Metacrock

Meta =>No we aren't rare, we are in the majority. It's just that most of us (Christian evolutionists) have more sense than you or I so they don't hang out on message boards.

Metacrock

Meta =>That is based upon the wrong assumption about what Christianity actually is. you want to assume the theological framwork of the inerrentists and take that as the whole theological framework of the faith. But wont do because it didn't even exist until the 19th century. Christianity is not about how one reads Genesis. That is not a definition of the faith.


Meta =>No one has to propose a "figurative" scheme whereby each and every passage a 1x1 relationship to some historical actuality. We can read Gensis as literature, of course that assumes we know something about literature.

Metacrock

[quote]Originally posted by rbochnermd:
<strong>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Photocrat:
To deny that the text of early Genesis should be understood literally does not deny the fallen state of mankind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then what figurative interpretation explains "the fallen state?" What non-literal interpretation is to be taken from the subsequent expulsion from paradise?[QUOTE]</strong>


Meta =&gt; It's not "figurative." It's mythologoical. There is a big difference. I suggest you read Joseph Cambell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces to get a good basic introduction to how to understand mythology.

There is no 1x1 figurative corrospondence per se, but the "fall," being cast out of the Garden in the myth of Gensis 3 is symbolic of the loss of innocense that we all experience in life when we obtain a certain age such that we are capable of thinking morally. At the same time that we achieve majority and can be held accountable for our actions we also begin to act upon hidden motives of selfishness and other things that lead us to do injustice to our fellows. That is a universal human expeirnce, it's a natural outcome of existential dilema of self trasncendence, but it's encoded in the myth of the fall as being caste out of a Graden because that's what it's like, being expelled from a world of innocense.

A really good explaination of all of this found in Reihnold Neibuhr's work The Nature and Destiny of Man vol I.

BTW paradise is a metaphor.


Meta =&gt;IN the world of symblic writting we have figurative langauge, emblematic languge, metaphorical lanague. The difference in figurative, emblematic, and symbolic is that the symbol participates in the thing for which it symbolizes. So being "symbolic" doesn't prevent it from being real. It just means that it's not "literal" but that doesn't mean it's not real. So if it is symbolic to say that God created the heavens and the earth, then what would differ about that form the reality in which it would participate? Obviously the creation of cattle and "creeping things" on day x and the creation of other kinds of things on other days would be symbolic, since we know the world wasn't created in literally 6 days. But that doesn't preclude the fact that nothing would come to be if not for God's creative power.


Meta =&gt;That assumes of course that they are. The problem with that approach is that it just paints with a broad brush and misses the obous need to think through the text. You can't go by books.you can't say "OK is John literal of symbolic?" You have to take it a passage at a time and look at the over all message of the book.

There is no problem in understanding what to see as mythological and what to see as literal history. That is easly decerned through historical critical methods, it's just a simple matter of getting some theological training and working seriously on understanding the text.


Meta =&gt;I guess there's just no way to ever kow that is there? NO English professor no literaray sholar anywhere in the world has ever thought about that have they? I guess there isn't a whole industry of literary criticism that has studied this sort of thing for 500 years is there? If that were true there would never be an English lit class and no one would ever try to read Shakespire, they would just say "O wel it might be symbolic so its all a lie so don't bother."

That is the rea upshot of your argument, symboic = lie so don't bother. That's just not a serious alternative to learning textual critical methods.

Moreover you imply some kind of big upshot to that such that reliigion is disproven becasue there's a problematic nature to its hermeneutics. The truth is the atheist needs the simplistic solution of "all or nothing" and a clear black and white literalism to reject or he can't cope. Give him anyhting more complex and he goes to peacies and can't stand it because it's no longer just a simple matter of laughing at the fundie.


Meta =-&gt;And so what if someone did do that? That would only be a problem if you want to keep asserting that the inerentist position is the basic theological framework for all of Christianity. But remove that assumption and what difference does it make if one does deny all these so called "tennets?" Or maybe they can be based upon something else. Maybe the purpose of the canon wasn't to ground doctrinal statments in a clear and unambiguous fashishon anyway? Maybe that's why we have creeds? HU? You think?

Metacrock

That is so ludicrous. Speaking as though Christianity is about 500,000 or so people in one or two places that all have very littel education (Harvard educated Ph.D. in big expert thinking stuff whoooooooooooooo).

Christianity has the lion's share of great thinkers in the West. We built moden Western civilzation. We have 2 bil people, the laregest of any one relgion by twice as many. We have some of the finest modern people in the world of thought and almost all the greats of the Past from Descartres to Newton. We have millions of Christians all over the world with advanced graduate degrees. 45% of people with scientific degrees in America are either Christiains or connected to some related view point (counting mormons). Chrsitains started Harvard, started Yale and Princeton, stated modern science!

It's totally absurd to act like Christianity as a whole is reduceable to this one fundametnalist segment. Over 71% of Christians agree with Evolution. It's not a problem for the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian. Moreover, atheists do not have a monopoly on scietnific thinking, on the educational system or on much of anything.

