None of it is true - Does this bother anyone?

[rojse]

Science supports the Christian concept.
Did you not hear about the study of
human DNA by which scientists have
concluded the entire human race came
from one man and woman?
Scientists cannot give you the name of
these two but Christianity can. They are
called Adam and Eve.

You heavily misquote the work on research of the patriachal male and female, which researched who was the father's father's, extended until everyone could claim the same father (and the same for a woman). Put another way, the man whose male line extends to every person alive now, and the same for the female whose female line extends to every person alive.

The fact that these people occured thousands of years apart, nor the fact that it doesn't consider any line of descent other than purely male, or purely female, seems to not be of concern, either, but we'll disregard those parts because they doesn't suit your religious beliefs.

 

[rojse]

WRONG!!

I believe I already said that the Garden of Eden story is accepted by some scholars as an allegory for the "fall" of man from a hunter-gatherer society to a farming society.

I would have said "rise" myself.

 

[slave2six]

I have seen some twisted ideas about my faith, and you are a master of twisting it. I also don't appreciate some atheist telling me about my faith, which is not from some Church fathers but from the Gospels themselves.
I follow Jesus, not Paul or any other evangelist after him.
Don't bother answering, I don't plan on reentering this thread. Bless you.

Who do you think wrote the Gospels or compiled them? The Church Fathers! Do you even know why those four were selected and all the other "gospels" were not? Do you realize that none of the gospels are original or authentic in the sense of a first-hand observer? Or do you realize how very similar those gospels are to other religious stories that preceded the time period?

Again, if you are going to believe something, believe in something real. There is so much wrong with the current Christian faith that 90% of people who call themselves "Christians" cannot even name the seven sacraments or even know what the word sacrament means!

The truth is that you believe what someone else has told you. If you were to investigate for yourself then you would not believe as you do.

As for my qualifications, let's see, raised by a pastor who started teaching me Greek at the age of 7 so that I could become a Biblical scholar, very well read not only in the Bible but the writings of those who kept the faith long before there ever was a Bible, a student of history and one who has with his whole heart sought out the truth and found that it is not in the Christian faith (except in portions like the Sermon on the Mount).

I have nothing against you personally but it always troubles me when I speak with people who cannot even defend why they believe what they believe or admit that they have never looked any further than a book that was handed to them. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be as passionate about Allah as you are about Christ simply because that's what others have told you. Would that make you right? Even your book says that it is requisite to seek out the truth and that "the truth will set you free."

I encourage you to look further and not be angered at me. I simply have absorbed every aspect of the Christian faith and found it wanting at the most basic levels.

 

[rojse]

By modern pop standards, yes. Certainly not by the standards of those who founded the religion.

The zeitgeist affects Christianity just like any other culture or society (although perhaps it might occasionally be somewhat behind the general population in following the zeitgeist).

 

[rojse]

The truth is that you believe what someone else has told you. If you were to investigate for yourself then you would not believe as you do.

Most people are on here because they have, and are still willing, to investigate their faiths further, and wish to ask, and be asked, questions about their faith.

 

[Willamena]

Therefore, on the one hand the physical universe screams that the Bible story is not true and on the other hand everything that we understand about the words "good" and "loving" scream that the Bible story cannot be the story of a loving God. How then can anyone actually believe this stuff?

It doesn't bother me. But then, I don't believe in a literal interpretation, as you appear to do.

 

[slave2six]

It doesn't bother me. But then, I don't believe in a literal interpretation, as you appear to do.

As other have pointed out, all the generations from Moses through pretty much the 1600s did believe that it was a literal account. If it is not literal, there is no cause for anything that follows (in the bible) about who God is and His relationship to human beings. That is to say, if it is not literal, you can throw out everything in the Bible except perhaps the life of Christ (although his death is meaningless without the Garden story being true) and some of the less violent Psalms. What you would have in that instance is basically a very short book that teaches that people ought to be nice to each other... a teaching that the Church throughout history has not taken to heart.

