Christianity vs Mormonism

[_the road to hana]

I think one can get away with not taking a lot literally and still maintain a Christian faith. The one major problem though is Adam and Eve and the Fall. It seems to me the New Testament bases the whole need for a savior on the Fall of man. If there was not a fall why do we need a savior?

Jews also believe in Adam, Eve and a Fall, despite not believing necesarily that Jesus Christ was the promised messiah.

I recommend reading the entries in the Jewish Encyclopedia regarding "Adam" and "Eve" for some added perspective. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 8&letter=A
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 7&letter=E

The final section on "Etymology" is particularly interesting, including this statement:

A closer examination of the narrative will show that the word is primarily used in a generic sense, and not as the name of an individual.

That perspective reflects the view of some in Christianity who see the names "Adam" and "Eve" as simply reflective of a nod to first parents, and not specifically the names of any individuals. The Jewish Encyclopedia entry tends to reflect a view that the first few chapters of Genesis are primarily a "moral history" of mankind, more than a literal one.

It's all stuff to think about, anyway. Mormons are certainly raised to think of the man Adam and the woman Eve as very specific individuals who existed, rather than generic terms attributed to ancient ancestors of a particular civilization.

Anyway, Jason, back to your point. The New Testament isn't necessary for people to believe in a Fall, since Jews share that belief. The divinity of Jesus Christ, or even verifiable existence, wouldn't be necessary for them to continue in that belief, obviously (and yes, they do have an encyclopedia entry on "Jesus Christ" which is also worth a read).

[_Jason Bourne]

If you're not saying that the Caananites knew the earth was round and that other countries existed, what are you saying when you refer to a global flood?

Dear God, Jersey Girl, Give me a Break! Wouldn't you rather abandon this argument and move on to one in which you have more footing?

What am I saying when I refer to a global flood?

Gen. 6:13
...the end of all flesh is com before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them: and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:17 And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.


Ok. Another weak argument demolished.

By the way, I gave up after just those two verses. The two chapters are full of references to flooding the entire Earth.

I'd love for you to finally quantify the point you are trying to make.

And again, this is ancient Caananite. Did the Caananite's understand that the earth was round, that there were other "countries" and have a concept of global?

If they didn't, how can you hold the above to a global flood perspective?

Jersey Girl

Honestly now, how many Christians from AD 1 to say 1900 thought this just applied to the local geography of Canaan? Do yo disagree that most likely the majority believed it was a literal flood of the whole earth? Do you dispute that many many Christians today still believe it and have apologetics for it?

THis may be your take and maybe there are internet Christians like shades argues there are internet Mormons. But I have no doubt there are a lot of Christians sitting in the pews of their fundamentalist Church's that woudl disagree with you. And they take the six day literal creation, Adam and Eve and the rest literal as well.

[_Jason Bourne]

The Caananite's, who produced the Flood story, grasp on geography has everything to do with the issue of local vs global flood.

I suppose that God could have flooded a flat earth just as easily as a round one, however, the Caananite's concept of what constituted "the earth" is what the story is based on. It takes away from the global flood perspective because the Caananite's had no concept of global as you do today.

For you to take the story out of the ancient cultural context in which it was written and attempt to "demolish" the global aspects (in these exchanges) based on YOUR understanding of what constitutes "global" is wrong-headed at best.

I have no problem with the story viewed as myth or allegory, however, your claim of "global" has nothing to do with the author's understanding of global.

The Bible doesn't teach, as you claim, a global flood in the way that global is understood today. For you to frame an ancient story written by ancient authors in contemporary terms, is way off base

The Christians at this web page think the flood was global:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html

As it seems do these:

http://www.nwcreation.net/dinosaurs.html

And these:

http://www.heraldmag.org/bookstore/booklet_flood.htm

[_the road to hana]

The Caananite's, who produced the Flood story, grasp on geography has everything to do with the issue of local vs global flood.

I suppose that God could have flooded a flat earth just as easily as a round one, however, the Caananite's concept of what constituted "the earth" is what the story is based on. It takes away from the global flood perspective because the Caananite's had no concept of global as you do today.

