Now this is funny to me! @BirdBrain - do you have any understanding of human behavior?! :lol:

 

(Forgive me; this is an inside joke)

 

It's entirely possible I may have some insight into human behavior...at times...and human motivation...but what do I really know anyway ?

@B-Ball-fan it's not a knock on you, but theories, until proven, are just theories...motivated by human behavior to arrive at some conclusion. The coolest thing about theories is that sometimes they can be proven, and other times we accept them without proof. So "in theory", a scientific theory, without full proof, is faith based science, and what we are talking about here, after all, is faith.

For me, religion is man's attempt at understanding God.

 

Maybe the Rapture is when our universe merges with a "parallel" universe....

Not mocking you. What evidence to you have support the Rapture theory?

 

 

Even a majority of Christians refute the Rapture as false doctrine. As I'm sure you know as a good knowledge-filled Christian, the rapture wasn't heard of until 1830 when it was "invented" by John Darby, after he had heard of Margaret McDonald's vision. Darby influenced Cyrus Scofield . You may have heard of the Scofield reference Bible. He got the Rapture notion from Darby who got it from McDonald who dreamed it up. So, I hate to tell you, my man, you believe a dreamed-up idea from almost 200 years ago. Even back when I considered myself a good Christian and had read the Bible through a number of times from teenager through adulthood, I never read anything to make me believe that John Darby's invented idea was scripturally sound.

The word Rapture is not in the Bible, but Rapture is a term used to describe what happens to Christians at the second coming. However, in 1st Thessalonians 4: 13-17 does state that the events commonly called the Rapture will take place.

 

I have not seen the terms Old Testament or New Testament used in the Bible either, but they are terms used to group a collection together.

It's entirely possible I may have some insight into human behavior...at times...and human motivation...but what do I really know anyway ?

@B-Ball-fan it's not a knock on you, but theories, until proven, are just theories...motivated by human behavior to arrive at some conclusion. The coolest thing about theories is that sometimes they can be proven, and other times we accept them without proof. So "in theory", a scientific theory, without full proof, is faith based science, and what we are talking about here, after all, is faith.

 

I see and understand your line of thinking...

 

"Laws" of physics for example were once theories that were proven to have them viewed by the scientific community as being "laws".

 

The study of human behavior has been resistant in concluding any of its theories as being "law" because agreement between the scientific community regarding behavior and psychology has been "inconclusive" because the nature of the subject has various bits of input from humans regarding the study of humans behavior, but for me personally I have no problem seeing the truth behind, for example, "Pavlov's Dog Theory".

 

It may be called a theory, but it is no doubt true. Animal and human conditioning have been studied and experimented to the point that there's very little myth anymore involved with understanding the basis of behavior. I don't need them to be called a "law" within the scientific community to see plainly the accuracy of them.

 

I don't know what your background is regarding behavioral theories, but if by chance you have been exposed to for example theories of B.F. Skinner, do they not make perfect sense to you?

 

Do they have to be referred to as "law" before you'll agree that they're pretty darn accurate?

 

Puzzling questions still can be generated related to Skinner's theories, but one that seems to stand out and seems perfectly sensible to me is that within the development of one's behavior and where stimulus response is mainly responsible for it's development and conditioning, is that the subject themselves is also a factor of being their own stimulus in helping to condition their own behavior weather or not it's voluntary or not. Stimulus is presented to the subject. The acceptance or rejection of the stimulus is a reactionary measure taken which in itself is a form of stimulus, and part of all the factors that go into developing one's behavior.

 

I stand by my original comment that there's no real mystery involved with the development of one's "faith" in the unproven.

 

It's part of their behavioral development, and highly related to the stimulus that they have been exposed to.

 

If one had never been exposed to certain concepts of a god, it's not entirely impossible for them to in their own thinking, form their own concepts of a god simply through thinking and wondering.

 

History has shown that polytheism had it's place in our world long before monotheism did, and where there was never proof of either, humanity has most certainly tried their hand at coming up with something concrete to follow and have faith in, and pass faith along, but the concrete part of it all has remained illusive, while the passing along and conditioning of a belief has not. Conditioned faith has 99.9999999999% to do with how faith in one has developed and evolved.

I see and understand your line of thinking...

 

"Laws" of physics for example were once theories that were proven to have them viewed by the scientific community as being "laws".

