Christianity vs Mormonism

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

You said the magic words.

The authors actually did write about a global flood of epic proportions that covered the entire planet. If they didn't, then:

• Noah wouldn't have built an ark. He would've just walked uphill.
• Noah wouldn't have gathered together any animals.
• When God put the rainbow in the sky, what exactly was He promising He'd never do again?

Whether or not there really was a localized flood is irrelevant, it is a story about judgement and most likely allegory.

I disagree. It's completely relevant, 'cause if it didn't happen, then it's false.

If it's an allegory, then it's a very poor one, since it creates far more confusion than it solves.

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.

Go back and read Rays' reference to Luke 2. Was all the world taxed? What constituted "all the world" for the New Testament writers?

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades,

I think the "confusion" you mentioned originates because you are shifting perspectives instead of accomodating them into one full view.

The story, in my view, is obviously allegory. Believe me when I tell you, I have tried to argue it completely from a literal perspective and it doesn't hold water, no pun intended. But something in those old debates was missing and you're doing it just as GoodK was doing it earlier.

You are swinging back and forth between symbolism and literalism.

You are looking at the impossible aspects (ark, two of every kind, etc.) and yet at the same time you are arguing for the literality of the "global" nature of the flood because that's what the author's wrote about.

No, they didn't and you can't have it both ways.

The story obviously wasn't written by an author who lived during the time frame of the flood. The Pentetuch itself couldn't have possibly be written by one author much less could it have been Moses. Just throwing that in for good measure. And it certainly couldn't have been written by an author who lived within real life proximity of the flood even if the flood actually took place.

It was allegory/tribal folk legend that was handed down generation to generation.

Then it was recorded.

Neither the people who transmitted it orally nor the author who wrote it down, had any concept of "global". It didn't exist for them.

The Bible doesn't teach that the flood was "global", that is your mistake and the mistake of to others who read into it what it doesn't say and couldn't have possibly been known. Your framing the flood in global terms is misleading and wrong-headed.

You are placing a contemporary meaning on an ancient script.

And it doesn't work.

The only way to look at the Flood Story that makes consistent sense, is as allegory. When viewed as allegory, it makes sense start to finish.

If you think otherwise, I'd like you to demonstrate where it wouldn't.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think there are Biblical scholars who would dispute that the "scriptures actually require one."

Here's what I found on translation issues regarding the use of the word that is translated as "earth" in English translations of Genesis, from the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the flood: [SNIP!]

Why don't they just skip the middleman and admit that the flood never happened? It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too, like David P. Wright.

None of this half-and-half stuff. They should just admit that it's made up.

Because Shades, not attempting to speak for scholars mind you, but the story itself could have possibly been based on the Black Sea Flood. Why should they admit that it's made up when it could have had some basis in reality and they aren't willing to pass judgement on an ancient script?

I'm assuming that scholars such as the entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia know that there could have been a basis in reality and whether or not there was a flood of some kind used for the bones of the story, the story is still about judgement.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm not sure there's scientific support for no floods having happened in recorded history, which would make taking that stance difficult.

I'm referring to the whole Noah building the ark and gathering animals thing. Sure, floods happened, just no ark and animal-gathering.

So what difference does the ark make? In another post you said it was about the "global" flood. Here you're saying it's about the ark and animal-gathering.

Which is it?

For all we know, there was a localized flood, some guy had built a boat, grabbled up his family and some animals to ride it out and the story was embellished over the generations.

What difference does it make?

Flood or not, ark or not, the story is still about judgement. The overarching theme of the story is one of judgement.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Does anyone remember Fortigurn? He was good for this type of discussion (the flood issue).

*Sigh* (I hate when posters disappear...well in most cases).

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, they are full of references flooding the "entire Earth" in terms of what the ancients knew as the "entire Earth".

Same applies to Caesar "taxing the whole world".

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.

Hope he didn't miss Australian Aborigines. :)

Shades,

Here is Ray's comment above. Was all the world taxed? Were folks in Jersey taxed? Were there folks in Jersey at the time?

