Christianity is Dead, Long live the rEvolution!

[downbeatplumb]

Thanks for admitting that you don't know Jack Shit about the Bible.  

That book is part of the Apocrypha that was integeral to every Bible version until the 1880s when a couple of English guys, Westcott & Hort, decided to toss it.  The Protestants went along with them but the Catholics told them to shove it.  So you have been reading an incomplete Bible.  Your Cliff Notes version is only about 132 years old.

 Wrong, wrong wrong.

GC

In what way. The passage checks out when I look at the catholic bible.

[Edwardo Piet]

Christianity is dead

Ummm.... as you can see Christianity is very much alive.

[Bow Before Zeus]

Hey Steve, this is great! Let's establish some ground rules that will allow us to discuss this topic with hopefully come to some sort of outcome one way or the other.

1. Evolution is a scientific fact. I am not going to debate evolution. The vast majority of scientists agree the facts of evolution and even some major religious organisations have thrown in the towel and accepted the fact of evolution. You might not agree with this but for the sake of this discussion, you need to accept it.
2. If evolution is a fact then there was no such thing as a "first" human being. The children of each generation are the same species as the parents - changes are so gradual that they cannot be noticed from generation to generation. Richard Dawkins has a great description of this in a thought experiment he does in one of his books - The Magic of Reality. To save you having to read the book, here is a 4 minute video of Professor Dawkins explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ClZROoyNM
3. The whole argument for the death of xtianity that I propose in the OP therefore hinges on taking the bible literally. So our discussion therefore should be confined as to whether this is the logical or reasonable way to read the bible.
4. The discussion is to be held with mutual respect for each other. I will not call your arguments crap and nor shall you mine. No derogatory put-downs, only reasoned argument.

If you agree with those 4 ground rules above, give me time to grab my single malt scotch whiskey and by Cuban cigar and let's sit down to have an exciting discussion about this!

With respect,
BBZ

4. Mutual respect? Do I need to remind you of the post titles in your inaugural month on AF? No matter. I understand the concept to be lopsided here at AF. 

3. Yes, your argument for the death of Christianity does hinge on Gen 1-3 being taken literally. 

i. Evolution has disproved Adam/Eve
ii. Christianity requires Adam/Eve's Original Sin
Therefore Evolution has disproved Christianity. 

Without the second premise, your argument falls apart. Since most Christians do not believe Gen 1-3 to be literal and the doctrine of Original Sin has a wide range of views (and obviously not as pivotal as you thought), it was a pretty simple thing to defeat it. Why not literal? Like I mentioned--this is not a new idea.  Augustine 1600 years ago did not believe that there was a literal 6-day creation. We don't know who wrote Gen 1-3. It is poetic in nature. It has light being made before the sun. A bunch of reasons. A literal 6-day creation is not a new belief, but it has never had the prominence it has enjoyed in the last 50 years with the fundamentalist movement. 

Like I mentioned, I think there was an Adam and Eve of some type in ancient history. I don't know how they were created and I certainly don't know when. I have no proof so I am not going to base an argument on it. 

Christianity requires every person to have an unavoidable sin nature. It does not require that Adam ate an apple to get it.

4. Yes, mutual respect. Whilst I was personally attacked numerous times by various xtians on these forums, I did not retaliate. It appears that thread titles are quite a touchy subject for xtians. I have seen threads here with more benign titles but the OP attacks god directly likening him to the worst of humanity and xtians show little offense or objection. Despite my more direct thread titles, I have always spoken to individual posters with respect. So hopefully we can conduct a respectful discussion.

So with that out of the way, and the above terms agreed to, let me begin by discussing why I think the bible should be taken literally. I will number my points to make it easier to refer and rebut them.

1. The bible authors wrote what they literally believed to be true.

The bible authors intended the material to be taken literally with one caveat - Revelation. I have read this particular book numerous times and I really don't know what it is supposed to be so I will leave that one aside. Certainly, all of the OT was written with the intention that it be taken literally. There have been a number of scholarly works on this subject and I quote a few below.