 

[slave2six]

Most people are on here because they have, and are still willing, to investigate their faiths further, and wish to ask, and be asked, questions about their faith.

...but not to be shown that their faith is without legitimate basis? That was sort of the whole point of this thread. Logically speaking, there is absolutely no substantive basis for Judeo-Christian teachings since both religions are built on the same premise and that premise is in fact untrue/false/erroneous/irrational (take your pick).

 

[OmarKhayyam]

You forgot Islam

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Slave2six

As other have pointed out, all the generations from Moses through pretty much the 1600s did believe that it was a literal account. If it is not literal, there is no cause for anything that follows (in the bible) about who God is and His relationship to human beings. That is to say, if it is not literal, you can throw out everything in the Bible except perhaps the life of Christ (although his death is meaningless without the Garden story being true) and some of the less violent Psalms. What you would have in that instance is basically a very short book that teaches that people ought to be nice to each other... a teaching that the Church throughout history has not taken to heart.

I don't think the creation story was ever understood in the strict scientific or historical sense, though I agree its allegorical sense has highly evolved in more recent times, and that the overall tendency has been to consider it a historical-theological account. I certainly do not get the sense that the Creation Story was written as a pseudo-scientific attempt to explain the material origins of the universe or human civilization (surely the ancients were aware that they had not witnessed this, nor had the means to do so), but strikes us immediately as a theological work intended to speak to the current state of human alienation from a pristine origin.

It is quite clear that the sense of Scripture has always deepened throughout the ages. Part of the very definition of Scripture is that it is living- from God- and therefore never fully grasped by its human author. The subject of what he writes lies always ahead of him, and his writing is always an attempt to bear witness to its truth, rather than capture it definitively. This is why, historically, Scripture has always been permitted such a broad range of senses and meanings [you really ought to read to some more Fathers]and why Scripture is canonized by the sense of the People of the God- the Church (or with the OT, Israel) testifies to its authority based on its endurance in the journey of the faithful from generation to generation.

It is quite far, in this sense, from a text book or a regal history.


As an obvious example, by the time of Jesus, God was understood to be pure spirit, and the passages which describe a corporeal deity were seen in a new light with no sense of contradiction.

You seem to have a total incapacity to grasp the storied dimension of the religious mind, and the relationship between myth, truth and history- furthermore, the means of expressing the truth of history, where divine things are concerned and expressed from a human perspective.

I would not be surprised if you would stand Genesis and the Origin of the Species in the same nook of your bookshelf.

It's odd, you have already been pretty harsh on the Protestants, but your reading of Scripture is so alien to the context in which it was initially [ and continues to be] understood as living, and your own reading amounts really to a fringe Protestant fundamentalism. What is your previous Christian background?

 

[rojse]

...but not to be shown that their faith is without legitimate basis? That was sort of the whole point of this thread.

All this thread shows is that you do not understand the meaning of the word metaphor.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

All this thread shows is that you do not understand the meaning of the word metaphor.

No, he doubtless knows what it means. He denies it applies to the work being considered.

God says what he means and means what he says.

Or so I was taught.

 

[challupa]

No, he doubtless knows what it means. He denies it applies to the work being considered.

God says what he means and means what he says.

Or so I was taught.

Well then everyone must be god because everyone has their own interpretation of what god is, says, and means.

 

[Willamena]

As other have pointed out, all the generations from Moses through pretty much the 1600s did believe that it was a literal account.

Yeah; that's not real relevant to whether you believe it.

If it is not literal, there is no cause for anything that follows (in the bible) about who God is and His relationship to human beings.

If you say so. We could totally ignore all symbolic meaning.

That is to say, if it is not literal, you can throw out everything in the Bible except perhaps the life of Christ (although his death is meaningless without the Garden story being true) and some of the less violent Psalms. What you would have in that instance is basically a very short book that teaches that people ought to be nice to each other... a teaching that the Church throughout history has not taken to heart.