For you to take the story out of the ancient cultural context in which it was written and attempt to "demolish" the global aspects (in these exchanges) based on YOUR understanding of what constitutes "global" is wrong-headed at best.

I have no problem with the story viewed as myth or allegory, however, your claim of "global" has nothing to do with the author's understanding of global.

The Bible doesn't teach, as you claim, a global flood in the way that global is understood today. For you to frame an ancient story written by ancient authors in contemporary terms, is way off base

The Christians at this web page think the flood was global:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html

As it seems do these:

http://www.nwcreation.net/dinosaurs.html

And these:

http://www.heraldmag.org/bookstore/booklet_flood.htm

I think it's already been acknowledged that there are some Christians who believe that the flood of Noah was global. It's also been demonstrated that not all Christians believe that.

The point GoodK is trying to make by demonstrating that some believe it is that all believe it, and that reasoning is faulty.

[_Jason Bourne]

GoodK,

Now I'm going to say something that will come off totally irritating, but what else is new, huh?

I have engaged and been engaged by skeptics for several years now. The arguments that you put up to "prove" Christianity false, ridiculous, etc, aren't arguments that you've studied and reasoned out for yourself. You are parroting arguments borrowed from others. The one's that you've presented so far are what I privately refer to as "skepti-drivel". That is to say they are claims without sound proof or solid reasoning.

I know this like I know my own name to the point where I could write your posts on this thread.

Until you're able to back your claims with sound reasoning that you yourself have developed and studied out, someone will always be able to pick them part.

Skepti-drivel 101:

Come ON believer! Are you saying that the GLOBAL flood REALLY happened? THE WHOLE EARTH was flooded? That's what YOUR Bible says! Don't you even BELIEVE YOUR Bible?


GoodK, the only problem with that little strawman argument is that the authors didn't write about a global flood of epic proportions that covered the entire planet. They wrote about, at best, a localized flood. Whether or not there really was a localized flood is irrelevant, it is a story about judgement and most likely allegory.

Had you been a moderately well read skeptic, you would have challenged me with quotes from Christ regarding the "days of Noe" and even then, I could still pick apart your argument about that quote and then turn around and challenge your using a quote from Christ to support your argument when you yourself have challenged the historical Jesus on this very thread.

That is not to say that all skeptic arguments are skepti-drivel. But the one you attempted to defend sure is. Your trying to place a contemporary meaning on an ancient text is no less "ridiculous" than the religion you attempted to use it against.

This of course is one view and certianly not accepted by many Christians One need not believe the whole earth deluge to be Christian nor is it a death blow to the Christian faith.

However, when Christianity has historically believed this and all the other fantaticall supernatural claims were literal, especially the guys that wrote the Bible, then where does one draw the line. What is and is not literal. And it would seem that some things that are supernatural for which there is no proof must be taken literally or the whole of what Christianity means crumbles. Were Adam and Eve literal? The fall? The reasons for a savior? The exodus, the plagues in Egypt, the parting of the red sea? Was Jesus' birth a miracle, did he really die, raise the dead and rise from the dead? Where does the line get drawn between literal and not? I would love to see Richard comment on this. He seems more fundamental.
Jersey Girl is clearly the Christian equal of what Shades calls an internet Mormon. There is a lot she dismisses. There are many Christian conservatives who do not agree with her on the flood and almost none that agree with her views on what the Bible says about homosexuality.

So while Goodk may be to narrowly focused there is no doubt that the basis of the Christian faith have many problems and it must be taken as much on faith as any other religion.

[_Jason Bourne]

The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, GoodK.

Your interpretation you mean. Really, I think most conservative Christians believe in a literal world wide flood, and view the rest of the Bible stories literally.

By "conservative" I assume you mean EVs primarily.

Yes

[_Dr. Shades]

I think the problem, Shades, is that people erroneously assume when they hear someone say that the Bible is the "word of God" that God actually authored the pages.

My point was to illustrate that, since a global flood didn't actually happen but the scriptures actually require one, the scriptures--at least in that instance--are false.

[_the road to hana]

This of course is one view and certianly not accepted by many Christians One need not believe the whole earth deluge to be Christian nor is it a death blow to the Christian faith.