You tell me.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jason

Again, this seems to be a backpeddling from what Christians believed for thousands of years as well as the apostles that wrote the New Testament. Much of their theology is based on a literal read of creation, Adam, Eve, the Fall, the Flood and so on. References in the New Testament indicate that these events were believed LITERALLY. Not one person has answered my question about Adam and Eve, the Fall and the resulting need for Christ. This is Christianity 101. The apostle Paul's arguments for a literal savior are rooted in a literal read of the scriptures he had then. If the flood was not literal was Adam and Eve? if not was the Exodus? How about Abraham and the covenant? What about Jesus? Was he real? The son of God literally? Did he need to save us or is this all just figurative. Did he die for your sins and rise from the dead? If you start dismantling what is literal and what is not where does it stop?

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.

And if you think you can demonstrate without a doubt that they were teaching in terms of reality, then does it occur to you that while Paul, etc. may have accepted it as historical, that Jesus was simply teaching in terms of the culture he was appealing to?

Abraham, I'm thinking was literal but there is no proof for Abraham that I know of unless you count two graves that supposedly hold his remains.

Jesus, I think yes was literal.

Did he die for our sins and rise from the grave, yes I think so. I see nothing in the time frame that wrote in protest of Christianity. When the Gospels were authored, I see no other type of writing that discredits them. Of course there was alot going on in 1st Century times.

There is no proof of the Exodus unless it is viewed in terms of another time frame where some folks seem to think it fits nicely.

You ask what happens when you start to chip away at literalism. Jason Bourne, I'm shocked by that question. Do you seriously take the entire Bible literally?

The Bible is a collection of books, Jason. Are you saying that we need to look at the entire body of work in an either/or view?

How so?

Would you place that same stipulation on the Revelation? If the Revelation is symbolic do you you think the rest of the Bible needs to be viewed symbolically? Are the Table of Tribes symbolic?

The Bible is many things. If Christians have taught literalism throughout then maybe Christians should THINK ABOUT what they're reading and learn about the culture it was written in and for. The biggest mistake that Christians make is not studying the ancients. We know next to nothing about Hebrew customs and culture.

Jersey Girl

(not shouting at you, too lazy to bold any more)

[_marg]

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?

[Guest]

It seems fairly clear to my view that the thinking in the Bible used the science and history that people understood at that time. This can be seen by the result. There is some history history of the Isrealite people and their kingdom. Prior to that history gets very very thin. They did not know a lot details. It is fairly easy to criticize Biblical science, it is after all two to three thousand years out of date. People may discover that what is offered is not the science or special knowledge of prehisotic times. Those are outdated curiosities.

I consdier myself a christian believer but I see no reason to worry about a possible real flood. I am sure there were a few and it is even possible one was a start for the folklore and mythology built up about a flood which had become very old by the time of Moses. I think the story in the Bible is a rethinking of the old myths inorder to create a parable reflecting certain quetions about God. It is a story reflecting the puzzle about God who on the one hand is being asked to punish evil while on the other hand God is forgiving. The final answer to that puzzle is not in the story but raises the question with a suggestion of a possible solution. I see no way to understand it as history but it is understandable as a fictional story.

Jews have been creating fictional stories as part of their theological discussion for centuries up to the present. I think they have a better sense of what some stories in the Old Testament are, fiction, than Christian outsiders who sometimes get into a competitin over who is the most believer believer. I am not inclined to try and compete in that compitition. I think it distorts the Biblical story into a collection of information to believe instead of a call to find friendship with God. Its an irony that some of the information that compititors try to maintain is fiction.

Hi Jason I am going to add a few response between your comments. I thought they were interesting questions.

Again, this seems to be a backpeddling from what Christians believed for thousands of years as well as the apostles
..............
Huck notes,
jason, I see change as a developement and clarification not a back peddleing. Of course if something central to the identity and meaning be dropped in the process of changing then backpeddling might be a good characterization. I think you suspect such a loss could be in the offing I will try to say a few things about why I do not see it that way
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
that wrote the New Testament. Much of their theology is based on a literal read of creation, Adam, Eve, the Fall, the Flood and so on. References in the New Testament indicate that these events were believed LITERALLY.
........
Huck notes,
I think that it is entirely possible to teach a true ideas making a parallel to a fictional character. One could compare a polotician to Mcbeth if appropriate and not decrease the reality of the politician because he is compared to a fiction. I think it is clear that the book of Job is fiction from word one to the last word. Some people have made comparisons of Job and Jesus. Jesus does not become less real because of this comparison. It could even be imagined that my estimation of Job could be wrong. If Job was a real person that would not be evidence that Jesus was. That second part has to be looked at on its own merits.

