Does this sum up Christian doctrine?

[sojourner]

There is no such thing as "Christianity as a whole". A third of Americans (not even Christians) believe the Bible is to be taken literally (link), it's not just "some people"...

Most of them know nothing about literary criticism or exegesis. Scholars, teachers, and the majority of clergy understand it for what it is. That does represent "Xy as a whole," because the clergy and scholars comprise the bulk of "people who know better."

 

[Commoner]

Fact: Virgins don't get pregnant. Fact: most ancient stories of god-men begin with a miraculous birth. Fact: The evidence weighs heavily in favor of the virgin birth story being mythic.

Fact: The story of the Fall is borrowed heavily from earlier myth. Fact: the name "Adam" means "human." Fact: Jews (from whom we get the story) don't take it literalistically. Fact: We can correctly utilize literary criticism to show that the elements of the story lie well within the parameters of metaphor. Fact: The evidence weighs heavily in favor of the creation story being mythic.

Then the resurrection of Jesus is another myth, right? And again it would be unfair to say that Christians believe Jesus was literally resurrected after dying? And the physical resurrection of Christ is not the single doctrine most accepted by Christians of all denominational backgrounds, right?

Because...Fact: people do not rise from the dead.

I agree with you about all the things you said about the virgin birth and the other stuff. Obviously - it's myth. But you seem to be equating "Christian theology" with "that (on the particular topic) which is supported by facts". So how could it possibly be true that the physical resurrection of Christ is doctrine?

Unless "Christian theology" always has facts on its side and deems it necessary for a claim to necessarily be demonstrably true in order to be accepted, you cannot use "I have facts on my side"(with which I agree) as any kind of authority - not within Christianity, at least.

 

[Katzpur]

That's not really what I was asking. Your particular beliefs, while interesting and perhaps a good subject for discussion, are not what's in question.

Well, maybe it wasn't the answer you were looking for, but since I'm a Christian and believe "Christian doctrine," my answer was as pertinent to a discussion of what "Christian doctrine" is as anybody else's.

But, ok - out of curiosity - what about "I and my Father are one." (John 10;30). How do you believe both that Jesus and Jesus' father are one and that what happens to Jesus doesn't happen to Jesus' father? How would you reconcile that?

Look up "one" in the dictionary. It has meanings other than as a numerical designator. It also means "united." There are many way in which two individuals or many individuals can be said to be "one" that don't require us to think of them as a single numerical unit. We see this usage throughout the Bible, for example:

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Exodus 24:3 "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

1 Peter 3:8 "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous..."

Acts 4:32 "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

I mean, one alternative is not to believe "I and my Father are one." But I doubt that's the case here?

As a Christian, I totally believe that Jesus Christ and His Father were "one." But that doesn't mean I believe that Jesus was His own Father or that His Father was His own Son.

 

[ChristineES]

I can understand you don't agree with the tone - that was most likely the intention, after all, but can you point out a factual error in what he's saying?

It isn't what he is saying, it was how he said it. It was twisted (as Katzpur put it) at best. It would be kind of like saying this about people who like to fish "they put a line on a pole in the water with food to trick the fish into coming to them and then they yank it out of the water to murder the fish just so they can eat the d*** thing. That's if they don't stuff it with cotton for some perverted reason for a trophy!". That is a very twisted way to talk about people who love to go fishing, isn't it. It is mocking and ridiculing. :help:

 

[Commoner]

Well, maybe it wasn't the answer you were looking for, but since I'm a Christian and believe "Christian doctrine," my answer was as pertinent to a discussion of what "Christian doctrine" is as anybody else's.

Look up "one" in the dictionary. It has meanings other than as a numerical designator. It also means "united." There are many way in which two individuals or many individuals can be said to be "one" that don't require us to think of them as a single numerical unit. We see this usage throughout the Bible, for example:

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Exodus 24:3 "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

1 Peter 3:8 "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous..."

Acts 4:32 "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

As a Christian, I totally believe that Jesus Christ and His Father were "one." But that doesn't mean I believe that Jesus was His own Father or that His Father was His own Son.

So would it be accurate to say that there isn't God and Jesus, but Father and Son, both of which "comprise" a God (along with possibly other "parts")?

 

[Commoner]

It isn't what he is saying, it was how he said it. It was twisted (as Katzpur put it) at best. It would be kind of like saying this about people who like to fish "they put a line on a pole in the water with food to trick the fish into coming to them and then they yank it out of the water to murder the fish just so they can eat the d*** thing. That's if they don't stuff it with cotton for some perverted reason for a trophy!". That is a very twisted way to talk about people who love to go fishing, isn't it. It is mocking and ridiculing. :help:

But it is totally correct - and I agree about stuffing being perverted. I mean, I've been fishing and that's exactly what I did - it might be "ridiculing", it might not have any poetical beauty, but it is what happened.

EDIT: except it's not always to eat it, sometimes you just want to kiss it and throw it back into the water as to enjoy a moment of absolute domination over a stupid little salty creature.