Ref: http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/D...ything.pdf

The Genesis of Everything
An historical account of the Bible’s opening chapter
John P Dickson
Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History,
Macquarie University, Sydney.

The paper seeks to plot a path through the controversy surrounding the Bible’s opening chapter by examining Genesis 1 in historical context. The author assumes and endorses no particular view of human origins but argues for a literal interpretation of the text, as opposed to what may be called ‘literalistic’. The former reading gives due weight to both the literary genre of Genesis 1 and the cultural milieu
 of the original writer, whereas the latter gives sufficient attention to neither.

Ref: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hil...1_jasa.pdf

Interpreting Genesis One
CHARLES E. HUMMEL    
Director of Faculty Ministries  
Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship

Genesis 1 appears to be a narrative of past events, an account of God's creative words and acts. Its figurative language is largely limited to anthropomorphisms. (For a highly imaginative and figurative account of creation, read Job 38:4-11.) The text does not have the earmarks of a parable, a short allegorical story designed  
to teach a truth or moral lesson. That genre generally deals with human events and often starts with a formula like "There was a man who had two sons" in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-31). Genesis 1 is "historical" in the sense of relating events that actually occurred. Modern historians distinguish between "history," which began with the invention of writing or the advent of city life, and "prehistory."

There are other scholarly works on the subject but I don't want to labour the point any more. The knowledge at the time of our cosmos and our place in it was still rather primitive. Genesis is an attempt to explain how the universe and we as humans came to be. It is a literal description of the creation of the universe. Of course these days we leave that to science as we have verifiable data on which to base our modern-day theories of the creation of the uni(multi)verse and of the diversity of life on this planet.

2. The literal interpretation of the bible is the largest Christian religion today.

What do I mean by this? To explore this I would like to borrow the figures you posted in this thread earlier on.

In the US (probably the most conservative group of Christians on the planet) only 24% believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. If we project that over the 2.3 billion on the planet, that means there are somewhere in the neighborhood 1.7 billion your line of reasoning would not apply to. What if the Adam/Eve story was metaphorical? Do you think that man does not have sin nature? Redemption is still required. The message of the NT still applies 100%.

Thanks for doing the maths here. So to summarise, there would roughly be 600 million xtians that believe in the literal understanding of the bible and 1.7 billion that accept some sort of metaphor for part of most of the bible. But where to translate as metaphor and where to take it literally? This becomes the conundrum because each and every one of the 1.7 billion so-called xtians will then interpret the bible in their own different way. So in effect, we have one sects of 600 million xtians and 1.7 billion sects of 1 xtian each with their own personal interpretation of the bible.

This is not tenable, it is not viable and is not the intent of the authors as per my first point.

The main effect of this is that the largest sect of xtians is in fact those that interpret the bible literally.

3. Impossible to have a discussion with 1.7 billion versions.

Whilst not an argument for interpreting the bible literally, having a discussion about the bible and having to take into account 1.7 billion different interpretations of it makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion.

When I discuss/debate xtianity, I discuss the literal translation (usually the KJV) and quote from the texts as they are the definition of xtianity.

To discuss and debate your interpretation of the bible or person a, b, or c's interpretation fo the bible is rather pointless as all I have done is show that I can debate with a single idea of the bible. To discuss/debate the literal interpretation of the bible is a discussion that is relevant to 600 million xtians, not just 1.

Apologies that I took so long to respond, Steve. It is a funny time of the year and I have been busy with many different things in my life, not just the usual activities during the "festive season".

I look forward to your response (take your time).

[Minimalist]

Ummm.... as you can see Christianity is very much alive.

I wonder how many of those really believe the bullshit and how many just give it lip service?

Really, it is such a preposterous story that many people must have doubts.

[Bow Before Zeus]

Christianity is dead

Ummm.... as you can see Christianity is very much alive.