You point out that there are specific doubious events that people have understood in the past as literal events and that that literal understanding is the foundation of critical Christian beliefs. I would not doubt that many people in the past took some stories far more literally than I do. I do not think it is possible to know how literally Jesus understood the flood, he may well have assumed it literal. Science and history have learned a few things in the past two thousand years. The second point is a parallel to the comparison of real and fictional people. If Adam is a character in a fiction Jesus atonement is not made unreal by Pauls comparison, as in Adam so in Jesus. There would be something real in Adam for the Christian doctrines to work. I think that is our condition of being shaped by a history of evil. I think that centeral observation is objectively true(porvided one is sensible enough to allow that people are more than that problem and have possitive possiblities as well) I see the problem of human evil, which the fall story pictures, to be real enough that I do not see the fictional dimension of the Adam story as changing the understanding or the problem. I believe Jesus to be real, the problem of sin to be real, so am not troubled by the fact that the first humans would more likely be a related population instead of an immortal couple. (this is probably one of several reasons I think the Mormon notion that Adam fell that men might be is a bit of a dead horse)
..................
Not one person has answered my question about Adam and Eve, the Fall and the resulting need for Christ. This is Christianity 101. The apostle Paul's arguments for a literal savior are rooted in a literal read of the scriptures he had then. If the flood was not literal was Adam and Eve? if not was the Exodus? How about Abraham and the covenant? What about Jesus? Was he real? The son of God literally? Did he need to save us or is this all just figurative. Did he die for your sins and rise from the dead? If you start dismantling what is literal and what is not where does it stop?
........
Huck notes,
Where does it stop? I do not see any reason to believe that if one part of the Bible is fiction then all of it is. Sounds paranoic, pardon the word. The Bible is composed of a variety of kinds of writing. Jesus told parables does that mean we should think his actual actions fiction? There is no rational connection. If something we are told about him is a fiction that would be a characteristic of some particular story not the fact that some other story like Job is fiction.

Lke Jersey Girl I can list various things in the Bible which I think are history instead of fiction. it is no fiction that Jerusalem was defeated by Babylon. It may not fit argument but for my own mind it is important to notice that all history has some overlapping qualities with fiction. It seems to me that the treatment of history in the Bible concentrates on turning even the soberest of facts into parables.Some places that process in subdued as in Kings or Samuel. Someplaces that processt is so strong that one may be unsure of the actual course of events as in the Exodus. However I do not see that as a loss. It is the substance of the parables that I value in that process.
...............




I here this all the time about Mormonism. I may be a more liberal Mormon. I may think Joseph Smith was a prophet in a sense. That he started out inspired as part of a restoration movement but maybe he added things that should not have been added. I am often jumped on for that. Where does is stop?

Or so called internet Mormons or apologists. When they defend the LDS Church in a similar vein and Huck and Jersey Girl are here they are told that they are just not representing what Mormonism is about. I say the same thing to you traditional Christians. Your theology, and mine since the LDS Church is based on Christian theology, is based on some key teachings being literal
.......
Huck notes,
I can certanly agree that there must be some things that are literal for the Bible to be communicating. I think it is literal that God created the world and creatures and humans. I think it is literal that humans develope a capacity to evil which the previous animals do not have. It is the dark side of our potential to create. I think it is literally true that God calls people and inspires people. I think it is literal that God choose Isreal to be a blessing to the entire world and that blessing is centered on Jesus. I think it is literal that Jesus offers eternal life with him and a new heaven and earth recreated through sharing his love.
............

. If they are not then the need for a savior simply does not exist.

[_huckelberry]

edited to shorten the mysteriosu double post, no reason to bore folks twice.

Jason said, When they defend the LDS Church in a similar vein and Huck and Jersey Girl are here they are told that they are just not representing what Mormonism is about. I say the same thing to you traditional Christians. Your theology, and mine since the LDS Church is based on Christian theology, is based on some key teachings being literal
.......

I think it is reasonable to allow the LDS some slack to make changes. Why not? I might note that the LDS not only have an authoritarian prophetic office which I do not believe for my denominaton or do I see in others but LDS view that authority as very important.

Now I can see that authority need not be so absulute as to admit no room for change and adjustment. I think it is theoritically possile for LDS authority to involve change in time. However people who do not feel confident about that authority are going to question the amount and kind of change. I wouldn't see it as a decisive matter, other things are more imortant in my personal evaluation of the question. There are enough complications that different people are bound to make different evaluations of the reliablity of LDS authority.