I’d respond with Pelasgius. Adam provided the example.
I have my response. It’s not mainstream- I split from mainstream Christian theology at Origin (whom I hold responsible for most of the more stupid doctrines currently held by most churches).
Dio lifted the symbolic root elements. I’d thought it a bit beyond the scope, but yeah, what he said.
Chief Pedant writes:
> But in general–within reason–all core beliefs have pled Scripture as the final
> authority. Where an individual (a Pope, say) was the human figurehead, the
> plea was still that his authority was grounded in his ability to most accurately
> understand and interpret Scripture.
A common statement of doctrine, going back to Augustine, is that God has given mankind two books, one the book of nature and one the book of scripture. In general the belief was that you needed one to understand the other. Saying that the interpretation of Scripture was only “within reason” is pretty much saying the same thing, I guess. The belief that only Scripture is important has been the minority view.
> Sure, you can toss out or ignore Scripture, define yourself as a Christian, and
> feel comfy about it. It just becomes ridiculously inconsistent with what the
> original inventors believed, and the term Christian becomes meaningless.
Again, you’re defining the people whose positions don’t fit in your system out of existence. If you want to claim that non-literalist Christians are wrong and/or inconsistent, that’s fine. If you want to claim that literalist Christians are wrong and/or inconsistent, that’s fine. You can’t claim though that non-literalists aren’t a major part of Christian tradition.
Since all people die,even the very good (even babies); in my understanding being dead is no different then when an animal or plant die, it’s atoms etc. become part of the existence again. The idea of a soul living on is a much later idea in humankind. Some tell me the souls lives on, but when I ask where did life go they have never given me an answer. Just as I have asked who created the place for God to be. If God is a being God would need a place, unless God is also place or existence itself.
I respect all peoples right to their belief and do not consider them stupid or less intelligent than I am. A person’s bringing up, education etc. has a bearing on how or what they believe, or do not believe. In truth it is all a human conception of what God is or is not.
Monavis
This Evolution v Creationism argument just goes round and round in circles; which is quite appropriate, considering the seemingly cyclical nature of existence.
What I claim is that, until recently, the timeline for the history of man and the creation of the world as presented in the Bible, was for the most part taken literally–i.e. in round numbers 5-10,000 years ago.
For nearly all of its existence, the “Christian God” tradition (i.e. Christendom’s core belief) was an acceptance of the Genesis timeline as gospel (literally 
).
As this belief has been proven to be false in more modern times, what used to be a core belief tied to Scripture has been moved over to the metaphor/allegory/good story side.
Of course non-literalists are a major part of Christian tradition. The history of Christianity is full of folks who accept the bits they like and “interpret” the bits they don’t, whether it’s Scripture, oral tradition or assorted church teachings.
In this particular case–the Genesis timeline–I’ve yet to see much evidence presented that Christian tradition has historically had much appetite for an old earth and the evolution of man, much less the evolution of life. Neither did they consider it at all before it became a scientific consideration.
So my position remains: the Christian God (except in his most recent re-invention) makes evolution impossible. Unless by the “Christian God” you mean some sort of belief set that gets to think whatever it wants, thousands of years of alternate belief to the contrary. We aren’t talking about inferred doctrine here, after all. We’re talking about plain text, and plain text that serves as an anchor–indeed, the introductory passages–of the whole paradigm.
And I can assure you (based on a fair amount of contact with Christians) that the discomfort around accepting evolution is the nagging worry that because Genesis needs tossing, Christianity is set so completely adrift from any definitive arbiter there is nothing left to define it except personal revelation.
Here’s the problem with a statement like this: it implies, first of all, that so-called “literalists” are in some way the “orthodoxy” and the rest of us are nothing more than heretics (apologies if I’m reading more into this than you intended), and secondly, it ignores the fact that most “literalists” are actually selective literalists, who read some parts of the Bible “literally” and dismiss the other parts that require more than just intellectual assent and actual action as “metaphors” or “contextual”.
I agree, more or less. However, I think there’s plenty of evidence from folks like Augustine and Origen and other early Church Fathers that the idea of a literal, 6-day, young earth Creationist position was far from the accepted position and mattered very little to the actual theological understanding of Christian faith. In other words, I concede that the story of creation in Genesis was more or less accepted as historical by the early Church (but not without a lot of caveats), but this was because there was very little reason not to accept it. At the same time, the early Church did not put the emphasis of the story on its historical factuality, but on what it says about humankind’s relationship with God, something we can still find in this story without necessarily accepting the historicity of it.
Well, I consider myself a Christian 'cause I believe in Jesus as Christ. I love the Bible, but not because I believe it’s some kind of history textbook. I do believe firmly in the importance of reason and personal understanding- what the Baptists call “soul freedom”- and in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us, sometimes in different directions, to become closer with God. Being Christian, in my opinion, has very little to do with the intellectual acceptance of the historicity of certain stories cherry-picked and selected from a 2,000+ year old book. It’s about following Jesus, and having faith that doing so will make a difference.
And on we go; I hold that there is a qualitative difference between the general notion of literalism–which you are mistakenly holding me to–and the Genesis story. But…
OK OK I give…
On further reflection it’s perfectly fine for Christians to embrace evolution and also the story of Lord Krishna–I mean Ehyeh–and those naked Gopi girls (my personal favorite of all religious fairly tales). Literalism and a Scriptural anchor be damned.
Perhaps we can at least agree that the Christian God was against evolution before he was for it.
Malachi 3:6 notwithstanding
You do not believe in Jesus, just what someone told you about Him. That is what you follow. The New Testament is not 2,000 years old but subtract about 300+ years from that. Humans at the Council Of Nicea decided what was to be the word of God and what Jesus said or did not say. They threw out what didn’t agree with what they wanted. Even the works of Thomas who was said to be an Apostle. The original writings were not available then or now.