See earlier post

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

You are avoiding the point because it destroys yours. I'll post it again:

2. Has science disproved Adam and Eve? Again, no. But here's the thing: I don't even have to argue that point because you wrongly assume that Christianity hinges on the Doctrine of Original Sin. Christianity hinges on everyone sinning (a fact that cannot be disputed). In fact, the doctrine of original sin has a wide variety of positions to choose from:

Many apologies, Steve. I was in a rush, read the first part and only answered that. If I understand you correctly, your question is about the sin of all of humanity being the important focus of xtianity as this is what Christ suffered for and bore on his shoulders. I will address this question with scripture because that is of most meaning to a xtian.

From Genesis 3:16-19

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

---

Sorry about the KJV translation but it is my personal favourite. So here's the thing. Until this point, Adam and Eve lived in the garden of Eden as immortals, in perfect peace and harmony. It is only after the eating of the forbidden fruit that god made Eve able to bear children as a punishment for eating the fruit and for enticing Adam to do the same. Adam was punished with toil and hardship. So humanity's struggle on earth, its sin, suffering and pain is initiated by this single event. This is why it is pivotal in the xtian mythology.

Christ came to earth to bear the sins of humanity but those sins would not exist were if not for Adam and Eve's original sin.

I hope I have now answered your question adequately.

---

So, your argument can be more properly rephrased as:

If a prospective Christian decides that he must be a Bible literalist (as to Genesis 1-3) or nothing AND he happens to study the Doctrine of Original Sin and finds John Calvin's position the most convincing AND he thinks that science has disproven any Adam and Eve AND there are no other reasons Christianity appeals to him, THEN he will not become a Christian and THEREFORE Christianity "is dead". 

Your understanding of Christianity is so simplistic. You post these threads with the titles that promise some big theme and then repeatedly fail to deliver. When are you going to learn that you are not intellectually equipped or knowledgeable enough to pull that off? Perhaps you should start posting threads that ask questions instead of the empty claims--and learn something.

Well, if by simplistic you mean literal, then I plead guilty your honour! There is no other way to read the bible. Otherwise, xtianity is a billion people's interpretation of iron-age writings. It could be anything.

Hopefully we are learning through this discussion...

---

[Bow Before Zeus]

---

Many apologies, Steve. I was in a rush, read the first part and only answered that. If I understand you correctly, your question is about the sin of all of humanity being the important focus of xtianity as this is what Christ suffered for and bore on his shoulders. I will address this question with scripture because that is of most meaning to a xtian.

From Genesis 3:16-19


Well, if by simplistic you mean literal, then I plead guilty your honour! There is no other way to read the bible. Otherwise, xtianity is a billion people's interpretation of iron-age writings. It could be anything.

Hopefully we are learning through this discussion...

---

---

No, it does not. 

First, your argument to succeed --which is evolution has invalidated Christianity-- you need at least two things to be true: 1) proof there was no Adam and Eve at any time and 2) that Christianity requires a literal reading of Gen 1-3.

1. I don't believe you have that proof at all, but for the sake of this post, let's assume you are right. 

2. In the US (probably the most conservative group of Christians on the planet) only 24% believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. If we project that over the 2.3 billion on the planet, that means there are somewhere in the neighborhood 1.7 billion your line of reasoning would not apply to. What if the Adam/Eve story was metaphorical? Do you think that man does not have sin nature? Redemption is still required. The message of the NT still applies 100%.


Your insistence that Gen 1-3 must be read literal is simply not true. Fun fact: Do you know that Gen 1-3 is written in a much older Hebrew and in a different style than the rest of Genesis? How does that fit in your thesis when we don't even know who wrote it?

I did not mean that your understanding of Christianity was literal. I meant simplistic. You continually overshoot in your grand thread titles. This is a great example. I actual think there was a literal Adam/Eve at some time in the past. However, because of your overreaching, hyperbole and the consistent fact that your premises do not support your conclusion, I didn't even have to argue about that to show your whole argument is crap.

---

I hope you realize that your KJV is missing 14 books that it originally came with.


