GoodK wrote: 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.
A perverted version of morality...
I don't know, GoodK, the words of Jesus in the Bible are powerful - I don't think I would call those words perverted.
From slavery, to anti-semitism, to murdering adulterers, heretics and homosexuals...
But yes, Jesus said some great stuff, and so did people before him...
Last edited by _GoodK on Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jersey Girl wrote:One last time, GoodK and then I'm moving on.
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.
Jersey Girl
You are comparing apples to oranges. Some things are clearly parable-stories uses to illustrate a point, others things are clearly allegorical and yet other things are clearly symbolical.
Then there are things that were written as if they actually happened and clearly believed by those who used them to teach doctrine. Now in the 21st century, you and others want to try to paint them as allegorical, which they may indeed be, but you cannot paint them allegorical to those who used them to teach truth and used them in such a way as if they were true.
GoodK made no distinction between the variety of literary styles contained in the Bible. S/he simply attempted to confine the entire Bible into "true/false" categories. Read the posts, Jason.
I am getting together a post in reply to marg regarding allegory, etc. and whether or not Christianity relies on the literal interpretation of the Fall, etc.
You do not know if they were used to teach in such a way as if they were true. You have no way to read the minds of the transmitter or the receiver. That is to say you do not know the thinking of Jesus nor the thinking of the people whom he taught.
You are looking at the scripts in the way you were taught to look at them. You were taught that they mean specific things.
You were taught to read, to memorize, to study the scripts. You weren't taught to think about them or the culture for which they were written.
I will try to get my post up tonight.
Jersey Girl, good luck with your post. Maybe i should wait?? "...fools rush in where Angels won't..." ;-) But is your point in this discussion/arguement simply based on literary definitions? As it seems to be??
As i read through these pages it appears to me, GoodK, Pirate and Jason B. make the most sense, and see the deeper meaning, and purpose in understanding "scripture" for its value today. (Assuming they do as i read them. Scriptures DO NOT have to be 'true' to have moral value.) At the same time these three folks, among others, don't seem to make foul of ancient interpretation of the same writings. They served THEIR time.
Looking forward to your "put together post". Warm regards, Roger
Jersey Girl wrote:One last time, GoodK and then I'm moving on.
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.
Jersey Girl
You are comparing apples to oranges. Some things are clearly parable-stories uses to illustrate a point, others things are clearly allegorical and yet other things are clearly symbolical.
Then there are things that were written as if they actually happened and clearly believed by those who used them to teach doctrine. Now in the 21st century, you and others want to try to paint them as allegorical, which they may indeed be, but you cannot paint them allegorical to those who used them to teach truth and used them in such a way as if they were true.
GoodK made no distinction between the variety of literary styles contained in the Bible. S/he simply attempted to confine the entire Bible into "true/false" categories. Read the posts, Jason.
I am getting together a post in reply to marg regarding allegory, etc. and whether or not Christianity relies on the literal interpretation of the Fall, etc.
You do not know if they were used to teach in such a way as if they were true. You have no way to read the minds of the transmitter or the receiver. That is to say you do not know the thinking of Jesus nor the thinking of the people whom he taught.
You are looking at the scripts in the way you were taught to look at them. You were taught that they mean specific things.
You were taught to read, to memorize, to study the scripts. You weren't taught to think about them or the culture for which they were written.
I will try to get my post up tonight.
Jersey Girl, good luck with your post. Maybe I should wait?? "...fools rush in where Angels won't..." ;-) But is your point in this discussion/arguement simply based on literary definitions? As it seems to be??
As I read through these pages it appears to me, GoodK, Pirate and Jason B. make the most sense, and see the deeper meaning, and purpose in understanding "scripture" for its value today. (Assuming they do as I read them. Scriptures DO NOT have to be 'true' to have moral value.) At the same time these three folks, among others, don't seem to make foul of ancient interpretation of the same writings. They served THEIR time.
Looking forward to your "put together post". Warm regards, Roger
Just catching your (the most current) post in this thread, Roger. I will post tomorrow. I got a message from someone who was posting on this thread who (I'm guessing) is upset over the death of Pres. Hinckley. I think I'll give it a rest for one day and bag the arguing out of respect for the situation at hand. Please don't expect any revelations from me though.
You do not know if they were used to teach in such a way as if they were true. You have no way to read the minds of the transmitter or the receiver. That is to say you do not know the thinking of Jesus nor the thinking of the people whom he taught.
