Metacrock

Meta =>Further back you go in history old chap. We wouldn't know the names of a single king in the Fertile Cresent or Egypt if not for inscritions on temples. All of those dynasties are accepted as history and what is said about them on temple walls is totally mythologoical.

Metacrock

Meta =>No, it's not irrelivant and it's not a matter of appeal to popularity. you aren't listening (big surprize). Now this is rich, I say "...has the lion's share..." and they always go "Nu uh, what about the Greeks?" Well that's fine, the Greeks were important, but I didn't say all of the great thinkers were Christians I said the lion's share. You might also observe that I said they built modern Western civilization. So one might infur that I'm speaking of moderity! I'm not talking about the classical world or the ancient world, but about modern world! And I fail to see why Christian tradition has to be republicanism to be a great contributor? There is more than one influence in Western thought you know.

The relivance is that Chistian Tradition is part of modern Western thought, it is not about rejecting evolution, it's much larger than that. So you are just looking at one small corner of the tradition and trying to put that over as the whole.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta =>That just demonstates your ignorance. I bet you have not read one single major Christian theologian. In fact I bet you can't name a major Christian theologian. Until you can at least name one you have no right to pretend to know jack shit about Christian thought!

Meta =>But it does not necessarily teach this as a literal historical event. Look at major theologian Reinhold Neibuhr, Nature and Destiny of Man vol I. There you will find a satisfactory modernist explaination of the fall. I think I mentioned that before. you don't really understand Christianity, all you really know of it is what comes through in the media because the most baniel elements have the money to make their voice known.


meta => That is a theological statment, not an histoircal one. To really understand what the tradition says about that you have to look at how modern theologians understand it. To just assume that the phrase point balnk form the Bible sumarizes Christian understanding is niave!

[QUOT]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.[/QUOTE]


Meta =>"Original sin" is a specific doctrine not all Chrisitians agree with, it's mainly a Catholic doctrine developed by St. Augustine. Sin is an existential reality, Adam and Eve are merely symbolic of all humans in our existential dilemma of self trasncendence, height and depth. So Jesus' sacrifce on the cross is a statement of solidarity with humanity, it need not be viewedd as making up for some historical event.

Besides that A and E are not imcompatible with evolution. There are tons of ways to work that out. The main thing is one need not see them as historical.


Meta => Nothing in those passages say anything about it having to be literal history. Those are all talking about 'truth" you read the word 'truth' to mean "litteral." But the word "truth" is not a syonim for the word "literal." Something can be true and not be literal history. That is not even an argument. And if you are going to argue with me would you please learn to deal with my views accurately and not make up your own strawman version? It is absurd to say "the Bible must be taken" one way are the other. You have to show why it should be seen as one monolythic whole and not understood on a passage by passage basis! You are just painting with a broad brush. I'm trying to use engraver's tools to get the fine details in the smallest neuonce of the picture, you are painting with a brush so wide you can coat the side of barn in one swipe and then you just paint "RELIGION SUX!" over the whole thing. Why think about something when you can just dismiss it all in one fell swoop?

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

Mea => I don't think you even know the difference in "mythological" and allegorical. I doubt that you care either. But here are some major points that you are totally ignoring and without them you can't begin to attack my view:

1) I never said the Bible is all one way or the other. It is a collection of texts all of which existed at least 200 years before they were complied. So you have to look at each text to understand who wrote it, how it was written, why it was written and most importantly of all why the chruch felt it was important. You can't just dismiss the whole thing as "it should be all literal."

2) it doesn't matter what the authors wrote the text for. What matters is why the chruch thought it was important. All you dealings have to be with the chruch tradition and the theologians not with the authors of the text.

3) it was the Seven Ecummenical councils and not the Bible that created the chruch as we know it. The Bible is a creature of the chruch hiearchy and tradition not the other way around.

Metacrock

Meta =>What portion of world illusion is Maya? you know I'm still looking for that Monkey kingdom. Where do those guys live now? And what about that Ganisha, how can you just give someone an elaphant head? And why would a god need an animal head anyway? If he's a god why can't he just create his own head?

How about that Krishna what a fun loving guy! Why didn't he just manifest himself as the divine garden to all the participants in the battle and stop the war? And being a god why couln't he see the arrow coming?

There is no one single part of the Bible to take mythologically or one single part to tak literally. All of it is to be taken as conducive to teaching of theological truth and in a sense that is all that matters. But the Bible is made up of many texts and they were written at different times by different people. So you just have to go passage for passage.