 

The study of human behavior has been resistant in concluding any of its theories as being "law" because agreement between the scientific community regarding behavior and psychology has been "inconclusive" because the nature of the subject has various bits of input from humans regarding the study of humans behavior, but for me personally I have no problem seeing the truth behind, for example, "Pavlov's Dog Theory".

 

It may be called a theory, but it is no doubt true. Animal and human conditioning have been studied and experimented to the point that there's very little myth anymore involved with understanding the basis of behavior. I don't need them to be called a "law" within the scientific community to see plainly the accuracy of them.

 

I don't know what your background is regarding behavioral theories, but if by chance you have been exposed to for example theories of B.F. Skinner, do they not make perfect sense to you?

 

Do they have to be referred to as "law" before you'll agree that they're pretty darn accurate?

 

Puzzling questions still can be generated related to Skinner's theories, but one that seems to stand out and seems perfectly sensible to me is that within the development of one's behavior and where stimulus response is mainly responsible for it's development and conditioning, is that the subject themselves is also a factor of being their own stimulus in helping to condition their own behavior weather or not it's voluntary or not. Stimulus is presented to the subject. The acceptance or rejection of the stimulus is a reactionary measure taken which in itself is a form of stimulus, and part of all the factors that go into developing one's behavior.

 

I stand by my original comment that there's no real mystery involved with the development of one's "faith" in the unproven.

 

It's part of their behavioral development, and highly related to the stimulus that they have been exposed to.

 

If one had never been exposed to certain concepts of a god, it's not entirely impossible for them to in their own thinking, form their own concepts of a god simply through thinking and wondering.

 

History has shown that polytheism had it's place in our world long before monotheism did, and where there was never proof of either, humanity has most certainly tried their hand at coming up with something concrete to follow and have faith in, and pass faith along, but the concrete part of it all has remained illusive, while the passing along and conditioning of a belief has not. Conditioned faith has 99.9999999999% to do with how faith in one has developed and evolved.

 

"Inconclusive" and "pretty darn accurate" by their very definition define unproven...."pretty darn accurate", in my experience, has never been a published proof in any journal I have ever seen....you really can't have it both ways, it either is or isn't, but by your word, it's only "pretty darn accurate".

 

I would like to see the published study that says that a culture of people who have never been exposed to the concept of God have been able to "think and wonder" and come up with the concept. We know that all cultures have some belief in some power greater than they are, irrespective of whether that belief matches to Western thinking, it's still a God to the savages. In many ways, non-Western exposed cultures believe and have faith just like we Westerners do...we just like to think we're more refined in our thinking, both faith based and scientific based.

 

Of course those that believe in God have been conditioned, trained, educated, or whatever term you want to use to develop their thinking and practice as it relates to God as they know him (or her if you choose)...that's how humans establish and refine behavior.

 

We teach Faith and pass it on, it doesn't mean that just because it isn't proven it isn't true...I mean after all, isn't that along the lines of "pretty darn accurate" ? It's not a verifiable truth, but the lack of truth doesn't disprove existance, right ?

"Inconclusive" and "pretty darn accurate" by their very definition define unproven...."pretty darn accurate", in my experience, has never been a published proof in any journal I have ever seen....you really can't have it both ways, it either is or isn't, but by your word, it's only "pretty darn accurate".

 

I would like to see the published study that says that a culture of people who have never been exposed to the concept of God have been able to "think and wonder" and come up with the concept. We know that all cultures have some belief in some power greater than they are, irrespective of whether that belief matches to Western thinking, it's still a God to the savages. In many ways, non-Western exposed cultures believe and have faith just like we Westerners do...we just like to think we're more refined in our thinking, both faith based and scientific based.

 

Of course those that believe in God have been conditioned, trained, educated, or whatever term you want to use to develop their thinking and practice as it relates to God as they know him (or her if you choose)...that's how humans establish and refine behavior.

 

We teach Faith and pass it on, it doesn't mean that just because it isn't proven it isn't true...I mean after all, isn't that along the lines of "pretty darn accurate" ? It's not a verifiable truth, but the lack of truth doesn't disprove existance, right ?

 

I completely agree that lack of proof in a god does not disprove a god's existence. Centuries of faith based religions no matter how long they've been in existence has done nothing to prove it either, and the fact that they've been passed along from generation to generation also proves nothing, and can't. Both sides of that coin are at an impasse, and neither can be proved one way or another and never have been, and no matter the study of them, likely never will.