I read the words they wrote and it seem clear and plain what Paul meant when he said by one man death and sin entered the world. You have no proof that they did not believe what they wrote to be literal and really the proof is on you not me. I am simply reading the text and taking their word for it.
You are looking at the scripts in the way you were taught to look at them. You were taught that they mean specific things.
You were taught to read, to memorize, to study the scripts. You weren't taught to think about them or the culture for which they were written
.
No. I was taught that one could read the Bible and not have to have a degree in anthropology to understand it. So, can you demonstrate that Paul believed Adam to be allegorical or that he though Abraham was a simple fictional story character? Are you really claiming this?
Jason,
I didn't answer your post last evening when I read it because I thought at least a brief moratorium on posting was more appropriate. Okay...I'm back on the horse now.
I want you to know first, that I'm not claiming anything. I'm attempting to support a position on this thread. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, I am saying that viewing the Old Testament stories (mentioned on this thread) as allegory is a possible option for Christians. I'm not married to it, I'm simply examining it. I cannot demonstrate what anyone believed regarding literalism and neither can you.
These stories are ancient tribal traditions. The New Testament references were made thousands of years in the future. When Jesus refers to Noe, is there a way to tell that he was speaking of literal events or that he was speaking to an "audience" that understood their own ancient tribal narrative traditions and the message Christ attempted to relate regarding obedience?
You tell me.
You are reading the scripts in contemporary times. You have no idea, nor do I, what the stories meant in cultural context.
I didn't invent the perspective I'm attempting to support here. I am "wearing it" for the thread.
marg if you are reading here: I am setting this up and separating it out as best as I can in order to reply to it. It will not be complete until you see "colored text" responses from me. It's going to sit here unattended for a bit until I return.
Jersey Girl: 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.
marg: Yes I see this is essentially the same topic.
______________________________________________________________________________
marg:What essential beliefs or characteristics must a Christian hold or have which will differentiate them from being non-Christian?
Jersey Girl: 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.
marg: This is what I was asking for. And what you say, I sort of had an appreciation of. The Adam and Eve story has to tie in to what you point out, because without that, the Christian God wouldn't need a blood sacrifice. It is with these essential features of Christian belief, that I'd agree with GoodK that Christianity is similarly as ridiculous in some of its doctrine to Mormonism. I agree with you that the Ancient storytellers of the Hebrew Bible may have intended their stories to be allegories, not to be used or valued as literally true.
Jersey Girl: The more I think about this, and I have been thinking about this ever since you replied, I am not so sure that blood sacrifice was the purpose or point of Christ's ministry, death, resurrection. But let's go with it anyway. First, Jewish scholars don't agree with how the stories in the Pentateuch were received or written down. Some attribute the authorship to Moses essentially taking dictation, others by divine inspiration, some from Mt. Sinai, others over a period of years, and there is disagreement with Mosaic authorship itself based on either the account of Moses death in Deuteronomy or the JDEP cues. I don't think, whether one susbscribes to literalism or allegory, that there is dispute that the stories were intended to teach. Having said that, I want to list some of the earliest stories that were raised on the thread and what I think they teach.
Creation: Obedience
The Fall: Obedience
The Flood: Obedience
Obedience is a common theme throughout the Old Testament and New Testament.
I don't think that Christianity requires that these be factual or historical accounts. If that were so, there wouldn't be denominations in Protestantism that support the view I'm "wearing" here and that is that the above represents a list of Israelite myth.
If Jesus is referring to allegory to teach (as he uses parable) he is teaching to an "audience" that intimately knows the tribal stories and cultural traditions of their own ancestors in a way that we can't possibly hope to be familiar with. Without that intimate knowledge of tribal narrative we are left with a "flat read" that we can only accept at face value without understanding any possible deeper over arching meaning.
Let me put in an example that has nothing to do with religion. If I say to you, marg, I'm so busy in my personal and professonal life right now I don't think that I can "keep all my plates in the air"....do you understand that American cultural reference? Does JAK understand it? Roger? harmony? (jump in folks if you're reading this and identify the reference) If so, do you think the 20 year olds on this board understand it? If someone were able to read this post 2,000 years from now would they understand it? My guess is no.
That human nature dictates our actions is fact. That our actions are often destructive to ourselves or others is fact. That, in the religious context of Christianity, we are removed from God (on account of our human nature) is fact. That, in the religious context of Christianity, we cannot change ourselves long term.
We need a Savior.
If the Fall is a myth created to explain the separation of humanity from God.