Your beliefs help you and that is fine, but it doesn’t prove anything.
Monavis
I don’t doubt you (I never would) but the Passover story is not about sacrifice in that way. The story of Abraham and Isaac is read on Yom Kippur, not Pesach, so the Christians are about six months off. Passover is about freedom and the specialness indicated by the blood on the lintel. Yes there is a Paschal lamb, but that’s not the main point of the story.
But the thing I really don’t understand is why Christians say that God is unable to redeem anyone except through Jesus. Yes, there is talk of repayment for sin, etc., but the God I learned about as a kid is not so limited. It beggars the imagination that a person talking to God would be told that God can do nothing about his eternal life, and he has to go one level lower (or to a different department of the same deity) to Jesus.
Right, and you ask to be written in the book of life for the next year, not forever. The ascension of a prophet directly to heaven (Elisha?) was a big deal since we don’t go to heaven as a matter of course. Or hell, either, for that matter.
It’s true that the wages of sin are death, but so are the wages of virtue, and of life itself.
Please expand. Being Jewish, I know little of early Christian theology.
The question I ask, and have never gotten an answer to, is the basis by which any Bible reader interprets and filters the Bible. I agree with you that even literalists do this. My own answer is that everyone uses personal and cultural filters, having nothing to do with God, and then the literalists act as if their filters are in some way more correct than anyone else’s. One interesting thing about Jewish interpretation is that the process and the argument is what is important - there is no claim to having the one correct interpretation.
In that pre-scientific age the factuality of the creation story hardly mattered, right? It could hardly be disproven, and was no odder than the other Creation myths in the culture of the time. The existence of data to the contrary, starting in the 19th century, caused the opposite reaction that resulted in the rigidity of the literalists. In the early 19th century, when science was a fad, many scientists were good churchmen, since they were convinced that science would confirm the underlying correctness of scripture. When the opposite happened this branch was discredited, the more fundamental branch, which rejected science, was more appealing.
You are correct, but since Jesus was crucified at Passover (it is generally agreed by historians that the setting of Jesus’ crucifixion during Passover is probably historically accurate), his followers had to find a way to interpret his death in a way that related to Passover. So they chose the “unblemished lamb” image, probably conflated it somewhat with the Yom Kippur goat, and engineered a salvation theology. At least Paul did, and while Paul’s interpretations of Jewish scripture and tradition could be…let’s say “creative”…he was speaking to a mostly Gentile audience who didn’t know any better. Jews, as you know, tended not to buy it. There’s a reason that Pauline Christianity never gained any currency in pre-70 Palestine.
You don’t have to tell me. I think this is perhaps the biggest hole in all of Christian theology. Christians would take exception to your statement that Jesus is a "lower leveL than God, but the idea that any sacrifice would be needed at all is still arbitrary and incompatible with an omnimax God.
But lots of sects that believe the Bible IS said fundamental arbiter nevertheless find enough differences to indulge in everything from contempt to oppression to murder.
I’m not “attacking Christians” with that remark, I’m attacking the idea that belief in Biblical inerrancy has anything to do with anchoring the faithful to a common interpretation/understanding.
Sailboat
I know I don’t. I can only imagine that those raised as Christians get this from infancy, and have trouble seeing the contradiction. It is the reason that Christianity to me is as odd as a cargo cult. (Though certain people have fits when I say this.) I can maybe imagine believing in god again, (though I am more likely to flap my arms and fly) but I could never imagine becoming a Christian.
And, to get back to the OP, that is why I think the Adam and Eve story is so fundamental to Christianity. No embedded sin, no need for Jesus. Floods and chaos and lambs are very minor in comparison.
My major frustration whenever this comes up is confusing traditions (which have admittedly become embedded) which originated with the Patristics vs. the actual original teachings.
Take “Original Sin.” Find me a Biblical reference to it. Plenty of references to all men having sinned, which is, to my mind, a different thing that was twisted into original sin later on.
The doctrine of Original Sin is not necessary, it developed out of the philosophical tradition which followed the foundation of Christianity.
Original Sin is a preconception leads people to read Biblical texts in a specific way that is an imposition on the text, not an inherent property.
The focus on sin has turned most Christian churches into the exact group that was condemned so stridently by the originator of the faith- religious legalists (the Pharisees).
“God” is a hoax, invented by one group of people and perpetrated on the rest. Your question is basically meaningless. All it took to come up with the Christian God or a god of any kind was imagination and greed.
Now, now, it’s a fair question - just as it would be equally fair to ask whether Superman could go back in time by flying really fast if actual physics were imposed on him.
The Christain God is, as these things go, rather poorly defined as a mythological or fictional figure; the only thing about it that is disproven by evolution is the specific creation myth(s) that are laid out in the bible. (I pluralize because the bible contradicts itself on a point or two, creating two irreconcileable timelines.) This doesn’t technically disprove that God is a creator; it just takes replaces creationism with so-called “Intelligent Design” and then stamps out all the parts where God did more than set the outcome of random events to be in his favor.
The thing that bugs Christians about evolution is that it removes a reason why people couldn’t not believe in a god, not because it it made it impossible to believe in God (if you get my drift). When you have zippo for actual evidence in your favor, every circumstantial argument you have for it is valued and worth defending.
You know, I think you could retitle much of the theology written in the past 2,000 years The Nitpicker’s Guide to the Bible and not be too far off.
I don’t get your point - are you saying that it’s nitpicking to point out the holes in the assertions and logic of the bible/Christianity? (If it were presented as a fictional mythos I would call that nitpicking - but it’s not presented as fictional.)