 

You took liberty to interpret my flavor of speech in an attempt to discount what I have said. My point is that faith is a learned behavior. Nothing that you have said has disproved this as an act of "behavior", while theories though not called laws, shows plain evidence of what and how human's tick.

 

Nothing has shown plain evidence in the existence of god, but because of that humans have strived to find an answer, and for some settling on a learned belief is enough for them, and if that works for them fine, but their faith is in fact merely a conditioned behavior.

 

"Inconclusive" evidence of the theories of behavior have resulted because of the subject matter not being completely agreed upon by the scientific community because the subject itself is more difficult to result in firm agreement on it because you have humans observing human behavior, whereas a topic like physics doesn't leave itself so open to human opinion like the topic of human behavior does. I said "pretty darn accurate" which you also ran with, but I'm at a firm stance that these theories are true and not just "pretty darn accurate". Because they've never been agreed upon for the reasons I have stated, to make them "law", my choice of speech referred to them as "pretty darn accurate".

 

I had asked you if you had issue seeing where B.F Skinner's theories make perfect sense, but you avoided addressing that.

 

You spent much energy in picking apart my verbage in what you seem to think as a clever response, but offered nothing solid to address the initial question of faith being a mystery or a learned behavior.

 

Since there is no proof of a god, or proof that one doesn't exist, in the meantime religions, faith, beliefs, and rituals are merely a result of conditioned behavior. This conditioned behavior doesn't discount that a god might exist, but in itself it offers no proof other than humans behaviorally exercise a belief and a faith.

Others tend to resent your "obsession", but I get and understand your strong interest in this topic.

 

No matter how you slice it, a firm belief, a questioning belief, or a non-belief in something that none of us can really give indisputable proof of, is completely fascinating.

 

While many don't blink an eye at following their religious teachings for the entirety of their lives, which can also includes for many the obligation to also "enlighten" others with it, many resent anyone who challenges that which many have accepted for much, if not all of their lives as the truth. They're not inclined to view what you offer as being also a form of "enlightenment", but rather mockery or possibly even a threat.

 

In their eyes you are the devil's advocate, and in your eyes you are dumbfounded as to how those who once found the strength to accept the truth about Santa, or the Easter Bunny, still hold close to them beliefs with no tangible proof, that often times doesn't seem to add up to those analyzing it for the presence of logic.

 

Perhaps your motivation for frequently starting threads about topic is to challenge people to think logically, and perhaps in ways that have never occurred to them, that for you perhaps started falling into place, and coming more easily to you when you first allowed yourself to think outside of the box.

 

To you it just made perfect sense that religion didn't make any sense.

 

I also suspect that what seems obvious to you, and not so obvious to others can give you somewhat a sense of cynical superiority over many others, making it difficult for you to hold back with doses of ridicule.

 

Since I don't have answers one way or another I try at times to hold back, but do understand the urge and tendency.

 

There's probably a feeling of frustration that has you puzzled as to why others won't simply think beyond their lifetime of indoctrination. You know that you allowed yourself to, and probably wonder what's keeping others from at the least doing the same.

 

When you add ridicule within the challenge, if you truly want people to think about what you're saying, this will not be an effective approach because they'll view it as you making fun of them, and resent you for it to the point that they'll resist the basis of your challenge, while questioning your motive. You are not alone as I have battled with my approach on a number of topics, and haven't always selected perhaps the more effective avenue.

 

Spending the better part of my childhood being religiously indoctrinated, and then a huge portion of my teens and twenties reevaluating everything that I've been taught, and still do, although I've never completely acquired a solid handle on the ultimate truth, my analytical thinking started to peel away the layers of obvious man-made concepts often found in Christian, and other religion's teachings of unprovable beliefs, and the more that I examined it, the more that much, if not all of it, became obviously impossible to prove, and revealed itself to be filled with man's obvious touch of created concepts.

 

While others close to me spent much effort in my childhood indoctrinating me because they truly believed that it was necessary, afterwards, and though it wasn't an overnight process, I felt it important for the betterment of my advancement to undo from my thought processes what was obviously man-made with the hopes to gain a better less encumbered understanding from a "less is more" approach.

 

I do somehow have personal spiritual leanings, but none that I can prove, explain, or preach to others, nor could I expect anyone to rely only on my experience, and feel that if they are to arrive at anything, it will have to come from their own experiences.

