True Myth

[MagusYanam]

The great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once posited that there was something wrong with the way both liberals and conservatives viewed Genesis. To him it seemed that neither was taking Genesis 1 and 2 seriously. With the conservatives, the problem was self-evident. Genesis was meant to be a religious text conveying deep spiritual truths, not scientific and not historical, and conservatives still wanted to reduce it to one or both of the latter two. This precludes (as we have seen) any serious discussion of the deep metaphysical implications of the Genesis views of human nature or good and evil.

With the liberals, the problem was not as apparent, but just as serious. When approached from the standpoint of 'it's just a myth', some would tend to dismiss it on those grounds and replace it with a myth of their own - a myth of progress, for example. They would accept the external (empirical) scientific realities while again brushing over the metaphysical discussions of the actual creation myth itself.

I don't agree with Niebuhr on a lot of things, but this is one area Niebuhr seems to have gotten right, IMHO. Niebuhr's approach was this: we should not take Genesis as literal scientific or historical fact, but we should also not dismiss it as a superstition, since obviously it was held to some other purpose. We should instead take it seriously, on its own terms, and regard it as 'true myth' - a story which is meant to convey a point on the nature of humanity and the nature of sin.

So, is Niebuhr right? Is the paradoxical 'true myth' a good way to approach the reading of Genesis, and have both sides been going about it the wrong way?

[ST88]

Also, there is even today heated debate within the Jewish community over what prophets (even ones as important to Christianty as Isaiah) should be included in the Hebrew Scriptures, so don't even try telling me that the canon of the Old Testament is fixed in stone, or that it is consistent. If it isn't today, it certainly wasn't during the time of Jesus. The argument just falls flat.

Certainly not. But you have to admit that these critiques and objections do not have much to do with how the Bible has been interpreted throughout history. It has only been in recent times that anyone has tried to supplant the KJV with "more accurate" versions.

But you have a problem that you haven't yet addressed. You can't have religious truth without historical truth. You can't acquire a religion without being taught it.

The "spiritual correctness" is based on the factual correctness. You learn about God through the Bible -- nowhere else. If the Bible is not factually correct then your representation of God is not factually correct.

I have some contentions on the last point based on my own understanding of Christianity (from an Episcopalian viewpoint, that is). No, you don't learn about God only through the Bible. Scripture is but one authority. We also have the traditions of the Church and our own individual capacity for reason to guide our knowledge of God.

OK. Before we get into Kant, I have to stop here and re-interate my contention that, yes, all knowledge about God stems from the Bible. Any knowledge gleaned from any Christian Church stems from the Bible. Our own individual capacity for reason as it relates to the knowledge of God, cannot predate knowledge of God. It can, as you say, guide our knowledge of God once we find out what the concept is, but it can't inform us of God independent of the Bible. With that out of the way, let's address Kant. And for Kant, I'll need a little spongifying. Cheers to you all... A Kanting we will go...

Kant would disagree with you, and I daresay I would take Kant's part. Human beings seem to have a natural inclination toward the spiritual and moral (what Kant calls practical reason), and for the most part (cults and violent sects notwithstanding), this assertion would seem justified by the fact that most religions seem to have followed similar paths. You look at any of the great religious traditions of today and they will incorporate a moral order based on love and compassion. It's there in Hinduism, it's there in Buddhism, it's there in Shintou, it's there in Confucianism and it's there in the Hopi and Iroquois religions as well as in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Each of these traditions has a different history, but a very similar message, what I discern to be religious truth. I think something von Harnack (one of the great Historical Critics of the 19th century) said once would sum it up pretty nicely. He said you could take away the entirety of the Christian tradition including the Pentateuch, all the prophets, all the wisdom literature and he would still have a sound religious centre. When asked what that could be, he answered simply, 'the Gospel'.

Hoo boy. This is why the word hermeneutics is so important, I guess. In my opinion, Kant was on to something. Easy for me to say, right? How's that for a thesis? Kant was on to something. We all have an internal sense of right and wrong, love thy familial neighbor, and some kind of leaning towards believing in a metaphysical system. Kant was trying to refute David Hume in one of those books of his Critiques on Pure Reason (you probably know better than I about specifics as I am about twenty years removed from these things). He came close, but like an escape-velocity-challenged projectile, he falls back to earth and makes a significant divot. In fact, Kant actually supports the Hume view by saying our senses are ill-equipped to define the metaphysical.

That's all well and good. But where Hume says there is nothing that must exist beyond our senses, Kant says that there are things that absolutely must exist beyond our senses. In this sense, he was centuries ahead of his time. But not for the reason he wanted, and not exactly in the discipline he was going after. We now can conceive of other dimensions, for example, even though we can't see them. But where Kant describes these imperceptible things as metaphysical, modern physics has shown that these things can be a part of physical existence. That is, there are physical things -- objects and frames of existence -- of which we have no empirical knowledge, but which we can work out on paper. Is this a priori knowledge? Maybe. Does our leaning towards metaphysics actually point to a leaning towards these other imperceptible physical states? This question is just as speculative as the metaphysics question.