Metacrock

Meta=&gt;He didn't say that it is is, or that it should be seen that way. That's not the issue. He's pointing out that there is more than one view point. The view that it is symbolic or contains symblism is very old and thus can't be excluded as one valid Christiain approach. That's all that matters.

See you are trying to control the defeition of what get's to be thought of as Christian because the atheist has to have the simplistic broad brush to paint with. You can nevere stand up to a complex view that has to go passage by passage. You have to have the blanket elemination of the whole thing or you never get anywhere.



Meta -&gt;What do you mean by "this way?" You mean allegorically? Or do you mean in the way that would allow for mythological usage in certain passages? Why should that not be an approach as a matter of course? "The Bible" Is not something that fell out of the sky all bound in lether and published by Zondervogn. It's a compulation by the chruch of certain writtings all of which exist for at least a couple of hundred years prior. It's absurd to expect it to be all one way or or the other, and it's even more aburd to impose just one form of reading on the text automatically.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to approach the text, you have to study it and to be reasonable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...but he is implicitly arguing that we should accept his way just the same.


Meta -&gt;O no! Someone on a message board who thinks he's right about something. What can we do?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall I conclude that there is no such thing as "reasonable" because people disagree over who is being reasonable? That's the trick you're trying to pull on me here...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEta=&gt;Why would Christianity contradict evolution when there is nothing inctrensic to Christianity that denys evolution? Christians have supported evolution since Darwin, only one small segment, known to be the redical right end of the spectrum, actually combats it, so why should Christianity be understood as the abrigation of evolutionary theory? It's your burden of proof cause its your argument. But all you are doing so far is trying to define Christianity in such a way as to make it synominous with fundamentalism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the history, you can usually identify that genre because it purports to tell the story of eyewitnesses [or those who claim to be such]. Usually, such writings are actually pseudonymous [not actually written by said eyewitnesses], but this was a common & respected practice in the ancient world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =&gt;Yea they do actually. The futher back you go the more the documents we have (and inscriptions on temples, most of what we have of the ancient world is from inscriptions) come to be religious in nature.



Meta -&gt;That's talking about genre. You can't go by that. That's absurd. O God can't use poetry because non religious texts use poetry. Rushish, who says? Moreover, the more important issue is this: this assumption you are making is that the Bible falls out of the sky already assumed to be sent from heaven. That is just a matter of which model of revelation you go by. The reason for taking it seriously is because the tradidtion of the chruch idnetified these texts as those which are curucial to our community for its self understanding. It has nothing to do with what genere its written in or how it came to be. It's no a matter of falling out of the sky, it's a purposeful choice of a set of texts because the chruch found them meaningful for various reasons.
'


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not, however, 'remove any semblance of historicity' from the texts as you seem to suppose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MEta =&gt; Such a dishonest way to argue. Are you afraid to cofront head on the obvious logical implications of your arguments?

Metacrock

"It does not matter if you do not understand."

See Photocart, je lit boucoups de fracias!

Dr Rick

Inaccurate (for instance, the Greeks and Romans were not Christians, and the Christian tradition is not one of republicanism) and irrelevant (no matter how many people believe it, it may still be wrong). This diatribe has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Christianiy conflicts with evolution.

<strong> Christians that accept evolution hold contradictory beliefs and ignore the contradictions, even if they are in the majority.

Christianity teaches that all of humanity is in a state of sin because Adam and Eve sinned, but humans can be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus. This basic tenet is not just grounded in Genesis:

Rom. 5:12,17; Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

Evolution is not compatible with the story of Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there was no original sin requiring the sacrifice of Jesus, which contradicts the teachings of Christian theology.

The suggestion that the Bible is not to be taken literally contradicts its own internal claims to accuracy:

Psalm 19:7-9 - "The law of the Lord is perfect ... the testimony of the Lord is sure ... the commandment of the Lord is pure ... the judgments of the Lord are true forever."
Psalm 119:43 - "the word of truth."
Psalm 119:142 - "Thy law is the truth."
Psalm 119:160 -"Thy word is true from the beginning."
John 17:17 - "Thy word is truth."

Bibles inaccurancies and absurdities do not suggest that it is allegorical or mythological, but rather that it is a very seriously flawed text.

hinduwoman

Well then what portion of the bible are we to take literally? If Adam and Eve are allegorical figures then we should not take the statement of all human beings born sinners doomed to fry in hell literally. If Christ did not die and rise up literally, then the whole basis of Christian salvation collapses.

Photocrat

Look up the word "genre" -- that should answer a lot of questions. Some of this stuff was meant to explain theological positions, not history. OTOH, some of it was intended as history [e.g. Luke], though it's a bit more complicated than that.

There's no way to give a simple answer to all these issues in general. You have to look at each piece in turn and examine it.

HRG

If by "religious" you mean "owes the temple 6 sacks of grain and 3 barrels of fish", you are right. See Linear A and B, as well as the precursors of cuneiform writings.

The dependence of writing on the emergence of a "temple economy" is so clear that one might almost become a Marxist! ;-)

Regards,
HRG.
"Erst kommt das Fressen, und dann die Moral"
(B.Brecht, Three-Penny Opera)