Jersey Girl: 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
marg: But this wouldn't be an essential criteria differentiating a Christian from a non. Atheists can believe if this person Jesus lived he would have been a wise teacher. Muslims & Jew believe Jesus was a wise teacher, so that alone is not a criteria separating Christians from others.
Jersey Girl: Yes, I wanted to differentiate between spiritual and philosophical Christianity.
I want to say that while I'm posting right now Springsteen is on the television singing about Jesus on "story tellers". If that isn't ironic, I don't know what is!
J.G: 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.
marg: I agree. I think one can be Christian and not believe is various parts of the Bible as literal, but I do think there must be some parts of the Bible that are believed literally otherwise if it's all fantasy, myth and allegories there really is nothing in particular to believe in.
Jersey Girl: I don't that I've explained my thinking very well on this. (He's singing Thunder Road!) Again, I don't think you can sort it by "fantasy/myth/allegory" or "real/true/factual". Levitical Law, for example, cannot be categorized in any of those ways....it is law. There are categories such as wisdom, history and such but even scholars (Jewish/Christian, etc) don't agree. You take from the Bible whatever it is that enriches you.
Jersey Girl wrote: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.
I don't know how this is any more believable than the story of Noah's Ark. And what about the virgin birth? That isn't a must hold for Christians too?
Jersey Girl, you posted, into which i'll inject 'boldly' ;-)
Jersey Girl: The more I think about this, and I have been thinking about this ever since you replied, I am not so sure that blood sacrifice was the purpose or point of Christ's ministry, RM: This i agree with. I think his purpose was to introduce to his people a better way of living together. With compassion, trust in each other, and the Universe/"God" from which, "...all blessings flow..." being natures elements ie "sun&rain". Too, FAITH IN THEMSELVES; not in rituals, or priest-craft... death, resurrection. RM: Death is real. Resurrection is fantasy, part of the legend... But let's go with it anyway. First, Jewish scholars RM: I tend to have more confidence in scientists than i do in scholars, (& theologians) generally speaking... don't agree with how the stories in the Pentateuch were received or written down. Some attribute the authorship to Moses essentially taking dictation, others by divine inspiration, some from Mt. Sinai, others over a period of years, and there is disagreement with Mosaic authorship itself based on either the account of Moses death in Deuteronomy or the JDEP cues. RM: My point. Their agreement/disagreement one can take as they wish. Not so with a tested statement of even basic science: contaminated water is not good fer ya... I don't think, whether one susbscribes to literalism or allegory, that there is dispute that the stories were intended to teach. Having said that, I want to list some of the earliest stories that were raised on the thread and what I think they teach. RM: OK, sounds fair...
Creation: Obedience
The Fall: Obedience
The Flood: Obedience
Obedience is a common theme throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. RM: In Mormonism it is stated thusly: "...Obedience is the first law of Heaven. Order is the result..."
I don't think that Christianity requires that these be factual or historical accounts. If that were so, there wouldn't be denominations in Protestantism that support the view I'm "wearing" here and that is that the above represents a list of Israelite myth.
If Jesus is referring to allegory to teach (as he uses parable) he is teaching to an "audience" that intimately knows the tribal stories and cultural traditions of their own ancestors in a way that we can't possibly hope to be familiar with. Without that intimate knowledge of tribal narrative we are left with a "flat read" that we can only accept at face value without understanding any possible deeper over arching meaning. RM: Possibly. But, isn't it more to our advantage to understand the spirit-of-the-law, than its letter, and how 'we' might benefit by incorprating such basic truths--in my opinion--as "...lay on the rod and spoil the child...", "...peace making Trump's war-mongering..." "...love/charity Trump's hate and vengence..." Let me put in an example that has nothing to do with religion. If I say to you, marg, I'm so busy in my personal and professonal life right now I don't think that I can "keep all my plates in the air"....do you understand that American cultural reference? Does JAK understand it? Roger? harmony? (jump in folks if you're reading this and identify the reference) If so, do you think the 20 year olds on this board understand it? If someone were able to read this post 2,000 years from now would they understand it? My guess is no. RM: I think most who have seen juggling would understand it IF they can connect dots. :-) As for the future: Depends on their quality of 'scholarship' ;-)
That human nature dictates our actions is fact. RM: I suggest, NURTURE plays a more significant role. Wouldn't you agree? That our actions are often destructive to ourselves or others is fact. RM: True. Most probably as 'we' are influenced by 'our' nurturing/environment. That, in the religious context of Christianity, we are removed from God (on account of our human nature) is fact. RM: That they teach that is a "fact", and to them it is a "fact". However to others, there is no such thing as being, "...removed from God..." (Stated for clarity:-) That, in the religious context of Christianity, we cannot change ourselves long term.