 

No one in the past could ever convince me of anything solid even if they were adamant that they themselves had experienced unexplained things that made them believers. I would typically knee jerkingly try to find a logical explanation for some of their experiences rather than put much stock in what they were saying.

 

I've had my own unexplainable experiences that give me a sense of hope, peace, and wonderment that there's more to our existence that meets the eye, but even with that I can't say for sure of anything concrete to offer proof.

 

When people come at me with the typical packaged, obviously man-made religious dogma, I have the tendency to go into "face palm" or "talk to the hand" mode, because more times than not there's a hefty bit of logic that they've never considered, and with that there's really no talking to them. If they actually are the bearers of truth, which I can't say that they're not, it's not because they have the capacity to think, but they have faith in what they were taught to believe.

 

I can imagine that possibly the case with you is that since much of your childhood included a Christian upbringing that now feels to you as overkill, and perhaps abuse, that it's not at all overkill on your part in your thinking, to spend much time with a preoccupation that wants to express your resentment that you were urged at a young age to believe in what you now consider to be fantasy or nonsense, to express that you overcame it, to challenge others to also think, and to also point out that while many view religion as a seemingly good thing, you want to express what you consider to be also the obvious pitfalls of it.

 

Many think nothing of spending their whole lives preoccupied with a belief, so I don't find it terribly different, or out of place to spend a ton of time preoccupied with dispelling it. It was crammed in your face, so in essence you're cramming it back.

 

Theoretically you could arrive at what you have and not share it, and just let it be, and be happy that you "saw the light" so to speak, because in all reality whether or not it is fantasy, religion has forever been a major facet in billions of people's lives throughout the world for centuries, and no matter how convinced you are that it's ridiculous, there's very little chance that you'll ever get enough people to jump on your train to ever see it go the way of the 8-Track tape player, and ultimately you'll just be banding your head against the wall with an ever growing amount of frustration. Making it all go away is an insurmountable task for certain. It simply can't be done.

 

If it's at all a relief to you that someone here understands what you're trying to convey, I very much do, and though I see the ridicule in your approach that others don't much appreciate, I very much enjoy reading your posts, and often times am right in line with your thinking, and often times you are echoing the very same questions that I throughout my life have been tempted to ask of others.

 

If you've ever felt like you're one in a million with your thinking, I can certainly relate. At least knowing that you're not the only one can sometimes help to keep you from feeling like you might've been born on the wrong planet.

 

It's refreshing for anyone who's dug themselves out of their childhood indoctrination to be able to find others who can relate.

 

What I have just said is not going to score me many points with a lot of other folks, but that's fine because though I don't have any solid proof of the ultimate truth, I know who I am and what I believe in in my limited understanding, and am not afraid to admit it.

 

It is what it is, and I can't escape questioning. It's just not in my nature to buy everything people tell me, but I'm not willing to discard possibilities, or forget the personal experiences I've had that makes me forever wonder, and to hold out hope.

 

I might die and that will be that, or I'll die and possibly finally find out what I've always passionately wanted to know.

 

If there's nothing to it, then I won't be conscious to be disappointed, and if there is, how fantastic that will be to finally get some answers. One or the other is fine I guess.

 

If we happen to enter another dimension that has us living another life such as in the belief of reincarnation, that could be interesting, but ultimately it might just suck to start the whole mystery, wondering, questioning thing all over again.

 

 

You are my favorite poster on this board. Profoundly deep, philosophical, enlightening, always insightful , and whatever "it" is , you get "it" when no one else does. Amazing.

I completely agree that lack of proof in a god does not disprove a god's existence. Centuries of faith based religions no matter how long they've been in existence has done nothing to prove it either, and the fact that they've been passed along from generation to generation also proves nothing, and can't. Both sides of that coin are at an impasse, and neither can be proved one way or another and never have been, and no matter the study of them, likely never will.

 

You took liberty to interpret my flavor of speech in an attempt to discount what I have said. My point is that faith is a learned behavior. Nothing that you have said has disproved this as an act of "behavior", while theories though not called laws, shows plain evidence of what and how human's tick.

 

Nothing has shown plain evidence in the existence of god, but because of that humans have strived to find an answer, and for some settling on a learned belief is enough for them, and if that works for them fine, but their faith is in fact merely a conditioned behavior.