But consider what Kant says about what we might call Original Judgment. He says that the ability to judge right and wrong is not learned, but is part of our essence. OK. But apply this to Christianity. The concept of right and wrong flows from God, yes? Therefore it is part of metaphysics. Logically, if we can say that a metaphysical system of right and wrong is by definition imperceptible, then how can we say that there is an internal sense of justice? If we can feel what is right and what is wrong, how do we reconcile this with the idea that metaphysics is beyond the senses? You may call this the realm of the soul, but there is still the problem of its physical effect.

There is another issue here, aside from modern physics, and that is the evolution of the brain. In my opinion, it is more probable that our wish for justice, sense of right and wrong, and our wish for metaphysical satisfaction have to do with the mechanics of human evolution than they do with the platonic existence of these systems. This is Kant's real thesis, that there is something within us that wants to see the world in terms of right and wrong. In Christianity, this something is a partial proof of the existence of the metaphysical. But in Kant, this something is only proof of itself.

Hermeneutics: If you have a knowledge about Christianity, and you read Kant, you will find little Jesuses everywhere. But if you listen to what Kant says about Christianity, he rejects it out of hand. He says that God is an allegory, but not for spiritual existence, instead for the actions of humanity. All religions are useful insofar as they claim there is a universal system of right and wrong, but all religions are false because they make claims about the metaphysical that aren't and can't be backed up by any system of knowledge. He does not say that there is absolutely nothing that is metaphysical -- as I might -- but he does say, sort of, that any statements made about the nature of things in the metaphysical realm are patently absurd.

Take this to its logical extreme and we find out that we do not need metaphysics in order to become good people. God, as a Christian concept, as a Biblical concept, is not necessary for right and wrong, nor the understanding of right and wrong. This is why I say that all knowledge of God stems from the Bible. Not because there is a universal system that we all may sense about the world around us, but because we have this sense to begin with, then find out about God, then decide to call this unknown sense "God." In my opinion, this is a logical fallacy -- unfortunately for me, I don't know the name of this particular fallacy. But without the knowledge of God from the Bible, we would not be able to call the unknown, "God".

Aside:
Now I'm going to have to look up von Harnack!

Two very important words: 'tradition' and 'reason'. Yes, you have Scripture, but it is meaningless without some form of hermeneutical key, which is what the traditions of the Church and one's own faculties supply us. Literal interpretation is but the most basic and least religiously useful hermeneutic: even St. Augustine said as much. Reason, when the scientific and historical facts of today are taken into account, will have to rely on something better - though something for which scripture and the traditions of the Church still apply.

A less-lengthy history of Protestant teaching says this is not correct. Because the stated purpose of religion is to prepare the living for the afterlife, it becomes necessary to know how to prepare for the best afterlife possible. The behavioral aspect of religious doctrine is not intended to make the world a better place, it's individualized for individual saving. All attempts to make the world a better place are prideful and intended for slothful human comfort, are they not? Without the Bible, the methods of preparation for the afterlife would be unknown.

I agree with you that literal interpretation is the "least religiously useful hermeneutic"; my God, that's what I've been saying all along. The key to propagating Religion is to tell people that the Bible says something. Whether or not it really does say that is irrelevant. Consider Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that blood transfusion is part of forbidden "blood consumption". Consider also the interpretation/misinterpretation of Isaiah's prophecies. They mean different things depending on who you talk to. Thus, just because the Bible may be True (capital T), this doesn't mean that all Judeo-Christian religions aren't false. However, the converse is not true. I.e., If the Bible is false, then all JC religions are necessarily false. Would you disagree with this?

[MagusYanam]

Sorry I haven't posted recently, ST88 (exam week and all). Things are getting interesting in this discussion!

Also, there is even today heated debate within the Jewish community over what prophets (even ones as important to Christianty as Isaiah) should be included in the Hebrew Scriptures, so don't even try telling me that the canon of the Old Testament is fixed in stone, or that it is consistent. If it isn't today, it certainly wasn't during the time of Jesus. The argument just falls flat.

Certainly not. But you have to admit that these critiques and objections do not have much to do with how the Bible has been interpreted throughout history. It has only been in recent times that anyone has tried to supplant the KJV with "more accurate" versions.

Alright, that's true. During the Middle Ages the Bible was interpreted precisely the way the Latin had it, and before then the way the Greek had it. The KJV was an English translation with basis in two 11th-century Latin 'translations' (which had certain... umm... embellishments added). Also, as I think one rather misogynistic Italian poet said once: 'Poetic translations are like women: if they are beautiful, they will not be faithful; if they are faithful, they will not be beautiful'. The KJV was meant to be beautiful (they had William Shakespeare working on it, after all), so as you can imagine...

As for more recent English re-translations, how recent are the 'recent times' you speak of? The Church of England itself recognised the need for a more accurate English translation in 1870 (this resulted in the ERV published in 1881), so if that's what you consider 'recent' then I agree.

