Christianity vs Mormonism

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Locked
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

Jason Bourne wrote: Not one person has answered my question about Adam and Eve, the Fall and the resulting need for Christ. This is Christianity 101.


Sorry, Jason, I didn't even notice this post until I saw Jersey Girl responding to it later in the thread.

If you go back a few pages, I think you'll find I did at least attempt to respond to your question about Adam and Eve, the Fall and the resulting need for a Savior/messiah. I pointed you in the direction of some entries from the Jewish Encyclopedia to (1) demonstrate to you that one doesn't need to have a Christian perspective to believe there was a Fall, requiring a messiah (since Jews also believe this), and (2) demonstrate to you that belief in "Adam" and "Eve" is not necessarily belief in two particular individuals who had those names, but can be construed as a more generic belief in "first parents," at the beginning of recorded human history.

Maybe none of that helped you. But I did try to respond to your question, whether it was helpful or not.

**************

Edited to add: I went to the entry on "Adam" in the Catholic Encyclopedia and found this, which you might find interesting (I recommend reading the entire article for context of the comments, but this paragraph was noteworthy in light of the previous post I made to you regarding the Jewish Encyclopedia entries):

It is a well-known fact that, partly from a desire to satisfy pious curiosity by adding details to the too meagre biblical accounts, and partly with ethical intent, there grew up in later Jewish as well as in early Christian and Mohammedan tradition a luxuriant crop of legendary lore around the names of all the important personages of the Old Testament. It was therefore only natural that the story of Adam and Eve should receive special attention and be largely developed by this process of embellishment. These additions, some of which are extravagant and puerile, are chiefly imaginary, or at best based on a fanciful understanding of some slight detail of the sacred narrative. Needless to say that they do not embody any real historic information, and their chief utility is to afford an example of the pious popular credulity of the times as well as of the slight value to be attached to the so-called Jewish traditions when they are invoked as an argument in critical discussion. Many rabbinical legends concerning our first parents are found in the Talmud, and many others were contained in the apocryphal Book of Adam now lost, but of which extracts have come down to us in other works of a similar character (see MAN). The most important of these legends, which it is not the scope of the present article to reproduce, may be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia, I, art. "Adam", and as regards the Christian legends, in Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, s.v.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

This is somewhat peripheral to the discussion, but I note that the LDS Church put out a news release from its newsroom yesterday, entitled "Reverence for the Bible," which has some interesting things to say about how (in apparently semi-official LDS view) the Bible is interpreted. I'll just excerpt a couple of paragraphs here (any emphasis added is mine):

There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.

The Church does not strictly subscribe to any of these interpretive approaches. Rather, in the words of Joseph Smith, it regards the Bible to be the word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly” (8th Article of Faith). Accordingly, Church members believe that during the centuries-long process in which fallible human beings compiled, translated and transcribed the Bible, various errors entered the text. However, this does not override the overwhelming predominance of truth within the Bible. As Elder Ballard noted, “Without the Bible, we would not know of His Church then, nor would we have the fullness of His gospel now.” Part of that fullness is the Bible’s seminal instruction that God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. The Bible is a living invitation to know personally the sacred revelatory experience that fills its pages.


http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... -the-bible
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

goodk wrote:so here are a couple just off the top of my head:

A global flood that cleansed the earth, a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet, pregnancy without sex, diseases are caused by sins, two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population, something named God created the Earth in about 7 days - or at least in 6 steps. These things I believe are manifestly false to anyone who has made it past the fifth grade.


Actually, the person you listed these for initially wasn't me, but I'll respond to each:

*global flood that cleansed the earth - Addressed in previous posts, was localized, interpreted in the context of the viewer as extensive

*a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet - See above (also addressed in previous posts)

*pregnancy without sex - Scientifically possible currently as well as in the past

*diseases caused by sins - Certain things became "sins" in Levitical law in order to prevent illness or disease, so this would reflect thinking at the time in context

*two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population - Addressed in previous posts to Jason, the names are more generic than specific

*God created the earth in 7 days, or 6 steps - How early civililzation viewed the creation process, not God dictating to a stenographer
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_GoodK

Re: Mis Analysis on Religion

Post by _GoodK »

Jason Bourne wrote:

Even if more moderate Christians no longer defend the global flood does not mean that they are open to the scientific method being applied to their beliefs. I have yet to meet a Christian that doesn't rely on faith, and using faith is, well, below the curve. (or is it behind the curve?)


We use faith in all sorts of activities in life. Faith in the metaphysical aspects of spiritual life is proper and good. Why do you think faith is behind the curve?


Sorry, somehow I missed this.

