Maybe general faith does not, but religious faith seems to require a personal interpretation of God who can be somehow in relationship with us.
She didn’t say otherwise. The point @Historyprof was making is that religious faith does NOT require a LITERAL interpretation of scripture.
1 Like
I agree. I don’t have enough faith for the universe or me to have come from nothing. I have to believe in a personal God outside of and controlling Nature.
If we only assume there is some process that created us and not a Person, how can we experience love? If we do not assume there is a God how can we experience relationship? Can we have a redeeming relationship with a process? Will that be enough?
I think one does have to assume there is a personal God who man is accountable to and a standard man must live up to, which he can’t. And he then must assume God arranged some other way for creation (and man) to find harmony with a Him, a way that is based on both grace and faith. Without grace and faith there can be no salvation. I do not think we can get to this kind of ultimate truth without some kind of literal history. Eastern cyclical views try to do this, but give us no solid basis to what a Christian has to believe. All truth must, at some point, be literal and historical. Symbols prove themselves useful only when there is reality they represent.