Yeah! Let's throw out it's only meaningfulness. Yay!

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Well then everyone must be god because everyone has their own interpretation of what god is, says, and means.

Which is why you DON'T interpret it.

The minute you say that six days REALLY means millions of years the entire myth comes crashing down, The whole thing now means whatever you or your brother-in-law or Sam Harris SAYS it means.

You can't have that.:no:In this the fundamentalists are quite right. Either it is the revealed WOG and not so much as a comma can be altered or it ain't. And if it ain't then has no more value than the Iliad or Beowulf.

Somewhere Paul has a line to the effect if Christ is not risen our faith is in vain. And he is right. If there was no empty tomb, no doubting Thomas, no ascending into heaven then the whole thing is just a morality tale and JC may be camped out on Zeus's couch.

 

[challupa]

Which is why you DON'T interpret it.

The minute you say that six days REALLY means millions of years the entire myth comes crashing down, The whole thing now means whatever you or your brother-in-law or Sam Harris SAYS it means.

You can't have that.:no:In this the fundamentalists are quite right. Either it is the revealed WOG and not so much as a comma can be altered or it ain't. And if it ain't then has no more value than the Iliad or Beowulf.

Somewhere Paul has a line to the effect if Christ is not risen our faith is in vain. And he is right. If there was no empty tomb, no doubting Thomas, no ascending into heaven then the whole thing is just a morality tale and JC may be camped out on Zeus's couch.

Yes, I do have problems with all the interpretations. I believe we should just treat each other right and get on with living. Too often these holy scriptures have been interpreted to mean something that has been detrimental for mankind. I see them more as pieces of literature like any other.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The minute you say that six days REALLY means millions of years the entire myth comes crashing down, The whole thing now means whatever you or your brother-in-law or Sam Harris SAYS it means.

You can't have that.:no:In this the fundamentalists are quite right. Either it is the revealed WOG and not so much as a comma can be altered or it ain't. And if it ain't then has no more value than the Iliad or Beowulf.

Somewhere Paul has a line to the effect if Christ is not risen our faith is in vain. And he is right. If there was no empty tomb, no doubting Thomas, no ascending into heaven then the whole thing is just a morality tale and JC may be camped out on Zeus's couch.

This dilemma is the fruit of the sola scriptura doctrine, IMO, and not really so much of a difficulty for churches that have a living dogmatic authority- a structure which keeps the revealed mysteries of the Faith in view, but sets off her members on a quest to pursue that Faith with thought. The notion of the development of doctrine is also noteworthy here.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

This is why I said here:

It is quite clear that the sense of Scripture has always deepened throughout the ages. Part of the very definition of Scripture is that it is living- from God- and therefore never fully grasped by its human author. The subject of what he writes lies always ahead of him, and his writing is always an attempt to bear witness to its truth, rather than capture it definitively. This is why, historically, Scripture has always been permitted such a broad range of senses and meanings [you really ought to read to some more Fathers]and why Scripture is canonized by the sense of the People of the God- the Church (or with the OT, Israel) testifies to its authority based on its endurance in the journey of the faithful from generation to generation.

Thus only in the context of the Church can they be interpreted as Scripture, as the word of God.

 

[Riverwolf]

Within the confines of that belief system you mean? I agree completely. It's astounding how much nuance and intricacies are worked out among such people. But I have worked with mental patients who reach intricacies within their alternate realities as well. That doesn't make them sane. Just clever.

AND they can contemplate the real world just as well. Some of the most intelligent people I've met have been Christians, or believers in some religion or another.

 

[Riverwolf]

By modern pop standards, yes. Certainly not by the standards of those who founded the religion.

So a religion should stay stagnant? It shouldn't evolve with changing times, as we do?

I disagree wholeheartedly.