I should clarify, I think there are "good kinds" of faith. Faith in the sense that you believe in yourself, thinking positively, is certainly useful. I am talking about the faith that is preached in churches and scriptures, the "faith" that instructs us to believe false religious dogma without question. Faith that tells you being skeptical of said dogma is a negative thing.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Re: Mis Analysis on Religion

Post by _the road to hana »

GoodK wrote: I should clarify, I think there are "good kinds" of faith. Faith in the sense that you believe in yourself, thinking positively, is certainly useful. I am talking about the faith that is preached in churches and scriptures, the "faith" that instructs us to believe false religious dogma without question. Faith that tells you being skeptical of said dogma is a negative thing.


I think that's more correctly called "blind faith."
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_GoodK

Re: Mis Analysis on Religion

Post by _GoodK »

the road to hana wrote:
GoodK wrote: I should clarify, I think there are "good kinds" of faith. Faith in the sense that you believe in yourself, thinking positively, is certainly useful. I am talking about the faith that is preached in churches and scriptures, the "faith" that instructs us to believe false religious dogma without question. Faith that tells you being skeptical of said dogma is a negative thing.


I think that's more correctly called "blind faith."


Yes you are right. Thank you.
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

the road to hana wrote:
goodk wrote:so here are a couple just off the top of my head:

A global flood that cleansed the earth, a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet, pregnancy without sex, diseases are caused by sins, two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population, something named God created the Earth in about 7 days - or at least in 6 steps. These things I believe are manifestly false to anyone who has made it past the fifth grade.


Actually, the person you listed these for initially wasn't me, but I'll respond to each:

*global flood that cleansed the earth - Addressed in previous posts, was localized, interpreted in the context of the viewer as extensive

*a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet - See above (also addressed in previous posts)

*pregnancy without sex - Scientifically possible currently as well as in the past

*diseases caused by sins - Certain things became "sins" in Levitical law in order to prevent illness or disease, so this would reflect thinking at the time in context

*two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population - Addressed in previous posts to Jason, the names are more generic than specific

*God created the earth in 7 days, or 6 steps - How early civililzation viewed the creation process, not God dictating to a stenographer


I apologize if I confused you with whomever asked me for that list.
Thanks for answering anyways. Can I ask you a couple questions? First let me say, I am glad you don't seem to take the Bible too seriously. You certainly don't strike me as the Shirley Phelps type of Christian...

Would you say that your responses reflect the average Christian response?

Would you say that these responses reflect what Christianity teaches it's members (including children), or rather a product of your own reasoning and intellect?

What religious faith do these responses reflect?
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

Jersey Girl wrote: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


This is a common canard from defenders of religious dogma. You either believe that the Bible is the most important, true, and sacred book on Earth or you aren't really a Christian. You also either believe Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected three days later or you aren't a Christian.

there is a healthy amount of gray area


Only in religion do you find "gray areas" being relished.

I think my quote below from Sam Harris applies well.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

GoodK wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
goodk wrote:so here are a couple just off the top of my head:

A global flood that cleansed the earth, a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet, pregnancy without sex, diseases are caused by sins, two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population, something named God created the Earth in about 7 days - or at least in 6 steps. These things I believe are manifestly false to anyone who has made it past the fifth grade.


Actually, the person you listed these for initially wasn't me, but I'll respond to each:

*global flood that cleansed the earth - Addressed in previous posts, was localized, interpreted in the context of the viewer as extensive

*a water vessel that held two of every species on the planet - See above (also addressed in previous posts)

*pregnancy without sex - Scientifically possible currently as well as in the past

*diseases caused by sins - Certain things became "sins" in Levitical law in order to prevent illness or disease, so this would reflect thinking at the time in context

*two people, named Adam and Eve, are the creators of the human population - Addressed in previous posts to Jason, the names are more generic than specific

*God created the earth in 7 days, or 6 steps - How early civililzation viewed the creation process, not God dictating to a stenographer


I apologize if I confused you with whomever asked me for that list.
Thanks for answering anyways. Can I ask you a couple questions? First let me say, I am glad you don't seem to take the Bible too seriously. You certainly don't strike me as the Shirley Phelps type of Christian...


You'd be mistaken to assume that just because someone responds to your questions on this thread or points out flaws in your reasoning, that they subscribe to any particular religion. I pointed that out to you earlier on this thread.

Would you say that your responses reflect the average Christian response?


I doubt there is any such thing. I think I've pointed out to you that there are varying points of view within the greater expanse of what might be perceived as "Christianity," including denominational as well as individual differences.

Would you say that these responses reflect what Christianity teaches it's members (including children), or rather a product of your own reasoning and intellect?


I have spoken to what's publicly available on the Internet that I've provided on this thread. My reasoning and intellect, as well as my experience and research, inform me that your characterizations of "Christianity" are too narrowly focused.

What religious faith do these responses reflect?


To the extent that I've cited from other sources (like the Jewish Encyclopedia or the Catholic Encyclopedia), they reflect the faith of the authors.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

GoodK wrote: You either believe that the Bible is the most important, true, and sacred book on Earth or you aren't really a Christian. You also either believe Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected three days later or you aren't a Christian.


Again, this is a false assertion. The second part might be true, but the first is not.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Locked