(August 24, 2019 at 5:47 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 24, 2019 at 5:16 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Inquisition was some 1200 years after Christianity originated. To call it representative  of original or authentic Christianity  is just stupid. We know what the early christian movement looked like, from both it’s critics and supporters and it wasn’t for that.

In so far as the adult long accustomed to having free reign to act act out his proclivities is less authentic than the fetus stuck in the womb able to do nothing, perhaps the inquisition is not authentically Christian. 

But how about the Adolescent was just beginning to explore his power when barely out of the house in which he was born.  Is that more authentic?

Or is it your view that Christianity is only authentic when utterly powerless like a fetus in a womb?

If so, I would be happy with any arrangement required to keep Christianity as authentic as possible.

Is atheism authentic when it becomes entwined with political powers? Clearly that didn’t work out well.

What you’d likely point out is that atheism isn’t a political ideology, nor is Christianity, as evident by its founder, and the NT writings. Jesus had almost nothing all to say about the political situation or issues of his time, devoted himself to his conception of kingdom of God, an otherworldly kingdom.

So if you claimed that authentic Christianity is some state sanctioned or enforced religion, that would be as false as suggesting atheism, or materialism or naturalism etc are political ideologies.

@Belaqua

I shouldn't have to explain to you that stop signs are red.

The decline of "Christian values "

The decrease in behaviors related to literal interpretations of the Bible

The way churches now use rock n' roll and other modern mediums to spread the "word of god" - things that would've been considered heresy 100 years ago

The fact that in civilized society we no longer kill or imprison people for heresy in the vast majority of the world

"But oh! This isn't REAL Christianity!" you cry. And yet, we see a decline in all of these things for a reason. Less and less people have taken the Bible literally over time. It's not hard to comprehend. That you can cite specific Christians from different times who took allegorical interpretations of the Bible means very little. There were always varied interpretations of the Bible... that's not the point.

In general, far less people take the Bible literally in 2019 than they did in 1219. And in 1219 probably less than 1019. "But oh! These were not the TRUE Christians!" you cry. And yet, these behaviors decrease more and more over time, showing a separation from the original form of Christianity. This is even why more and more denominations were created over time, people wanted to come up with different interpretations of their own and created followings based on those interpretations. All of it, slowly but surely, getting away from the literal interpretation, as a literal interpretation of a Holy Book is the most natural way to read a Holy Book.

That fact that you can cry, "But oh! Not everyone back then took it literally" means very little. Most people did, as evidenced by their behaviors. Less people do now. Separation. Change. Definitions have to change too.

Today's Christians are hardly Christian at all.

edit: Let us remember Mathew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

What part of this did early Christians take as metaphorical?

Remember, some things simply cannot be seen as metaphors. So even for Christians who take the Bible metaphorically, even they have to admit that a good portion of this Holy Book is LITERAL.

(August 24, 2019 at 9:58 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: @Belaqua @Acrobat

I get that it's easier for you guys to believe that all of the negative aspects of Christian behaviors are the ones that DON'T TRULY represent Christianity... but unfortunately, it's quite the opposite. And it's a good thing, too. Thank god that Jesus' followers suck lol

I read a good book when I first started high school called, 'Lord, Save Us From Your Followers,' by Dan Merchant. Looking back, it was a book riddled with poorly constructed apologetic arguments, but at least the guy was taking a stand for the fence-sitting moderate Christians out there who only attend church when their parents are in town. Good for him. We need more Christians like that.

I’m just pointing on what should be obvious that Christianity isn’t a political ideology, just like you would indicate for atheism, naturalism, materialism, etc...

So to suggest that authentic Christianity is when it’s expressed as the political ideology of the state, is as silly as claiming authentic atheism is found in the Gulag, or violent communist regimes, with state sanctioned atheism.

You're right, it's not political.

Atheists never said, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

Tell me which part of this teaching is allegory.

Oh! but TRUE Christians choose to not follow this part of the Bible.

Ah, I see.

(August 24, 2019 at 10:41 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: You're right, it's not political.

Atheists never said, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

Tell me which part of this teaching is allegory.

Oh! but TRUE Christians choose to not follow this part of the Bible.

Ah, I see.

It’s not an allegory, but it a passage regarding the religious instruction, and the structure of church life, not how states should operate. Paul (pseudo-Paul) isn’t writing to the Roman political structure, but to actual churches.

You might not like the idea of churches following a patriarchal structure in their religious institutions, or communities but this isn’t prescription for how government or states should operate.

(August 24, 2019 at 10:48 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 24, 2019 at 10:41 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: You're right, it's not political.

Atheists never said, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

Tell me which part of this teaching is allegory.

Oh! but TRUE Christians choose to not follow this part of the Bible.

Ah, I see.

It’s not an allegory, but it a passage regarding the religious instruction, and the structure of church life, not how states should operate. Paul isn’t writing to the Roman political structure, but to actual churches.

You might not like the idea of churches following a patriarchal structure in their religious institutions,  but this isn’t prescription for how government or states should operate.

In either context, this makes "good" Christians immoral, misogynistic pieces of shit. LOL

(August 24, 2019 at 10:50 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(August 24, 2019 at 10:48 pm)Acrobat Wrote: It’s not an allegory, but it a passage regarding the religious instruction, and the structure of church life, not how states should operate. Paul isn’t writing to the Roman political structure, but to actual churches.

