Why I'm Still a Christian

[Lek]

Indeed. But Evangelicals and literal-minded atheists think that in order for the Bible to be true it must be accurate in all its particulars and on every level. The problem is that a literalist approach reflects the bias of modern Western culture, not necessarily the most fruitful way to approach the text. A spiritual book must be interpreted from a spiritual perspective. To that end, its history, cosmology, geology and biology are instructive only for providing us with a picture of the Lord and His relationship with His creation.

I'm saying that at some point in time, maybe 6,000 or so years ago, God chose one man and one woman and gave them souls…The mechanism God used was by special creation of our souls. As for all those humans living before that time, they were simply just the mostly highly evolved of the creatures on earth.

Personally, I think you are trying to salvage some of your previous literalism. You’ll tie yourself up in knots trying to reconcile the biblical narratives with natural history. I think you’ve bought into the flawed apologetics of Evangelicals that have backed themselves into an indefensible corner. Here are two arguments that are particularly destructive:
First,
If the Bible is false on even a single small point then it cannot be trusted. Jesus would not have sacrificed himself for something that was not true. Jesus believed Adam, Noah and Jonah were real people. Therefore, the OT stories must be completely true in every particular.
It’s a silly argument because anyone can see that the biblical narratives contain contradictions and inaccuracies, from the value of pi to rabbits chewing the cud. But these contradictions and inaccuracies are not a reason to chuck the whole thing. If anything they should prompt people to read more deeply into the text.
Second,
In order for the Bible to serve as a sufficient rule and guide for our salvation it must be absolutely clear from a plain reading. If the text had any hidden allegorical or symbolic meanings then it would require extra-biblical interpretation and would thus not be sufficient.
This is also a silly and anti-intellectual argument that demands the most superficial reading of a complex text that rewards reflection. It’s sufficient for the simple who read the surface of the text and it’s sufficient for the learned who can delight in how the symbols provide spiritual instruction.

I don't disagree with what you've said here. That doesn't rule out the possibility of what I have laid out. Are you saying that we shouldn't claim that anything from the bible is a historical fact?

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='889075' dateline='1425336501']

“I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me" - Christopher Hitchens.

I'll bet that if he was sentenced to life in prison and I arranged to take the sentence for him, he'd take me up on the offer in a second.