-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yo Christians! What if...?
- Thread starter slave2six
- Start date
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
-Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"
"So always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the Law and the Prophets."
-Matthew 7:12
-Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"
"So always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the Law and the Prophets."
-Matthew 7:12
DadBurnett
Instigator
If those wer4e removed, we would perhaps perceive a closer link between science and religion ...
GiantHouseKey
Well-Known Member
Well obviously at least one major part of judeo-christianity, creation, would either be:
a) Unjustified or
b) Easier to justify (You could make it up yourself so it actually works)
So depending on how liberal you would like to be, it would either help or destroy the idea of a personal monotheistic creator God...
...OR, alternatively, if we're talking about the whole concept of creationism being removed... Then I guess there's no creator without the creation bit eh?
GhK.
Smoke
Done here.
We might have no creationism, and we'd probably have no original sin. Without original sin, the whole theological structure of Roman Catholicism falls down, and as Catholics are the majority of Christians, I think that would have made for a vastly different history as well as a vastly different Catholicism.
DadBurnett
Instigator
What if the Old Testament was removed from the Christian Bible. The OT is afterall the Bible of Judiasm ... it is thier story, their book, their experience. Could Christianity stand without Judiasm and the OT?
linwood
Well-Known Member
Christianity is built upon Judaism.
It would have nothing to stand on if the OT was removed from the canon.
slave2six
Substitious
Not just Catholicism but all of Christianity would fall. as Linwood put it:
So, the natural question is, "Is the story of the fall of man true?" That is to say, was there ever a time in which only two homo-sapiens existed and in which they made a conscious choice to disobey God?
If the answer is "no" then Judeo-Christianity falls to the ground.
If the answer is "yes" then please explain how it is possible for all of the physical evidence to point to evolution.
I am honestly trying to understand why thinking persons still take Christianity seriously.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
So does Islam. Which is why they don't accept ToE either. They can't. It would destroy their "faith."
DadBurnett
Instigator
You seem to say that the message of Jesus has no validity without the OT, that his message cannot stand on its own???
Some would say that the assertion of Jesus that He fulfilled the OT law i mplied that the old is done away, that He fully embodied a new perspective, a new way, a new relationship with God. Again, some would say that the salvation he brought was in no way dependent on the OT ... so other than historical perspective, what good is the OT to a Christian???
slave2six
Substitious
I think there is a distinction that has to be made. The life of Jesus stands on its own. However, the death of Jesus makes no sense outside of the confines of the story of the first Adam and the fall of man.
One cannot use terms like "the salvation he brought" without belying the fact that "salvation" means something important and that something is directly related to the "fall of man." The NT epistles expend a great deal of effort in comparing Jesus (the "second Adam") to the first Adam drawing parallels between the "sin of the one man" and the single act of human sacrifice by the second man (which is the remedy for the sin that entered the world through the first Adam).
If there was not an actual event in which man disobeyed or rejected God in some form, there is no need for "salvation" as the Christian faith understands it. One cannot take a liberal view and say that the "fall of man" story is allegorical without then inferring that the death of Christ might also not be an actual event but a kind of allegory. Both have to be factual events in order for the story to stand.
And so, again, how can anyone believe this story when the physical data clearly indicates that there never was an Adam/Eve scenario?
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Why thinking persons take Christianity seriously and why people can be biblical literalists are TWO separate and distinct questions. I have no love for Christianity anymore, but I don't like it when someone attempts to setup others to fail, even and possibly especially in argumentation.
The story of the Garden of Eden, like most other mythic history, is taken figuratively by a large multitude of individuals. It is understood as being like a parable (which Jesus was want to use) or fable. The best part about "being the word of God" is that it should remain truthful to generations as we advance in our understanding and faith. I don't think that this is true for any of the "Big Books" but the premise is there. While the story of Noah might have needed to be taken as true in order for early mankind to understand the world around them, for more modern man the story need only be true in a figurative sense; i.e. understanding that God does not desire us to sin and will punish it somehow someway.
100% Biblical (substitute anything for that matter) approaches lunacy for the same reason that all complete literalism falls on its face. Nothing is perfect in this universe; taken to a sufficient extreme, everything falls apart. Even if somehow complete infallible divine truth were to make its way down to us, it would have to be "filtered" through, or "lensed" by imperfection regardless of how it was done. Our language is imperfect. Therefore it cannot convey concepts perfectly. As such the best possible thing a "Big Book" can be is "the best possible interpretation of divine truth" but it cannot possibly be perfect in and of itself.