You might not like the idea of churches following a patriarchal structure in their religious institutions,  but this isn’t prescription for how government or states should operate.

In either context, this makes "good" Christians immoral, misogynistic pieces of shit. LOL

How about women who prefer husbands, who are the head of a home? Men who fit traditional gender roles within the home? Are they misogynistic pieces of shit?

Is it only if they subscribe to some modern liberal family structure, that would make it non-misogynistic?

If you want to find real misogyny, take a women to an atheist convention.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/6132...ement/amp/

(August 24, 2019 at 10:29 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: @Belaqua

I shouldn't have to explain to you that stop signs are red.

Some things are self-evident. Others aren't. 

Quote:The decline of "Christian values "

This indicates that there is one set of things called "Christian values," that you know what they are, and that you may judge who is upholding them and who isn't. I don't agree that this is the case. 

Quote:The decrease in behaviors related to literal interpretations of the Bible

Again, this is assuming that literal interpretation of the Bible are Real Christianity. I don't think this is true.

Quote:The way churches now use rock n' roll and other modern mediums to spread the "word of god" - things that would've been considered heresy 100 years ago

This is assuming that Real Christianity has only one kind of music and only non-modern media for spreading the word of God. I don't think that a change in musical style would necessarily be considered heresy, though it might be considered distracting. The term "heresy" has a specific meaning, unrelated to media. 

Quote:The fact that in civilized society we no longer kill or imprison people for heresy in the vast majority of the world

Please demonstrate that killing or imprisoning people for heresy is Real Christianity. Maybe (I don't know, but maybe) killing or imprisoning people for heresy is not in accord with Christ's message, and it's taken stubborn people a long time to figure that out.

Quote:"But oh! This isn't REAL Christianity!" you cry. 

I have never cried this.

YOU are the one who asserts what Real Christianity is. I am doubtful that there is any such thing.

Quote:Less and less people have taken the Bible literally over time.

How do you know this? Ancient people who were accustomed to reading Greek myths, etc., were more comfortable than we are with different kinds of literary genre. This is clear, for example, from Plato's Symposium, in which the gods are considered true, in a way, but in no way taken literally.

So I'm going to need something more than your assertion that fewer and fewer people are taking the Bible literally.

Also, the Bible has different books, with different literary tropes involved.

Quote:In general, far less people take the Bible literally in 2019 than they did in 1219. And in 1219 probably less than 1019. 

How do you know this? Augustine and Dante knew better than to take most of it literally. Literalist sola scripture Christians are a fairly new phenomenon, largely in reaction to the new scientific view that there is only one way to write meaningful sentences.

Quote:"But oh! These were not the TRUE Christians!" you cry. 

Please stop saying this. I have never asserted anything like this.

Quote:a literal interpretation of a Holy Book is the most natural way to read a Holy Book.

In your judgment.

Quote:Change. Definitions have to change too. 

Yes, finally we agree.

Definitions change, ways of thinking change. A Real Christian now may differ from a Real Christian long ago. Or even from a Real Christian across town. 

You are the one asserting that there is one knowable way of being a Real Christian. I don't think that's right.

Quote:Today's Christians are hardly Christian at all.

In your judgment. Which you can only reach if you know with certainty what a Real Christian is. 

Quote:Remember, some things simply cannot be seen as metaphors. So even for Christians who take the Bible metaphorically, even they have to admit that a good portion of this Holy Book is LITERAL.

Again, some parts are direct statements, some parts are intentional myths, some parts are puzzles, some parts are lyric poetry. 

Some parts use metaphor. Some parts use synecdoche, some parts use metonymy, some parts use other tropes. Some parts -- I'm assuming from my own analysis -- are meant to be taken as is, as when it says that caritas is the greatest thing a Christian can do.

Sad to say, someone who reads the Bible has to use his own head and think about the literary strategies in use in any given section. There are many. 

Hermeneutics changes, opinions differ, there is no such thing as Real Christianity. Unless you believe that Jesus is watching us from somewhere, holding in his mind Real Christianity which the rest of us have to figure out. (I don't believe this.)

(August 24, 2019 at 10:29 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: All of it, slowly but surely, getting away from the literal interpretation, as a literal interpretation of a Holy Book is the most natural way to read a Holy Book.

That’s odd. When I was kid I enjoyed reading stories and novels, and found history and science boring and uninteresting. So when I started reading the Bible, the most natural way for me to read and understand it, was like similar literature, trying to derive what meaning the writer was trying to convey rather than what sort of historical or scientific facts I could derive from it.

This seems to be what is the natural reading of it, since the similarityin style between these genres, rather than reading it the way we would modern historical accounts, or science texts books.

I’m curious why you think otherwise?

@Belaqua

Once again, that you can cite some earlier Christians who took allegorical interpretations means little. A decrease in a vast amount behaviors shows a decline over time in literal interpretations of the Bible. This is not debatable. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself here.

@Acrobat

That you understood what a fictional story was as a child means nothing.

The Bible contains very specific instructions on how to live that are quite literal. Good Christians follow at least some of these. Bad Christians do not.

Not sure what's so hard to comprehend here guys. You guys are trying to argue that the sky isn't blue. I'm simply not falling for it. Good try though.