 

"Inconclusive" evidence of the theories of behavior have resulted because of the subject matter not being completely agreed upon by the scientific community because the subject itself is more difficult to result in firm agreement on it because you have humans observing human behavior, whereas a topic like physics doesn't leave itself so open to human opinion like the topic of human behavior does. I said "pretty darn accurate" which you also ran with, but I'm at a firm stance that these theories are true and not just "pretty darn accurate". Because they've never been agreed upon for the reasons I have stated, to make them "law", my choice of speech referred to them as "pretty darn accurate".

 

I had asked you if you had issue seeing where B.F Skinner's theories make perfect sense, but you avoided addressing that.

You spent much energy in picking apart my verbage in what you seem to think as a clever response, but offered nothing solid to address the initial question of faith being a mystery or a learned behavior.

 

Since there is no proof of a god, or proof that one doesn't exist, in the meantime religions, faith, beliefs, and rituals are merely a result of conditioned behavior. This conditioned behavior doesn't discount that a god might exist, but in itself it offers no proof other than humans behaviorally exercise a belief and a faith.

 

Pretty sure "I'm at a firm stance" is not a published proof either...but I digress...

 

Yes, I am intimately familiar with Mr. Skinner's work and I likely just got my mind twisted up reading the text and forgot to come back to it. Conditioning is exactly what you have said, learned behaviors. Faith takes a slightly different turn in that we pass on the teachings of faith, but allow the individual to come to their own terms on how that takes place. In other words, every child of a faith based parent doesn't necessarily subscribe to being a believer in God...each individual finds faith through their experience.

 

I didn't spend a lot of energy picking apart your verbage (sic) or verbiage....you give yourself too much credit here. I do give you kudos for choosing, or at least attempting to choose the correct word as verbiage very accurately describes your writings.

 

I must rest now, I expended a grate amount of energy reading your verbage....

Pretty sure "I'm at a firm stance" is not a published proof either...but I digress...

 

Yes, I am intimately familiar with Mr. Skinner's work and I likely just got my mind twisted up reading the text and forgot to come back to it. Conditioning is exactly what you have said, learned behaviors. Faith takes a slightly different turn in that we pass on the teachings of faith, but allow the individual to come to their own terms on how that takes place. In other words, every child of a faith based parent doesn't necessarily subscribe to being a believer in God...each individual finds faith through their experience.

 

I didn't spend a lot of energy picking apart your verbage (sic) or verbiage....you give yourself too much credit here. I do give you kudos for choosing, or at least attempting to choose the correct word as verbiage very accurately describes your writings.

I must rest now, I expended a grate amount of energy reading your verbage....

 

 

You should expend some energy more often and read his writings. He's very wise. You might learn something, Birdbrain.

You should expend some energy more often and read his writings. He's very wise. You might learn something, Birdbrain.

 

Already have learned some things, but thanks for pointing me in the right direction...I would have been lost without your guidance and likely wandered lost in the wilderness for 40 years or so....

You have little interest in anything, remember? Whether the earth is 6,000 yrs old or 4.5 billion, etc... Doesn't matter to you. Yet, you just can't help yourself from these threads. You're too easy...

 

I'm just amazed at how few Christians (with the exception of PP1) are willing to defend beliefs like the Rapture and speaking in tongues. I think the reason is clear. THERE IS NO DEFENSE OF IT.

 

You obviously don't know very much about the subject. You just assumed that All, or even Most Christians believe in the theology of Dispensationalism. The truth is that most do not.

Pretty sure "I'm at a firm stance" is not a published proof either...but I digress...

 

Yes, I am intimately familiar with Mr. Skinner's work and I likely just got my mind twisted up reading the text and forgot to come back to it. Conditioning is exactly what you have said, learned behaviors. Faith takes a slightly different turn in that we pass on the teachings of faith, but allow the individual to come to their own terms on how that takes place. In other words, every child of a faith based parent doesn't necessarily subscribe to being a believer in God...each individual finds faith through their experience.

 

I didn't spend a lot of energy picking apart your verbage (sic) or verbiage....you give yourself too much credit here. I do give you kudos for choosing, or at least attempting to choose the correct word as verbiage very accurately describes your writings.

 

I must rest now, I expended a grate amount of energy reading your verbage....

 

What you have said about faith can indeed be explained through theories of behavior, and does not take a "slightly different turn", as what you go on to explain is in itself essentially what the theories of behavior describe.