We need a Savior. RM: In the opinion of some "Christians"...
If the Fall is a myth created to explain the separation of humanity from God. RM: ????
We still need a Savior. RM: In the opinion of some "Christians"...
Can the Fall be metaphorical? I think so.
RM: I suppose so. It can also be primitive fabrication to explain human origin &/or behaviour. Behaviour, here-to-fore being falsely attributed to "Nature" rather than to "Nurture". I suggest serious thinking will place behaviour-shaping (our ways-&-means of social interaction) more on our dispositions created by the humanly engineered environment than by the natural environment. ______________________________________________________________________________
As i have considered (studied:-) religious teachings, in my experience and exposure to them i think you, Jersey Girl, have represented them fairly. Which of course does little but validate 'past-practice' and applications that have done rather poorly in bringing the lamb-&-lion together as promised...
However, in spite of evidence to the contrary, I see humanity in an advancing state of civility. Thanks to those of every persuasion who influences (nurtures) beyond our narcissistic needs, to awaken 'us' to the plights of those in need of their fair share of this worlds resources. As I understand Jesus--be he divine, human or a literary character--taught. IMSCO, the time, energy and money directed to the "next life" by ALL CHURCHES sells short the reason of Christ's being. There was no Fall. There is no need of a Redeemer. A Next-life is a supposition.
NOW! NOW! NOW! Is THE time to enhance "Nature" by "Nurturing" with compassion, understanding and, the truth-that-frees. Thanks for your OP GoodK... 13 pages of GoodStuff, wow!!! Warm regards, Roger
Jersey Girl wrote: That human nature dictates our actions is fact. That our actions are often destructive to ourselves or others is fact. That, in the religious context of Christianity, we are removed from God (on account of our human nature) is fact. That, in the religious context of Christianity, we cannot change ourselves long term.
We need a Savior.
If the Fall is a myth created to explain the separation of humanity from God.
We still need a Savior.
Can the Fall be metaphorical? I think so.
Jersey Girl you are mixing fact with fiction. You say "we need a savior" No scholars makes claim to knowledge that any particular God exists, theologians do. God is not a fact. It therefore follows that your statement "we are removed from any God" is also not a fact. And even for people who believe in a God, even the God of the Bible, it doesn't follow that they believe they must be saved, particularly by the Jesus described in the N.T., and by him dying in order that mankind can be with god. How is it that Muslims and Jews don't think they need to be saved to be with God, if as you say mankind has a "need" for a savior? by the way, do you happen to know who first came up with the idea of "Jesus dying to save mankind". Is that actually mentioned in the N.T. specifically, or did some early Christian theologian make that up? As you know, I'm not very familiar with the Bible.
This notion of "saving" is a Christian one. If as you say on account of our "human nature" we must be saved...well didn't this God make us, are you saying he made us with flaws and yet needs a sacrifice in order to accept us? It doesn't make sense Jersey Girl. There has to be some sort of "fall" by mankind, mankind has to be the culprit for the "fall" not God. Otherwise God would be wanting a sacrifice made to him, for his own imperfect work. So according to the storyline it has to be that God makes mankind perfect, but mankind does something which negates his work. So if one is going to accept as "fact" within the Christian paradigm that God needs a sacrifice, then there must be a "fall" and where else in the Bible other than the Adam and Eve story does this occur? Therefore according to Christian belief, God is literal, Jesus dying as a sacrifice to God for man's transgression must be literal, and therefore the Adam and Eve transgression must be assumed literal, because that places the blame away from God onto mankind. Otherwise if you don't take the Adam and Eve storyline literally, what we are left with is a God which creates an imperfect human species, and even though it's all his fault..he wants a sacrifice made. It would be like you teaching a class wrong math and when they answer math questions as you instructed, you punish them by not allowing them to go out for recess.
I will try to answer your post when I, well actually when I feel like it ;-). I should have written the portion you quoted this way, I'll bold the edit....
That human nature dictates our actions is fact.
That our actions are often destructive to ourselves or others is fact.
That, in the religious context of Christianity, we are removed from God (on account of our human nature) is fact.
That, in the religious context of Christianity, we cannot change ourselves long term.
In the religious context of Christianity, we need a Savior.
If the Fall is a myth created to explain the separation of humanity from God.
In the religious context of Christianity, we still need a Savior.