 

[Photonic]

But it is totally correct - and I agree about stuffing being perverted. I mean, I've been fishing and that's exactly what I did - it might be "ridiculing", it might not have any poetical beauty, but it is what happened.

EDIT: except it's not always to eat it, sometimes you just want to kiss it and throw it back into the water as to enjoy a moment of absolute domination over a stupid little salty creature.

You have a point, he pretty much described all fishing. I fished for a LONG time and that's almost to the point what fishing is. Yea it's missing a lot of stuff and it's not exactly phrased in the best light, but it still describes fishing.

Also another note about Jesus, God and whatever:

If we are all Gods sons and Daughters, being that we are supposedly made in his image and created by him. God impregnated his own daughter and she gave birth to him (God). Or another version of God. Not the prettiest picture.

 

[sojourner]

Then the resurrection of Jesus is another myth, right?

John Dominic Crossan posits that his body was thrown to the dogs and buried in a common grave.

Because...Fact: people do not rise from the dead.

They don't?! Tell that to all the folks I've witnessed being brought back in the hospital.

I agree with you about all the things you said about the virgin birth and the other stuff. Obviously - it's myth. But you seem to be equating "Christian theology" with "that (on the particular topic) which is supported by facts". So how could it possibly be true that the physical resurrection of Christ is doctrine?

Unless "Christian theology" always has facts on its side and deems it necessary for a claim to necessarily be demonstrably true in order to be accepted, you cannot use "I have facts on my side"(with which I agree) as any kind of authority - not within Christianity, at least.

You're mushing two completely different issues. One issue is the literal interpretation of the texts. In that issue, the facts are on my side.
Another, different issue is theology. Theology doesn't really concern itself with fact, because fact-finding isn't the goal of doing theology. Theology seeks to understand truth, not compile facts.

Christian theology has never tried to understand God in terms of evil. Doctrine has never been based on an understanding of God as evil. So I don't see how it can be said that "Christians believe [evil things] about God."

 

[sojourner]

You have a point, he pretty much described all fishing. I fished for a LONG time and that's almost to the point what fishing is. Yea it's missing a lot of stuff and it's not exactly phrased in the best light, but it still describes fishing.

Also another note about Jesus, God and whatever:

If we are all Gods sons and Daughters, being that we are supposedly made in his image and created by him. God impregnated his own daughter and she gave birth to him (God). Or another version of God. Not the prettiest picture.

No it's not -- otherwise, no one would fish. Both fishing and religion are defined by more than their aggregate components, reduced to the lowest common denominator. These activities are also validly defined by the meaning we ascribe to them. Otherwise, "Making love to my wife" could be reduced to it's constituent parts, described very clinically. But that wouldn't correctly define what making love to my wife is.

 

[Katzpur]

No, he's pretty much correct about this, that's not really a skewed but rather re-colored version of what the Bible says.

As I pointed out, the Bible doesn't say most of what Hawkins says it says.

 

[Commoner]

John Dominic Crossan posits that his body was thrown to the dogs and buried in a common grave.

Good for him... So, what exactly is the Christian doctrine regarding resurrection?

They don't?! Tell that to all the folks I've witnessed being brought back in the hospital.

They don't. People nearly die and get saved in the nick of time, people's hearts stop beating for a short while, they fall unconscious, they go into shock, they might stop breathing - and then, many recover, sure. They do not die and get resurrected. Sorry.

You're mushing two completely different issues. One issue is the literal interpretation of the texts. In that issue, the facts are on my side.
Another, different issue is theology. Theology doesn't really concern itself with fact, because fact-finding isn't the goal of doing theology. Theology seeks to understand truth, not compile facts.

I'm sorry - it was you who argued that:

"We, as Christians, believe that we utilize a mythos, using the literary tools of metaphor and allegory, to render a theological understanding of truth. That mythos includes the metaphors of 1) virgin birth, 2) a tree bearing the fruit of knowledge, 3) Wisdom portrayed as the serpent..."

When I pointed out that a large chunk of Christians would disagree with you, you defended your position as having facts on your side - and being in that group that "knows better" or "has done its homework" as opposed to the "misguided".

But this same group that has supposedly done their homework clearly also supports the claim that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. Now, you may agree or disagree but you may not claim to have both the facts and the theology on your side. So you see what I mean? You can either accept that you are not a representative of "theology" and "doctrine" (and by extension Christianity as you implied, I believe) or you can agree with doctrine but cannot use "facts" as an authority to validate your beliefs over those other Christians - the literalists.

Christian theology has never tried to understand God in terms of evil. Doctrine has never been based on an understanding of God as evil. So I don't see how it can be said that "Christians believe [evil things] about God."

I agree. That doesn't tell you though, whether or not what they believe is good, it might tell you that they believe what they believe is good - but that's almost axiomatic.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry - it was you who argued that:

"We, as Christians, believe that we utilize a mythos, using the literary tools of metaphor and allegory, to render a theological understanding of truth. That mythos includes the metaphors of 1) virgin birth, 2) a tree bearing the fruit of knowledge, 3) Wisdom portrayed as the serpent..."