Literalists have need for a black and white, cookie cutter world because it makes them feel safe. Fear of the unknown is so powerful for these people that any doubt at all scares them like an angry fire cat scares a dry paper mouse. Its either that or they are intellectually lazy and are so in love with the path of least resistance that any answer that "satisfies" is better than none at all.
MTF
The story of the Garden of Eden, like most other mythic history, is taken figuratively by a large multitude of individuals. It is understood as being like a parable (which Jesus was want to use) or fable. The best part about "being the word of God" is that it should remain truthful to generations as we advance in our understanding and faith. I don't think that this is true for any of the "Big Books" but the premise is there. While the story of Noah might have needed to be taken as true in order for early mankind to understand the world around them, for more modern man the story need only be true in a figurative sense; i.e. understanding that God does not desire us to sin and will punish it somehow someway.
100% Biblical (substitute anything for that matter) approaches lunacy for the same reason that all complete literalism falls on its face. Nothing is perfect in this universe; taken to a sufficient extreme, everything falls apart. Even if somehow complete infallible divine truth were to make its way down to us, it would have to be "filtered" through, or "lensed" by imperfection regardless of how it was done. Our language is imperfect. Therefore it cannot convey concepts perfectly. As such the best possible thing a "Big Book" can be is "the best possible interpretation of divine truth" but it cannot possibly be perfect in and of itself.
Literalists have need for a black and white, cookie cutter world because it makes them feel safe. Fear of the unknown is so powerful for these people that any doubt at all scares them like an angry fire cat scares a dry paper mouse. Its either that or they are intellectually lazy and are so in love with the path of least resistance that any answer that "satisfies" is better than none at all.
MTF
Last edited:
It depends on what the Adam/Eve story is an allegory FOR. It may be that the "fall of man" could have been a large-scale event, and thus Christ's death became necessary. Adam/Eve doesn't have to be literal.
True =/= fact.
AlsoAnima
Friend
Yes. The core ideas would be unaffected.
GiantHouseKey
Well-Known Member
How about the extremely core idea that there is a monotheistic god that created the earth?
GhK.
AlsoAnima
Friend
Like I said, they would be unaffected. Unless certain things have been added to the OP's list, of which I am not aware of.
ayani
member
that's an awesome question.
well, Biblical Christians regard the Bible as a chronology of human history, specifically of God's interaction with mankind.
so if you take out the creation of the first people, and God's promises to them.... you also take out the fall, the need for a savior and reconciler, and the promises God made through His people, and to them.
God would still exist of course, and Messiah would still be available for people to call upon, know, and follow. the history would still be there, but not readable in the Bible. but thankfully, we do have a Biblical narrative which describes how it was in the beginning, who God is, and how we can be reconciled to Him.
"So, the natural question is, "Is the story of the fall of man true?" That is to say, was there ever a time in which only two homo-sapiens existed and in which they made a conscious choice to disobey God?
If the answer is "no" then Judeo-Christianity falls to the ground.
If the answer is "yes" then please explain how it is possible for all of the physical evidence to point to evolution."
Here is what I think about the physical evidence. It points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old. It points to life having existed on earth for around 3.8 billion years. It points to some big changes in the composition of life. It supports the belief that species can evolve to some extent. It does not adequately support the belief that all species we have today have arisen through processes limited by the natural properties of matter. Take a look at the web sites of some of the intelligent design organizations, such as Discovery Institute. Although evolution does happen, far too much has been attributed to it.
Also, you appear to be creating a false dichotomy. Even if all the physical evidence pointed to evolution giving rise to species in general, that would not eliminate the possibility of mankind having been created separately from all that, by God.
If the answer is "no" then Judeo-Christianity falls to the ground.
If the answer is "yes" then please explain how it is possible for all of the physical evidence to point to evolution."
Here is what I think about the physical evidence. It points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old. It points to life having existed on earth for around 3.8 billion years. It points to some big changes in the composition of life. It supports the belief that species can evolve to some extent. It does not adequately support the belief that all species we have today have arisen through processes limited by the natural properties of matter. Take a look at the web sites of some of the intelligent design organizations, such as Discovery Institute. Although evolution does happen, far too much has been attributed to it.
Also, you appear to be creating a false dichotomy. Even if all the physical evidence pointed to evolution giving rise to species in general, that would not eliminate the possibility of mankind having been created separately from all that, by God.