Christianity vs Mormonism

[_Abinadi's Fire]

I was just going to say something similar, harmony.

GoodK, in mainstream creedal Christianity there is no requirement that states a believer must adhere to a literal, global flood. You seem to be saying that mainstream creedal Christianity should adjust their own belief system to reflect such, and if they don't, then they cannot be considered Christians because they don't conform to your requirements, which are external to an internally-derived creed.

Why should anyone identifying with a certain belief system conform their belief system to another person who is not even within that belief system?

Similarly, can a critic of Mormonism excommunicate someone from within Mormonism if they reject BY's Adam-God doctrine?

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Says the definition of Christianity.

The definition of mainstream, creedal Christianity does not include a stipulation that says the flood was global.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

I'm waiting for some sort of quote or reference to be cited that backs up the claim that the Bible isn't the most important, sacred, true book in Christianity.

You are?

[_GoodK]

Says the definition of Christianity.

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 stipulation that the flood was global.

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 at odds with my argument.

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.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Says the definition of Christianity.

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?

[_GoodK]

Says the definition of Christianity.

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.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

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.

Well, GoodK, the foundation of Christianity is Christ, from what I understand. And certainly we're told the Bible points towards Christ who is the foundation.

As for the stories being factually accurate - if the flood is seen as a parable, then it is still "true" in the sense that those who are not in the "ark" are not saved, allegorically refering to those who are "in Christ."

[_GoodK]

I'm waiting for some sort of quote or reference to be cited that backs up the claim that the Bible isn't the most important, sacred, true book in Christianity.

You are?

Yes. I'd love to know how we can know what stories to take seriously in the Bible. Is the story of Jesus allegory as well?

[_Abinadi's Fire]

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.

GoodK, the allegorical interpretation of the flood story is one of being "in Christ" for salvation - that is most decidedly being taught within mainstream Christianity.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

I'm waiting for some sort of quote or reference to be cited that backs up the claim that the Bible isn't the most important, sacred, true book in Christianity.

You are?

Yes. I'd love to know how we can know what stories to take seriously in the Bible. Is the story of Jesus allegory as well?

I think all of the stories can be taken seriously.

But if there is no literal person as Jesus, then it becomes just a collection of morality stories.