Christianity vs Mormonism

[_Jason Bourne]

The authors wrote about what they knew about, Shades. There is no possible way they could have known about the shape, size of the earth much less that there were other continents.

Please.

If it didn't happen, it is allegory, there should be no confusion whatsoever. It's a story about judgement.

Gee. I though God spoke to a prophet called Noah. God knew about the shape and size of the earth when he said he was going to destroy ALL flesh.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

First I want to say that if you read the exchanges here, GoodK (and Shades) are arguing in the way I posted about on another board. I just want to point that out because this is a current example of that. Thank you for entering this thread.

Let me try to answer your questions as best I can.

If a Christian can pick and choose what to believe in the Bible is fact versus myth, then what is the essence of being a Christian?

The Bible is a collection of books. There is no way that one can argue for either/or fact or myth. It simply isn't possible. One can believe that portions are fact OR myth by studying the scripts and differentiating first between what is obvious fact or myth, however, I don't think we can fully differentiate throughout.

For those who hold a literal point of view Genesis to Revelation. That is easily undone when one considers (easiest example) the Revelation. Are the candlesticks in Revelation literal candlesticks or are they symbols? They are obviously symbols and Revelation is rich with that type of symbolism. When the Southern Baptists, for example, make a claim for literalism, they aren't thinking critically because they aren't allowing for the obvious symbolism of the Revelation and that's just a quick/simple example of where literalism goes wrong from the start.

The argument, if you will, of believing fact vs myth isn't a sound premise to start with.

Let me give you some examples to demonstrate that you cannot divide the Bible into fact vs myth categories alone:

The Parables of Christ are almost always identified as parables. They are teaching stories with a message.

The Psalms are songs.

The Proverbs are proverbs...words of wisdom.

Levitical Law (etc) are ancient penal codes.

The passages of prayer are prayers.

The Table of Tribes are just that.

Here are some familiar portions that are up for grabs in the fact vs myth categorization:

The Creation, Flood story, Tower of Babel (in my opinion) are obviously ancient allegory.

The accounts of battles that involve ancient cultures are the authorship culture of origin's account of the battles.

The stories about Christ.

You can't divide the Bible into two categories for examination, fact vs myth.

Is Levitical Law fact or myth? It's neither. It's ancient penal code.

What essential beliefs or characteristics must a Christian hold or have which will differentiate them from being non-Christian?

This is a hard question to answer because I don't know if I can articulate this correctly.

I think the single most fundamental belief (and I wouldn't say "characteristics" because I think characteristics can be shared with atheists as well) that a Christian must hold or have that separates them from non-Christians would be that Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God, entered human history, lived, taught, died as a sacrifice (the sacrificial lamb of God), resurrected, ascended and lives today in an immortal state.

You have likely read where I've stated that Jesus was the ultimate object lesson and literal word of God. I would add that to the above.

There are those who believe that Jesus was simply a wise teacher and refer to themselves as Christians. Philosophically and apart from religion, I think that can also be true.

I don't think that all of the above, including my comments on the Bible, can be viewed in black and white terms. I think there is a healthy amount of gray area enough to keep us thinking and reflecting on what we believe, why we believe it and to continue that process throughout a life time.

Me, I'm comfortable with the gray area.

When I was a child in Sunday School, I was taught the story of Noah's Ark. No one said it was true or not true. They simply told the story. I see no reason for me, as an adult, not to pursue a study of scripture from an adult point of view. The Bible can't be written off or accepted as "true or false"....it is somewhere in between.

Jersey Girl

[_Jason Bourne]

You are meshing two separate time frames, Jason. I'll step up to the plate and take my best swing here.

Show me New Testament evidence of any kind that demonstrates that the authors of the New Testament, Apostles and Christ himself presented the Flood, The Fall, Adam and Eve in literal terms. Show me where they said it actually happened and that there is no question that they weren't referring to ancient allegory.
old any more)

The New Testament writers based their theology on much of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was full of types that led to Christ. I will have to think if I have the energy to post New Testament proofs of my point. But I am surprised you demand this. I think you know the New Testament well enough. There are many, many references to Old Testament event, person, people, the Fall, and so on in order to prove the Jesus filled prophecy and saved is from the fall. Start with 1 Corinthians 15.

If you want me to absolutely prove the passages where the New Testament writers uses Old Testament examples were actually believed by them to be actual events well that is ridiculous. The New Testament is written in such a way that it is clear that they believed it or they were liars. Do you actually think the writers of the gospels thought Jesus did not believe Noah was real when he said "as it was in the day of Noah...?

[_Jersey Girl]

The authors wrote about what they knew about, Shades. There is no possible way they could have known about the shape, size of the earth much less that there were other continents.

Please.

If it didn't happen, it is allegory, there should be no confusion whatsoever. It's a story about judgement.

Gee. I though God spoke to a prophet called Noah. God knew about the shape and size of the earth when he said he was going to destroy ALL flesh.

Jason....

The teller of the story said that God spoke to a prophet called Noah.

[_Jason Bourne]

The authors wrote about what they knew about, Shades. There is no possible way they could have known about the shape, size of the earth much less that there were other continents.

Please.

If it didn't happen, it is allegory, there should be no confusion whatsoever. It's a story about judgement.

Gee. I though God spoke to a prophet called Noah. God knew about the shape and size of the earth when he said he was going to destroy ALL flesh.

Jason....

The teller of the story said that God spoke to a prophet called Noah.

You are an internet Christian. :-)

[_Jersey Girl]

You are meshing two separate time frames, Jason. I'll step up to the plate and take my best swing here.