However, when Christianity has historically believed this and all the other fantaticall supernatural claims were literal

All of us are only operating from our own spheres of experience and influence. How do we know that "Christianity has historically believed this and all the other fanatically supernatural claims were literal?" Because that's what someone else told us.

Most of us here are or have been Mormons, and if we didn't have an experience in any other Christian religion, we pretty much took for granted whatever perspective we were given in that religion regarding literality and Christianity. No doubt people who've been through LDS temples for their own endowments believe in a very literal Adam and Eve. They assume everyone else does, too, and might be completely unaware that a large segment of the world views those Old Testament stories in a more allegorical sense.

I think there's a difference between individual members of Christianity making their own judgments (as you're referring to them as "Internet" Christians), and entire denominations taking a lead in directing their members one direction or another toward literality or away from it.

But Mormons, and former Mormons, can't just look to their own preconceived notions of the rest of Christianity as necessarily being accurate.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I think it most likely that the flood was more symbolic as opposed to literal. That goes for everything in the Bible.

::P

[DrW]

Hey Dart, ya posted the below, into which i'll respond in bold:

Yea, Roger, we're all on her string huh? RM: How ever ya see it. Include or exclude yerself...

Are you guys so stupid as to think any of this is news to us? RM: To some probably? To others, not... "Stupid"? What makes ya use such a word?

As if we are not aware of the scientifically based facts about the flood, etc? Jesus didn't require anyone to believe any of this stuff, so it can hardly be pegged into the fundamental stuff that makes Christainity what it is. RM: I agree with your reference to Jesus. But, i'm also aware that folks other than Jesus would have us believe unbelievable other tales, such as the big-fish-story, controling nature and such, blood atonement, the fall, Adam's rib>>>>>>>

Despite all the science that refutes ancient/biblical allegory, Christianity is alive and well and most Christian scientists don't feel any need to compromise their Christianity with science. In fact, most scientists who brought us modern science, were Christians operating on Christian assumptions about the universe. You owe it more than you'll ever know. RM: Yes Dart, generic Christians contribute immensly to our comforts and progression, simply by living in a "Christian" country. Some might carry bibles to church on Sunday, or Saturday. Thanks to all who accept the laws of science. Why would you have think 'we' don't "know", or appreciate such folks? Personally i'm not prejudiced towards "Christians". IAM one, just not of your persuasion...

Only the idiots think they can wrap Christainity up in a convenient Old Testament and start dishing out refutations based on that alone. It doesn't work that way. The inerrancy fad has a history to it that came long after Christianity and it is currently on its way out - at least the extreme version of it. RM: "Idiots"? Why do you choose such words? However, there are those who resort to some very questionable--in most cases unanswerable--means to promote/justify their position. I think you are correct about some unreasonable leanings being, "on (their) way out." This would be simply intelligence prevailing over ignorance. Wouldn't you say? An LDS saying, "The glory of "God" is intelligence." To which I respectfully add, "when used."

Maybe this says more about your ignorance about what Christianity is, wouldn't ya think? RM: Could well be. Cuz i sure don't think it's what LDS, and other fundamentalist groups think Jesus-stuff to be. How could 'they' be so 'rong? ;-) Ya know what I mean Bro?

Before giving GoodK any credit, wander on over to the Zeitgeist thread and check out how she is squirming after comitting herself to defending the untenable; that ridiculous anti-religion flick that has a special place in her heart. RM: Thanks for the site. I'll do that.

It proves you guys are going to stick with a thesis so long as it conforms to your bigoted presuppositions. RM: Seems most folks do that, whatever the issue... The only thing GoodK is right about is when she admits she is ignorant and uninformed on the issues, and admits she researches nothing. RM: I can't comment on that. Although she does seem to have substanciation for many of her statement. Did you read her references to the Board Of Education's curriculum re Noah's Ark teaching in her community? Very interesting read,check it out.

Dart, where do you see yourself in evolving Christianism/(Mormonism?)? What have you "let-go-of"? What would you find most difficult to "let-go"? Are you LDS,' TBM or otherwise? Denomination if not LDS? Warm regards, Roger