Are you referring to the Nag Hammadi texts? The gnostic texts?

[SteveII]

1. The bible authors wrote what they literally believed to be true.

The bible authors intended the material to be taken literally with one caveat - Revelation. I have read this particular book numerous times and I really don't know what it is supposed to be so I will leave that one aside. Certainly, all of the OT was written with the intention that it be taken literally. There have been a number of scholarly works on this subject and I quote a few below.

Ref: http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/D...ything.pdf

The Genesis of Everything
An historical account of the Bible’s opening chapter
John P Dickson
Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History,
Macquarie University, Sydney.

The paper seeks to plot a path through the controversy surrounding the Bible’s opening chapter by examining Genesis 1 in historical context. The author assumes and endorses no particular view of human origins but argues for a literal interpretation of the text, as opposed to what may be called ‘literalistic’. The former reading gives due weight to both the literary genre of Genesis 1 and the cultural milieu
 of the original writer, whereas the latter gives sufficient attention to neither.

Ref: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hil...1_jasa.pdf

Interpreting Genesis One
CHARLES E. HUMMEL    
Director of Faculty Ministries  
Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship

Genesis 1 appears to be a narrative of past events, an account of God's creative words and acts. Its figurative language is largely limited to anthropomorphisms. (For a highly imaginative and figurative account of creation, read Job 38:4-11.) The text does not have the earmarks of a parable, a short allegorical story designed  
to teach a truth or moral lesson. That genre generally deals with human events and often starts with a formula like "There was a man who had two sons" in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-31). Genesis 1 is "historical" in the sense of relating events that actually occurred. Modern historians distinguish between "history," which began with the invention of writing or the advent of city life, and "prehistory."

There are other scholarly works on the subject but I don't want to labour the point any more. The knowledge at the time of our cosmos and our place in it was still rather primitive. Genesis is an attempt to explain how the universe and we as humans came to be. It is a literal description of the creation of the universe. Of course these days we leave that to science as we have verifiable data on which to base our modern-day theories of the creation of the uni(multi)verse and of the diversity of life on this planet.

2. The literal interpretation of the bible is the largest Christian religion today.

What do I mean by this? To explore this I would like to borrow the figures you posted in this thread earlier on.

In the US (probably the most conservative group of Christians on the planet) only 24% believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. If we project that over the 2.3 billion on the planet, that means there are somewhere in the neighborhood 1.7 billion your line of reasoning would not apply to. What if the Adam/Eve story was metaphorical? Do you think that man does not have sin nature? Redemption is still required. The message of the NT still applies 100%.

Thanks for doing the maths here. So to summarise, there would roughly be 600 million xtians that believe in the literal understanding of the bible and 1.7 billion that accept some sort of metaphor for part of most of the bible. But where to translate as metaphor and where to take it literally? This becomes the conundrum because each and every one of the 1.7 billion so-called xtians will then interpret the bible in their own different way. So in effect, we have one sects of 600 million xtians and 1.7 billion sects of 1 xtian each with their own personal interpretation of the bible.

This is not tenable, it is not viable and is not the intent of the authors as per my first point.

The main effect of this is that the largest sect of xtians is in fact those that interpret the bible literally.

3. Impossible to have a discussion with 1.7 billion versions.

Whilst not an argument for interpreting the bible literally, having a discussion about the bible and having to take into account 1.7 billion different interpretations of it makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion.

When I discuss/debate xtianity, I discuss the literal translation (usually the KJV) and quote from the texts as they are the definition of xtianity.

To discuss and debate your interpretation of the bible or person a, b, or c's interpretation fo the bible is rather pointless as all I have done is show that I can debate with a single idea of the bible. To discuss/debate the literal interpretation of the bible is a discussion that is relevant to 600 million xtians, not just 1.

Apologies that I took so long to respond, Steve. It is a funny time of the year and I have been busy with many different things in my life, not just the usual activities during the "festive season".

I look forward to your response (take your time).

