The God Delusion

[_EAllusion]

Stak -

Clark Goble isn't being excommunicated for being into continental philosophy or his interpretation of his faith in light of it. He isn't even facing questions about this orthodoxy. I'm sure what he thinks is in tension with the beliefs of the average member in the pews. I'm even willing to grant that if his views were expressed a certain way to the wrong people, he could find himself in trouble with ecclesiastical authorities. But the same is also true of a Catholic into Heidegger. Such is life on the margins. But if you instead want to assert the theology doesn't allow for it, then my reply is either 1) It does. Theology is highly flexible to a creative interpreter or 2) Sure, there's tension there, but that's equally true of Christian belief in general.

In any case, you haven't successful singled out Mormonism for being stunted in some fundamental way. What your case has going for it is a strong self-policing culture in LDS orthodox faith, but that doesn't offer a bright line to distinguish itself from other Christians. And the same issue exists in the Church life of a huge % of believers. Try some postliberal theology in your average baptist Church and see how much love that gets you.

[_MrStakhanovite]

However, I would propose that 1) Historically, most of the Christian world has understood the myths of the Bible to be literal….

Hey, make your case, I hope you do a better job than I could, because I tried. I cannot be intellectually honest and assert those four claims.

1. Is based on my general knowledge of Christian history and my interactions with Christian (both of the Mormon and non-Mormon flavor), and I don't know that I need to really cite sources to prove it.

hmmmm

Chapter 4: The Christian Gospels, A Literary and Historical Introduction

WHAT TO EXPECT- What kind of book are the Gospels of the New Testament? Fairy Tales? Religious novels? Ancient Biographies? The question matters since you read different kinds of books differently. Reading an ancient book means knowing how ancient kinds of books were read.

In This chapter we will examine ways that the Gospels resemble ancient biographies and consider how ancient biographies worked- sometimes in ways quite different from modern biographies, since they were produced long before the modern obsession with punctilious accuracy and the means to achieve it.

-Page 61 from The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman, 3rd edition.

I guess this makes Ehrman some kind of apologist for Christianity?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Long answer: The proposition of whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old is a binary one. It's either true or it isn't. If it isn't true, then why should we take anything else written in the Bible as being literal truth either?

No where in the text of the Bible, do you find when the earth was created, or how old it was.

[_MrStakhanovite]

In any case, you haven't successful singled out Mormonism for being stunted in some fundamental way. What your case has going for it is a strong self-policing culture in LDS orthodox faith, but that doesn't offer a bright line to distinguish itself from other Christians. And the same issue exists in the Church life of a huge % of believers. Try some postliberal theology in your average baptist Church and see how much love that gets you.

I don’t think it’s stunted in a unique way, I think it’s very similar to how Ex-Jehovah Witnesses, ex Holy Oneness, and other kinds of sects. I don’t think it’s controversial at all to state that Mormonism simply does not have the tools to deal with disillusionment and doubt as other denominations do.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Stak -

Clark Goble isn't being excommunicated

Whoa... What? Clark Goble is getting ex'ed?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hey Jason,

I don’t want to give you the impression that I think it’s Mormons who themselves are shallow in thought. I think the Church polices itself in such a way as to ensure that it remains so. I don’t doubt that the entire faculty in the department of philosophy at BYU isn’t staffed by awesome people, who really have neat ideas and interesting perspectives. I also don’t doubt that they belong to a church organization that ensures all those thoughtful opinions stay behind closed doors, and not in written form on book shelves where guys like you can benefit from them.

[_keithb]

However, I would propose that 1) Historically, most of the Christian world has understood the myths of the Bible to be literal….

Hey, make your case, I hope you do a better job than I could, because I tried. I cannot be intellectually honest and assert those four claims.

1. Is based on my general knowledge of Christian history and my interactions with Christian (both of the Mormon and non-Mormon flavor), and I don't know that I need to really cite sources to prove it.

hmmmm

Chapter 4: The Christian Gospels, A Literary and Historical Introduction

WHAT TO EXPECT- What kind of book are the Gospels of the New Testament? Fairy Tales? Religious novels? Ancient Biographies? The question matters since you read different kinds of books differently. Reading an ancient book means knowing how ancient kinds of books were read.

In This chapter we will examine ways that the Gospels resemble ancient biographies and consider how ancient biographies worked- sometimes in ways quite different from modern biographies, since they were produced long before the modern obsession with punctilious accuracy and the means to achieve it.

-Page 61 from The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman, 3rd edition.

I guess this makes Ehrman some kind of apologist for Christianity?

So, one man doesn't ...

Still, I would assert that historically the vast majority of Christians have thought of the stories in Genesis, Acts, etc. as literal.

Certainly, people in the time of Cotton Mather would have thought that these stories were literal. In fact, saying otherwise may have found a person burning on a wooden pole. I would assert that most of the Christians that have ever lived have a similar type of mindset.

Further, I assert that the majority of Christians today -- the ones in the pews -- still believe these stories to be literal. As evidence, I would point out that a majority of American -- for example -- reject evolution, and I would assert that they do so based on a literal interpretation of the Bible http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml.

So, according to my understanding and current knowledge, I would again reassert that this statement is correct. Most Christians historically have read the stories in Genesis as literal accounts of the history of the world.

[_keithb]

Long answer: The proposition of whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old is a binary one. It's either true or it isn't. If it isn't true, then why should we take anything else written in the Bible as being literal truth either?

No where in the text of the Bible, do you find when the earth was created, or how old it was.

Oh, come now Stak. We both know that historical figures have used the Bible -- interpreted literally (including the ages of several figures in the Bible) to make a calculation that comes up with this age for the earth -- or something close to it. It's an position that Christians believed for hundreds of years (and many still do).

If you don't like that one, how about the Flood of Noah? It's also a binary proposition that all but eight people died in the flood. Is this correct or no?

[_MrStakhanovite]

So let me get this straight…

I state that your insistence on a literal understanding of biblical texts is anachronistic, you counter that your knowledge of Christian history and encounters with Christians themselves tells you a different story, and you challenge me with the burden of proof. I produce a textbook, written by a prominent textual scholar, a guy who specializes in how ancients read and wrote their texts, who contradicts what you claim and your response is:

So, one man doesn't ...

Still, I would assert that historically the vast majority of Christians have thought of the stories in Genesis, Acts, etc. as literal.

All this, within the context of a thread where I’ve been arguing ex-Mormons can’t seem to move past their limited understanding of Christianity provided to them by their Mormon upbringing.

We are clear on this, right?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Oh, come now Stak. We both know that historical figures have used the Bible -- interpreted literally (including the ages of several figures in the Bible) to make a calculation that comes up with this age for the earth -- or something close to it.

Whoa whoa whoa, back up. Talking about James Ussher’s chronology? Surely you don’t think a literal reading of Genesis chapter 1 means the beginning of the universe, do you? The compound preposition Be’reshit which opens up the chapter is grammatically a construct state, there is no beginning of a timeline there, at all.

Counting back generations to Adam and Eve presupposes the doctrine that God created from nothing, which is literally taught nowhere within the text.

Come on guy…Rabbis before Jesus was even born had already countered this kind of stuff from Pagan detractors.