higher intelligence that can break the laws of physics. True faith is inseparable from miracles.

@SeventhSense Well yes that’s true but then why call themselves Christian if they don’t believe the bible to be fact? Why not just call themselves theists who believe in a “god” or higher power existing outside the laws of physics?

A lot of what people call stories are actually parables, and are teaching tools by association. They may not be historically accurate but are meant to convey an idea in an easy to understand format.

@HumourMe I don’t think it is up to you or I to call one group something. They reserve the title for themselves. It they wish to be called Christians, that is their choice. It they prefer deists, or theists or Followers of the Great Spaghetti Monster…it is their call and not one of those who do not follow their beliefs.

@DrBill Believe me, those contradictory, twisted, metaphorical entangled tales of message conveying nonsense are not easy to understand.

@HumourMe
Well it was clear by the word’s of Jesus’ own admission that he spoke in parables so it wasn’t meant to all be literal.

@Fluthermucker Of course not, but it’s my opinion and a valid one at that. It just doesn’t make sense for someone to call themselves Christian to then say, “well I don’t really believe it’s historically and factual accurate”. They’re basically rejecting the whole basis for their religion.

@SeventhSense Ah well you see that’s what people say now. But you ask that same question to Christians hundreds of years ago and they will follow a different tune.

All Christians would’ve thought the bible is fact centuries ago but now it’s more or less unacceptable to say, “Well Jesus said in the bible it was all meant to be just parables and metaphors and not to be taken literally”.

They’re constantly changing their beliefs in order to try and remain accepted in our ever changing and advancing society.

@HumourMe There were many different varieties of Christianity back then too and some believed much of the Bible was parable and not historical fact.

@gemiwing I very much doubt that.

@HumourMe
Everything changes and adapts. Why would religious thought be any different than anything else. Science itself hundreds of years ago also spoke with an authoritative conviction about things which it denounces today?

@SeventhSense The question is why it keeps changing and adapting, because it’s false and continues trying to find new and improved ways of justifying itself. That’s why it has survived for two thousand years.

Pig-wrestling is tiresome and dirty. But the pig enjoys the shit out of it.

You sound like as much a Buddhist as anyone I know.
For maybe the 5th time this week, I present—a Kalama Sutta excerpt!

‘Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher.” When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering” — then you should abandon them.’
‘When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness” — then you should enter & remain in them.’

There’s nothing wrong with the Christian label, either; define it as you will.

Removed by a Fluthermucker as a dupe…sorry.

@HumourMe
It must serve some purpose. People change and as we change the objects that we study ruminate upon and observe must change.

Society may have “needed” religion several centuries ago, because there was no other explanaion for why people became ill, why the sun rose, why there were earthquakes etc. Religion filled that need for some sort of understanding of the world.

However, with science giving us the truth of how the world really operates, there simply is no purpose for religion anymore, not for morals, not for an explanation of the world, nothing. It’s outdated and does not need a place in society anymore.

@Fluthermucker Gee I didn’t know we weren’t allowed to have discussions on this site. ~

Oh no…YOU can. Please continue. Pardon me if I decline.

@Fluthermucker I’m not even asking you to accept it though. I can’t see how we are pigs for just debating a subject. Would you rather me pretend to agree with everything else someone says? I think I have a right to voice my opinion.

Ain’t biting your flame-bait. Sorry. Pick on someone else.

Wow, you’re a real work of art. You must be proud.~

@HumourMe
You imagine that religion serves the purpose of explaining natural phenomenon or scientific anomalies. But religion’s intent although having a periphery role in this regard has been meant to answer man’s meaning of existence. Religious thought in addition to providing similarities of universal moral code has also served the purpose of pointing away from the sense ruled response of the human animal and towards a higher purpose. “The unexamined life is not worth living” was uttered by Socrates.
The religious voice may have said that the questioning examiner, his foundation, his motivation and his question need be considered as well.

@SeventhSense “But religion’s intent…has been meant to answer man’s meaning of existence. Religious thought in addition to providing similarities of universal moral code has also served the purpose of pointing away from the sense ruled response of the human animal and towards a higher purpose.”

Sure, but you can do that without organised religion. Humans in the 21st century know the difference between right and wrong, it’s innate in us. You can reflect internally on your own about your purpose of existence. We don’t need religion to do that for us, it’s slightly degrading.

[mod says] Let’s try to get back to the topic, folks.

In answer to the actual question, if you’re just asking about people who behave in a way that makes them a decent human being… I’d call them moral or ethical. Or, just… decent human beings.

@HumourMe
Of course you can. No one is denying anyone that.

Clearly Christianity and most other religions are. That’s all I’ll say.

~Somehow, I don’t think so

Well it really all depends on the teachings

@HumourMe
I find Trekkies annoying as shit but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to exist or gather at…shudder Comicon. And if people make decisions based upon their religious views then that is their prerogative as well. If these people hold office and they represent interests of others like minded folks that is also their right. And if they don’t they can be replaced when enough people want to replace them.
I take more issue with things like peace through war, an unsustainable cycle of debt which creates “money” or the inhumanity of our social structure. True Christians, Buddhists, Jews or Muslims all share the same spirit and eventually assimilate their beliefs with the essence of their being regardless of words on a page. We operate with many illusions, religion is only one of them. Illusions serve a purpose which helps us to manifest some of our greatest accomplishments

What is the word for someone who has an opinion about religion, but doesn’t know the difference between a myth or a parable and a historical event?

Well it’s actually two words: atheist fundamentalist

(an alternative description would be: ignorant person)

What is the word for someone who has an opinion about science, but doesn’t know the difference between a myth or a parable and a science textbook?

Again it’s actually two words: religious fundamentalist

(an alternative description would be: ignorant person)

I’d like to quote Michael Shermer:

“Myths are about the human struggle to deal with the great passages of time and life—birth, death, marriage, the transitions from childhood to adulthood to old age. They meet a need in the psychological or spiritual nature of humans that has absolutely nothing to do with science. To try to turn a myth into a science, or a science into a myth, is an insult to myths, an insult to religion, and an insult to science. In attempting to do this, (young-earth) creationists have missed the significance, meaning, and sublime nature of myths.”

I couldn’t agree more.