1. Answer this simple question: who wrote Genesis and when? Once you answer that, explain how that person(s) knew the information and how they knew (not thought) what they were writing was a literal account of the history of the universe. If you can't give me a thorough explanation of what it is we are talking about, then there is no sense going on...because you don't know what you are talking about. 

2. That is terrible reasoning! Your own argument is that it was intended to be literal. That means that any position that is not literal is a position against YOU. That is a binary choice: agree with you or not. Most don't. Your logic is so so so bad. 

3. Again, that argument is so bad. Claiming that you can't possibly have a discussion with the majority of people that don't agree with you as support for your minority position is...well, more nonsense.

[Silver]

1. Answer this simple question: who wrote Genesis and when? Once you answer that, explain how that person(s) knew the information and how they knew (not thought) what they were writing was a literal account of the history of the universe. If you can't give me a thorough explanation of what it is we are talking about, then there is no sense going on...because you don't know what you are talking about. 

1. People make up shit all the time; it's called fiction for a reason. I can write anything even though it has no bearing to reality or history, but guaranteed there will be some idiot who thinks it is non-fiction and create a religion out of it; i.e., the Old Testament and the New Testament, and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Many apologies, Steve. I was in a rush, read the first part and only answered that. If I understand you correctly, your question is about the sin of all of humanity being the important focus of xtianity as this is what Christ suffered for and bore on his shoulders. I will address this question with scripture because that is of most meaning to a xtian.

From Genesis 3:16-19


Sorry about the KJV translation but it is my personal favourite. So here's the thing. Until this point, Adam and Eve lived in the garden of Eden as immortals, in perfect peace and harmony. It is only after the eating of the forbidden fruit that god made Eve able to bear children as a punishment for eating the fruit and for enticing Adam to do the same. Adam was punished with toil and hardship. So humanity's struggle on earth, its sin, suffering and pain is initiated by this single event. This is why it is pivotal in the xtian mythology.

Christ came to earth to bear the sins of humanity but those sins would not exist were if not for Adam and Eve's original sin.

I hope I have now answered your question adequately.

No, it does not. 

First, your argument to succeed --which is evolution has invalidated Christianity-- you need at least two things to be true: 1) proof there was no Adam and Eve at any time and 2) that Christianity requires a literal reading of Gen 1-3.

1. I don't believe you have that proof at all, but for the sake of this post, let's assume you are right. 

2. In the US (probably the most conservative group of Christians on the planet) only 24% believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. If we project that over the 2.3 billion on the planet, that means there are somewhere in the neighborhood 1.7 billion your line of reasoning would not apply to. What if the Adam/Eve story was metaphorical? Do you think that man does not have sin nature? Redemption is still required. The message of the NT still applies 100%.

Well, if by simplistic you mean literal, then I plead guilty your honour! There is no other way to read the bible. Otherwise, xtianity is a billion people's interpretation of iron-age writings. It could be anything.

Hopefully we are learning through this discussion...

Your insistence that Gen 1-3 must be read literal is simply not true. Fun fact: Do you know that Gen 1-3 is written in a much older Hebrew and in a different style than the rest of Genesis? How does that fit in your thesis when we don't even know who wrote it?

I did not mean that your understanding of Christianity was literal. I meant simplistic. You continually overshoot in your grand thread titles. This is a great example. I actual think there was a literal Adam/Eve at some time in the past. However, because of your overreaching, hyperbole and the consistent fact that your premises do not support your conclusion, I didn't even have to argue about that to show your whole argument is crap.

Thanks for admitting that you don't know Jack Shit about the Bible.  

That book is part of the Apocrypha that was integeral to every Bible version until the 1880s when a couple of English guys, Westcott & Hort, decided to toss it.  The Protestants went along with them but the Catholics told them to shove it.  So you have been reading an incomplete Bible.  Your Cliff Notes version is only about 132 years old.

 Wrong, wrong wrong.

GC

What are you in doubt about?  Please let me know and I will do my best to clear up your confusion.