I have concluded that Genesis 1-3 is mythological because it uses many elements which are clearly mythological, not only in terms of characters (Adam = Man and Eve = Woman appear in Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths as well) but basically follows the major outline of the Sumerian myth. It also contians many elements indicative of mythological story telling, such as talkinga animals, enchanted world, mythological time and so forth. So we have good reason to see that as an author making use of the pagan myth of the day.

Now we can ask "why would they do that?" We can come up with reasons based upon understanding how mythology communicates. It's not a 1x1 corrosponsence. it's not as though this bush symbolizes x and this talking snake symbolizex y, its a matter of the nature of myth itself as speaking to the psyche. Mythology is a powerful means of communicating a kind of truth to the psyche which is a truth of archetypes, its not a literal truth and it's not a mere allegory. you have to come to understand something about the nature of mythic story telling. But I would think that Hindu would understand this in some way and would be sympathetic to it, unless you are some strange kind of Hindu fundie who really thinks there are these Monkey people living somewhere int he jungle and science just hans't found them.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Dr Rick

What a sad jumble of loosely collected thoughts lacking any relevance at all to the relationship between Christianity and evolution.

Metacrock is piling irrelevance on top of irrelevance. The topic is specifically about whether or not Christianity conflicts with evolution.

This doesn't even make sense. Metacrock is the one babbling on about Christian theology in his posts rather than staying focused on the issue. How much more irrational can he get?...

...lots more!

Metacrock can't muster a coherent argument to explain his position, so he obliquely refers to the man credited with re-popularizing the "Serenity Prayer" while ignoring the arguments of the theologians that demand a literal interpretation of the Bible.

When confronted with a repetitive Biblical theme that contradicts Metacrock's bizzare and unsupported interpretations, the poor boy haplessly tries to skate around it.

This is just unsubstantiated nonsense.

More unsubstantiated nonsense

Those passages were taken from the CARM web site where they're used to argue that the Bible is to be interpreted literally. Nothing Metacrock has posted shows us that the creation story is meant to be taken any other way.

Metacrock is dishonest. He has argued that it has to be interpreted his way with statements such as, "You have to take it a passage at a time and look at the over all message of the book," but the question of what reason Metacrock has to interpret the Bible in his own idiosyncratic and contradictory form remains unanswered.

Metacrock is trying to excuse the inaccuracies of the Bible, but he's doing an awful job of it.

<strong> Metacrock is wrong, again; the original meaning of the authors is at the heart of the issue. They meant to describe the origins of humanity and got it all wrong.

How fitting that Metacrock would finish his post with a non sequitor.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Dr Rick

A straight-forward question on the subject of Christian salvation is answered by Metacrock with incoherent drivel.

<strong> Genesis has an inaccurate account of the origins of humanity. Metacrock's conclusions are irrational.

<strong> Both the Summerian creation myth and the Biblical creation myth were wrong.

Neither the Summerians nor the Christians had the slightest clue as to how mankind evolved, so there is no reason to engage in convoluted rationalizations. They were both wrong.

<strong> More nonsense: ancient people could not understand many things about the universe, and our existence was one of the mysteries that they tried to explain with made-up fantasies.

<strong> This is a false dichotomy; both the Chrisitian and Hindu myths are inaccurate, and we now have the evidence to disprove both. We don't have to accept either account.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Photocrat

The non-sequiter is that you define Christianity as modern fundamentalism [hint: it's modern!] and try to make us work from there...

Which creed tells us that evolution is false? Which one binds us to a non-allegorical Adam & Eve?
Do tell?

Metacrock is wrong, again; the original meaning of the authors is at the heart of the issue. They meant to describe the origins of humanity and got it all wrong.

Prove it. You're appealing to modern fundamentalism on that point; ignoring all the others who disagree with you. That is not proof of anything. As I pointed out, you'd probably consider them rather dim for rejecting evolution & appealing to dim people for a proper understanding of these texts is irrational.

You've offered *nothing* here to support your points. Not even one iota, save to reiterate that some people understand it to be literal. That's appeal to inappropriate authority, as you cannot say that they're so dim for rejecting evolution, then turn around and act as though they're the only ones who understand the texts properly.

Nothing Metacrock has posted shows us that the creation story is meant to be taken any other way.