Show me New Testament evidence of any kind that demonstrates that the authors of the New Testament, Apostles and Christ himself presented the Flood, The Fall, Adam and Eve in literal terms. Show me where they said it actually happened and that there is no question that they weren't referring to ancient allegory.
old any more)

The New Testament writers based their theology on much of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was full of types that led to Christ. I will have to think if I have the energy to post New Testament proofs of my point. But I am surprised you demand this. I think you know the New Testament well enough. There are many, many references to Old Testament event, person, people, the Fall, and so on in order to prove the Jesus filled prophecy and saved is from the fall. Start with 1 Corinthians 15.

If you want me to absolutely prove the passages where the New Testament writers uses Old Testament examples were actually believed by them to be actual events well that is ridiculous. The New Testament is written in such a way that it is clear that they believed it or they were liars. Do you actually think the writers of the gospels thought Jesus did not believe Noah was real when he said "as it was in the day of Noah...?

When Jesus refered to "as it was in the day of Noe", he could easily have been referring to an ancient story and not a historical event.

Jason, you are reading into the scripts what you have been taught to read into them.

And yes, I agree that there are types and shadows, Jason. The Bible when viewed as Old Testament/New Testament or as a body of work in it's 66 book entirety is far more complex and fascinating than we typically give it credit for or are taught that it is.

I have one question for you...was the aspects of "types" (and I added "shadows") taught to you in your church or is that a result of your own personal study?

[_Jersey Girl]

The authors wrote about what they knew about, Shades. There is no possible way they could have known about the shape, size of the earth much less that there were other continents.

Please.

If it didn't happen, it is allegory, there should be no confusion whatsoever. It's a story about judgement.

Gee. I though God spoke to a prophet called Noah. God knew about the shape and size of the earth when he said he was going to destroy ALL flesh.

Jason....

The teller of the story said that God spoke to a prophet called Noah.

You are an internet Christian. :-)

And you like that.

;-)

I told you that I challenged my own religious upbringing. Believe me now?

[_JAK]

If a Christian can pick and choose what to believe in the Bible is fact versus myth, then what is the essence of being a Christian? What essential beliefs or characteristics must a Christian hold or have which will differentiate them from being non-Christian? Jersey Girl, Hana?

Well, marg,

If one is a very liberal Christian, he can take the entire biblical story as metaphor or allegory and just subscribe to what he thinks is reasonable in his today’s world. So in another 100 years, a liberal Christian may subscribe to even less than he does today.

On the other hand, a fundamentalist Christian, even today, is saddled with conservative doctrine which gives him little wiggle room to expand his interpretation to agnostic levels.

Or, pay your money and take your pick. Or pay no money and still take your pick. Or…

Sorry to interrupt. You didn’t ask me.

JAK

[_marg]

marg,

First I want to say that if you read the exchanges here, GoodK (and Shades) are arguing in the way I posted about on another board. I just want to point that out because this is a current example of that. Thank you for entering this thread.

Yes I see this is essentially the same topic.


marg:What essential beliefs or characteristics must a Christian hold or have which will differentiate them from being non-Christian?[/quote]

Jersey Girl: This is a hard question to answer because I don't know if I can articulate this correctly.

I think the single most fundamental belief (and I wouldn't say "characteristics" because I think characteristics can be shared with atheists as well) that a Christian must hold or have that separates them from non-Christians would be that Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God, entered human history, lived, taught, died as a sacrifice (the sacrificial lamb of God), resurrected, ascended and lives today in an immortal state.

You have likely read where I've stated that Jesus was the ultimate object lesson and literal word of God. I would add that to the above.[/quote]

This is what I was asking for. And what you say, I sort of had an appreciation of. The Adam and Eve story has to tie in to what you point out, because without that, the Christian God wouldn't need a blood sacrifice. It is with these essential features of Christian belief, that I'd agree with GoodK that Christianity is similarly as ridiculous in some of its doctrine to Mormonism. I agree with you that the Ancient storytellers of the Hebrew Bible may have intended their stories to be allegories, not to be used or valued as literally true.

Jersey Girl: There are those who believe that Jesus was simply a wise teacher and refer to themselves as Christians. Philosophically and apart from religion, I think that can also be true.

But this wouldn't be an essential criteria differentiating a Christian from a non. Atheists can believe if this person Jesus lived he would have been a wise teacher. Muslims & Jew believe Jesus was a wise teacher, so that alone is not a criteria separating Christians from others.



J.G: I don't think that all of the above, including my comments on the Bible, can be viewed in black and white terms. I think there is a healthy amount of gray area enough to keep us thinking and reflecting on what we believe, why we believe it and to continue that process throughout a life time.

Me, I'm comfortable with the gray area.

When I was a child in Sunday School, I was taught the story of Noah's Ark. No one said it was true or not true. They simply told the story. I see no reason for me, as an adult, not to pursue a study of scripture from an adult point of view. The Bible can't be written off or accepted as "true or false"....it is somewhere in between.

I agree. I think one can be Christian and not believe is various parts of the Bible as literal, but I do think there must be some parts of the Bible that are believed literally otherwise if it's all fantasy, myth and allegories there really is nothing in particular to believe in.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

I won't reply to your post this evening. When I return to the thread I'll try to address the following first:

This is what I was asking for. And what you say, I sort of had an appreciation of. The Adam and Eve story has to tie in to what you point out, because without that, the Christian God wouldn't need a blood sacrifice.

I knew you'd focus on that and I'll try to address it as best as I can. I disagree with your assumption so let's see what that looks like when I put it in a post.

I'll also go back into your post in it's entirety and respond to your comments.