 

The theories within the Philosophy of Human Behavior do not claim that during the process of stimulus/response conditioning, and programming that all stimulus is "accepted" by the subject in the shaping one's behavior. The subject, also being a factor of their own stimulus within along with other stimulus can, and often times does "reject" presented stimulus that aid in forming their behavior. All behavior is formed as product of both accepting and rejecting stimulus, weather or not programming or conditioning is specifically calculated or intended.

 

I'm a perfect example of that.

 

With me having also the silent stimulus within of being gay, this had me pondering the validity of concepts where perhaps many straight kids didn't feel much reason within to challenge what they were taught, making them more acceptant of what they were told, while I on the other hand began to reject what I was taught.

 

Initially when being indoctrinated with religion, and being quite young, and too young at that to give rational thought to the concepts being presented to me, I mostly trusted my elders, and believed what I was told, and even with that always had a nagging thought in the back of my mind, even at that young age, that they didn't exactly add up (you know how kids pose tons of questions to their parents, that their parents can't really answer, and often times make stuff up to appear as if they know to earn the respect of their child to follow in their footstep?)

 

As I aged with the ability to increasingly apply more conscious thought to the topic, I began to question more than perhaps I was supposed to by religion's standards, (you know, don't be a doubting Thomas?), and with that found myself increasingly "rejecting" a ton of things that I was originally taught. This was not to be rebellious, but because I seriously had a passion to know the ultimate truth, and with that I became an example of someone who did not view so solidly the concepts that had been taught to me as my parents, and religious elders did.

 

I've never concluded that there is no god, nor have I ever concluded that there is, but have certainly concluded that man has had their hand in much of the concepts that were passed along without providing solid evidence that it was any more than that.

 

That's not to say that I haven't personally experienced unexplainable things that fascinate me and have stimulated within me a sense of spirituality that keeps me from claiming to be an atheist or even an agnostic, and I'm content with not living by a specific label for the sake of appeasing to others who think all humans need one.

 

I've found that spiritual inspiration can come from various sources, and while it's not impossible at times for it to come from an organized religion, I won't limit myself to that allowing myself to remain open to it to surface from wherever it will. My personal sense of spirituality can in a way resemble the more accepted way that most people of faith sense their spirituality, but is not limited to it. I approach it to be mindful that there are possibilities to things unseen and unproven, but don't claim to know anything for certain, and can admit and accept my limitations of knowing.

 

There's no mystery involved that during the development of one's behavior that some accept the stimulus that others reject, and since we are daily bombarded by an astronomical amount of stimulus that is too vast to calculate, specifying what exactly has shaped one's behavior is merely impossible, while often times a certain amount of repeated accepted stimulus can be all too evident.

 

While all stimulus plays a factor, repeated stimulus tends have a greater effect, but even with that there's no guarantee that we can predict exactly the outcome without the benefit of knowing what every element of stimulus is.

 

If we do know more about all of the stimulus then it increases our chances to foresee and predict.

 

If specific experiments are repetitively applied on humans or animals, then indeed under that sort of lab environment, the chances of predicting with accuracy become scientifically significantly solid, but humans don't live in a lab, but the theories nonetheless still apply weather or not we can specifically calculate them.

You obviously don't know very much about the subject. You just assumed that All, or even Most Christians believe in the theology of Dispensationalism. The truth is that most do not.

 

I know a lot about the subject and I made no such assumption. Just commented on one poster's lack of curiosity about the Earth's age. What percentage of Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Not sure. However, most of the churches I attended throughout my life maintained that the Bible was true, as written, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 .

I know a lot about the subject and I made no such assumption. Just commented on one poster's lack of curiosity about the Earth's age. What percentage of Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Not sure. However, most of the churches I attended throughout my life maintained that the Bible was true, as written, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 .

 

Dispensationalism (I.e. Rapture) is not from a literal interpretation. It is a systematic model using proof text approaches to build an eschatological model. It is relatively new in history among Biblical studies and is much more received among American Conservative followers than most mainstream faiths in the US and world wide.

I know a lot about the subject and I made no such assumption. Just commented on one poster's lack of curiosity about the Earth's age. What percentage of Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Not sure. However, most of the churches I attended throughout my life maintained that the Bible was true, as written, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 .

 

Do we suspect that there are Christian churches out there, teaching the Bible, that believe that it is not true ? Isn't that kind of the point of a church that uses the Bible for religious teachings ?