When I pointed out that a large chunk of Christians would disagree with you, you defended your position as having facts on your side - and being in that group that "knows better" or "has done its homework" as opposed to the "misguided".

Exactly. Those facts being an awareness of how the mythos is created through the use of metaphor.

But this same group that has supposedly done their homework clearly also supports the claim that Jesus was physically raised from the dead.

They do? Or is that part of the mythos?

Now, you may agree or disagree but you may not claim to have both the facts and the theology on your side.

Well, I believe I just did that very thing!

So you see what I mean? You can either accept that you are not a representative of "theology" and "doctrine" (and by extension Christianity as you implied, I believe) or you can agree with theology but cannot use "facts" as an authority to validate your beliefs over those other Christians - the literalists.

We're arguing two different things here. The theological construct doesn't care whether the metaphoric events are historic fact. Theological truth isn't always the same as historic fact. The theologians know this.

 

[idav]

Who believes it and who does not---and why?

IDK, that summary didn't include anything about having to become a holy hobo and Jesus never said anything about abortion or gay marriage. I think he his confusing Christianity with Paulianity/Catholicism.

 

[ChristineES]

But it is totally correct - and I agree about stuffing being perverted. I mean, I've been fishing and that's exactly what I did - it might be "ridiculing", it might not have any poetical beauty, but it is what happened.

EDIT: except it's not always to eat it, sometimes you just want to kiss it and throw it back into the water as to enjoy a moment of absolute domination over a stupid little salty creature.

A person catching a fish may love to eat fish- in fact, virtually all the people I know who fish eat what they catch. What Dawkins said was a distortion of the truth. The facts are there but the truth isn't- the truth and facts are not the same thing. That, in a way, makes what he says a lie. And, on top of that, he says in a very insulting way.

 

[Commoner]

Exactly. Those facts being an awareness of how the mythos is created through the use of metaphor.

So you don't believe there was an actual "Jesus" that died and then got resurrected? Is this not "Christian doctrine"? Is anything this elusive "doctrine"?

They do? Or is that part of the mythos?

Are you now claiming that Christians (including clergy) don't believe that Jesus got resurrected? Now, look how far we've gotten - perhaps God is also just a myth? I think this is bordering on dishonesty now.

We're arguing two different things here. The theological construct doesn't care whether the metaphoric events are historic fact. Theological truth isn't always the same as historic fact. The theologians know this.

Yes - theological "truth" isn't (always) truth, so why the hell does it matter what some theology which sometimes agrees with facts and is sometimes completely contary to (very, very basic, universally accepted, uncontraversial) facts, states? What matters is what people actually believe, how that compares to facts and how those beliefs inform their actions.

 

[Commoner]

A person catching a fish may love to eat fish- in fact, virtually all the people I know who fish eat what they catch. What Dawkins said was a distortion of the truth. The facts are there but the truth isn't- the truth and facts are not the same thing. That, in a way, makes what he says a lie. And, on top of that, he says in a very insulting way.

You've not explained your point with your analogy though. I don't understand what difference it makes if you love to eat fish?

I mean, in no way would I characterize your earlier description of fishing as "a lie" or even inaccurate - it was clear that it was said with disdain, but that's it. Neither did I find it offensive in any way - but even if I did, so what?

 

[Photonic]

As I pointed out, the Bible doesn't say most of what Hawkins says it says.

Dawkins* And yes, it does. Just because you don't like the way the Bible Says it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[Katzpur]

Dawkins*

Sorry. I guess I'm getting my Dawkinses and Hitchenses confused.

And yes, it does. Just because you don't like the way the Bible Says it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Then quote it. Verbatim.

 

[Photonic]

Sorry. I guess I'm getting my Dawkinses and Hitchenses confused.

Then quote it. Verbatim.

The Entire OT.

Done.

 

[Alceste]

I heard a pastor say once that it's the strict sexual requirements that keep most non-believers away from church. I notice the OP's focus on the sexual stuff as some of the main objections to the faith: "Yet when he really cares about is "sin," abortion, how often you go to church and whether gay people should marry."

Membership is actually decreasing in moderate churches (i.e. churches that accept homosexuality and reproductive choice) and increasing in right wing (anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-sex) churches. That said, membership in Christian churches overall is decreasing while non-theism is on the rise. So, people are being squeezed out of moderate churches in both directions, but slightly faster in the direction of non-religion.

I think what repels moderates from Christianity altogether is the terrible noise emanating from the right. The right's vigorous effort to legislate religious morality by combining religion and politics, and their effort to undermine education by denying facts like evolution and climate change, is something nobody in their right mind would want to be associated with. Those who are not in their right minds are adding their own voices to the din, while those who are sane are distancing themselves.

Don't think it has much to do with sex.