GoodK wrote: My point is that there are no better reasons to believe that Jesus Christ actually lived, than there is to believe that he will spend part of his time in the Second Coming in Jackson County, Missouri.
So this is about whether or not there was a literal, historical Jesus?
Christians that critique the tenets of Mormon faith are, in my opinion, hypocrites. My point is that there are no better reasons to believe that Jesus Christ actually lived, than there is to believe that he will spend part of his time in the Second Coming in Jackson County, Missouri.
A hypocrite is one who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. An argument cannot be hypocritical.
Are you serious in asserting that
1) no better reasons to believe that Jesus Christ actually lived - a historical argument, is equivalent to
2) hat he will spend part of his time in the Second Coming in Jackson County, Missouri.
The definition of mainstream, creedal Christianity does not include a stipulation that says the flood was global.
This sort of looks like a straw man to me.
I did not say that Christianity has to adhere to the global flood to be Christian.
I listed the global flood as one of many things I find "manifestly false" in the Bible.
Saying that not ALL Christians believe in the global flood is hardly in contradiction to what I've stated.
I can believe you when you say that Creedal Christianity does not include such a stipulation, it does not change the fact that Bible contains stories that are not factually accurate. Nor does it change the fact that the Bible is the foundation of Christianity.
GoodK, I'm not trying to set up a straw man - I just think I know where you are going with this.
If someone from within a belief system is free to interpret certain portions of their sacred text figuratively, or allegorically, because their creed does not hold them to a dogma that does not allow for that freedom, then who are you, an outsider, to tell them that their creed ought to be adjusted to not allow them to do so?
You apparently don't believe the flood was global, because the facts don't support it, but you also won't allow for an allegorical reading of that flood.
Why not?
Well, I will allow for it, what I won't allow is Christians who claim that nothing in the Bible is true or false.
I don't accept an allegorical reading as a representation of the Christian faith for several reasons.
1. The allegorical interpretation does not lend support to the claim that Jesus Christ exists, that the Bible is the word of God, or that Christianity is true.
2. The allegorical interpretation of the flood is not what is being taught to children.
3. The allegorical interpretation of the flood is only the result of intelligence prevailing over religious claims in the latter part of Christianity's history.
Where on earth are you getting this from? Prior it was "true-sacred-important" in a previous post and now it's "true-false" and not only that you're harping on allegory. Is it that you can't stretch yourself to think beyond the black and white categories you're attempting to forward? What is it about the following that you can't sort out?
he 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.
Your penchant for compartmentalized thinking is astounding.
And this to AF:
You were making some decent points until now.
is hysterical! I have yet to see you make a point of any kind, much less "decent" and support it with evidence. Your opinions and characterizations of posters evidences and proofs do not provide refutation of said points in any form or fashion. You comment as if you are taking part in a discussion while not taking part in it at all.
You cannot categorize the entire Bible in terms of "true/false". The categories you're attempting to place on it are in and of themselves, false.
The parables of Christ cannot be described as true or false. They are parables.
The Proverbs cannot be described as true or false. They are proverbs.
Whatever it is that you cannot understand about that, I have no idea It's possible that you simply are here to screw around and nothing more. Whatever it is I'm not wasting my time further in attempting to engage you in thought.
I take the Bible as a story book. That too with the Book of Mormon. I just read them as they are. I don't care who wrote them, when they were written or if they are true or false. The fact that I can visualise and hold them and look apon them more than once suggests they are real to me. The purpose of scriptures as well as any other book is to learn and take something positive from them. For that is why God has given them. Not to be debated whether they are factual truth, but to understand the concepts and gain understanding in life. Like say how one might react to a certain situation, had they had prior knowledge to how the charactor Jesus dealt with things, they might have reacted differently. It is not about whether such events happened or not. Seek ye the spiritual things of the world, for they are more true and more firm a foundation than any factual evidence of the materialistic existence of something. Am I making sense here? It realy doesn't matter. I personally don't think the events etc. to be literal. Not in any essence. I think they are merely the works of inspired philosophers and it's all about interpreting the symbols. It is like when people meditate and they use mantras and these sorts of things. The idea behind those is to gain insight for oneself, this is good because truth cannot be written in words, not even close to it. But interpretation of symbols bring you closer to the meaning. Jesus may be just knowledge. Not a man at all, but pure knowledge. He might be anything. It is what we as individuals take from these things and life itself that really matters.
He could well be. He could be anything and everything. But the whole point is, what "Jesus" does for you. What the books do for you. It does not matter if there was a flood because we were not there. God is not going to send you to hell for not believing there was ever a great flood, but he would want that you learned something useful from it.