That they were taken from the mythology of another culture is quite a lot of evidence. Given how Hebrews looked down on idols [they thought it foolishness for a person to cut down a tree & worship one half while cooking dinner on the other; among other things] it would be rather shocking for them to adopt it all of a sudden... unless they were turning a myth on it's head. Saying things to the effect of 'they're all just idiots' is poisoning the well, anyhow.

Please also reference the many definitions of "truth" -- of particular relevance are #4-5, as an adjective & #3 as an adverb:

<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=true" target="_blank">http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=true</a>

I honestly don't see why this is so hard to grasp? Even the skeptic Annunaki would be with us in calling Genesis "misunderstood mythology," though he takes it quite a bit further...

Dr Rick

You are trying to twist an ancient and inaccurate text to fit modern observations and theories by saying those portions that are wrong are not literal, yet you provide no other rationale for this interpretation. Rather than rely on verification with it's risks of subsequent falsefication, you dismiss portions of the Bible that are wrong as allegorical. This is not a testable standard.

The Christian one; the one that tells us the Bible is the word of God, that He is the Creator of man in His image, that He had His Son tortured to death to save us from the sins into which we are born, and that He cannot lie.

<strong> What a foolish analogy; no honest scientist would defend a theory or belief shown to be wrong by claiming it's not meant literally and those that interpret it that way are "dim."

</strong>

You are the one claiming special insight into the proper interpretation of the Bible as you twist its original meaning. You are the one that claims to know which portions are allegorical yet cannot tell us why. You are the one that dismisses all interpretations that differ from yours whether they come from Christians or Atheists. You are the one that claims Genesis is not to be taken literally, even though the same nonsense in it is repeated in Romans. You are the one who tells us to just accept what you claim as truth when you post "Now then, if you're asking for some method to figure this out without an[y] uncertainty; tough luck." It is your outrageous claims that need but lack support.

<strong> This is quite a lot of evidence that they are all superstitious nonsense. How can you possibly claim that the mythical origins of a dumb belief somehow vouch for its veracity?

<strong> It is highly unlikely that the ancient Hebrews knew anything about evolution and even more unlikely that their creation myths somehow managed to take it into account. You are the one turning myths on their heads.

<strong> It is mythology, and it's wrong

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Photocrat

Why do you insist on the standard you do? You're pulling it from modern fundamentalism.

It won't work. Your definition of "Christian" is merely self-serving... I demand that you support it from one of the creeds. Otherwise, it is not so "Christian" as you wish to suppose.

Define Christian. Your failure to do understand that point renders discourse futile. I could define "atheist" by claiming that they're "those who assert a belief in unbeilef" [or similar nonsense], "prove" from that that 'all atheists are illogical' and force you to "prove" that atheism should not be understood as that. When you [righfully] called such a self-serving definition into question, I would retort by quoting [or even mis-quoting] the illogical atheists & play the "no true Scotsman" game thereafter.

You're just playing games with us. You haven't bothered to give us anything but special pleading that, since the fundamentalists believe this, we must also. Where's your proof?

Frankly, the ancients neither knew nor cared about evolution. They considered their past important in a symbolic way, as evidenced by the way so many cultures had a mythic past, in mythic time. Perhaps there are more modern people who are confused by this, but that proves nothing. They symbology is clearly not literal; reading it that way makes no sense. It never made sense, even before Darwin. Trying to act as though we're trying to 'get away' from the 'disproof' of the Bible is unreasonable.

What a foolish analogy; no honest scientist would defend a theory or belief shown to be wrong by claiming it's not meant literally and those that interpret it that way are "dim."

The Bible is not an epistemology; why do you keep acting as though it is? The basis on which you argue is flawed. If they did not mean it literally, it should not be read literally. If the author borrowed it from a pagan myth they [obviously] did not believe, the author could not have meant it to be literal. QED.

Anunnaki

Photocrat:
"Misunderstood mythology" is a term Joseph Campbell used to explain Christianity and I`m in complete agreement with him (Campbell).
I don`t know how this makes me agree in any way with Photocrats position. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Dr Rick

Photocrat engages in more bullshit with his last post. Unable to reconcile the contradictions of his position, he attempts to dissemble by "demanding" a creed, though he himself has not met the challenge nor defined Christianity.

What a pathetic last gasp of a flawed argument. We weren't debating the merits of the Nicene creed, nor should we since it doesn't describe or mention human evolution.

The Bible, the book of Christianity, is wrong in its account of how humanity popped into existence; Photocrat and that blowhard, Metacrock, are fools to try to reconcile it with evolution.