Our own individual capacity for reason as it relates to the knowledge of God, cannot predate knowledge of God. It can, as you say, guide our knowledge of God once we find out what the concept is, but it can't inform us of God independent of the Bible.

Do you mean that reason cannot come up with a concept for God independent of the Bible? Well, it would seem this hypothesis cannot really be tested, because the entire Western way of thinking has been entirely shaped up until the early 1800's by the Bible (it's not until you get into Emerson and the Transcendentalists that you begin having offshoots of Western religious thought that try to completely divorce themselves from the Scriptures). But I agree with you here: reason and tradition without the Scriptures are dead, or at least stale - I mean, you only have to look at what became of the Transcendentalists to see where that road leads. Post-Transcendentalist Unitarianism was for a very long time a sort of rarefied religion defined only by its negations: we don't have a creed, we don't believe in x, y, z and t, et cetera. However, there is a caveat: the Scriptures without tradition and reason are dead. For proof of that you need only look at the moral and rational bankruptcy of fundamentalism (Christian, Islamic or otherwise) - which I have found do not give an accurate depiction of a forgiving and compassionate God, for all their supposed adherence to Scripture.

Logically, if we can say that a metaphysical system of right and wrong is by definition imperceptible, then how can we say that there is an internal sense of justice? If we can feel what is right and what is wrong, how do we reconcile this with the idea that metaphysics is beyond the senses? You may call this the realm of the soul, but there is still the problem of its physical effect.

Good questions. But I would disagree that the system of right and wrong is imperceptible in its entirety. We know when something happens whether that happening is right or wrong - morality is something perceived (therefore perceptible). As you point out, we can feel what is right and what is wrong. I think I know what you're getting at, however; perhaps a better way of saying it is that the system of right and wrong is by definition inexplicit, and therefore contains a metaphysical aspect - there is no way one can create a universal definition that can describe adequately the whole of what is right. Though we cannot perceive this universal definition, we can access it through our conscience.

Any serious definition of right and wrong will have to be at least partially metaphysical, owing to the lack of a perceived all-encompassing definition, but it will also have to address the material and temporal effects of such actions. A wrong done will result in hurt - something palpable, temporal, in all senses real. The question then becomes, is it the wrong itself that is felt, or merely the hurt resulting from that wrong?

A less-lengthy history of Protestant teaching says this is not correct. Because the stated purpose of religion is to prepare the living for the afterlife, it becomes necessary to know how to prepare for the best afterlife possible. The behavioral aspect of religious doctrine is not intended to make the world a better place, it's individualized for individual saving. All attempts to make the world a better place are prideful and intended for slothful human comfort, are they not? Without the Bible, the methods of preparation for the afterlife would be unknown.

Somewhere, Walter Rauschenbusch is turning in his grave. Remember the Lord's Prayer: 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven'. The very idea that the behaviours taught by religion are not meant to do good in the world seems quite absurd; I know of no honest religious person who would say our behavioural concerns should focus only on the hereafter. After all, the very purpose of religion is to create and codify a moral order in this world even though the reward may be without.

Thus, just because the Bible may be True (capital T), this doesn't mean that all Judeo-Christian religions aren't false. However, the converse is not true. I.e., If the Bible is false, then all JC religions are necessarily false. Would you disagree with this?

No, not at all. In fact, I think I'd be hard-pressed to say it better myself. I think the question is a peripheral one, though, since what we're discussing here should probably relate more to what constitutes 'true', 'True' and 'false'.

[YEC]

Here's my question.

If Genesis is a myth, why is it presented as the literal truth in the bible?

The bible gives me no reason to think otherwise.

[MagusYanam]

a.) Genesis 1-2 read as though they were meant to represent the condition of mankind as a whole, rather than the lives of two specific, historical people. The Hebrew word adham (Adam) means simply 'man', or 'earth-born' - a common, not a proper name, just as hawwah (Eve) means '(she who) gives life / is alive'. It is only after we get beyond the creation narrative into the patriarchal narrative and genealogies do we run up against something that looks like history.

Reason enough?

[ST88]

Sorry I haven't posted recently, ST88 (exam week and all). Things are getting interesting in this discussion!

Exam week. Boy am I glad I don't have finals & midterms anymore!

As for more recent English re-translations, how recent are the 'recent times' you speak of? The Church of England itself recognised the need for a more accurate English translation in 1870 (this resulted in the ERV published in 1881), so if that's what you consider 'recent' then I agree.

I didn't know about that early of a date for the ERV. What I was thinking of was the Deissmann Translations in 1895 that blew the lid off the Greek documents. That's roughly 300 years of KJV dominance, and arguably the majority of the greatest thinkers in Western Civilization were from this period.
American Standard - 1901
Bible in Basic English - 1949
Revised Standard - 1952
New American Standard - 1963
New English - 1971
New International - 1979
New King James - 1982

Do you mean that reason cannot come up with a concept for God independent of the Bible? Well, it would seem this hypothesis cannot really be tested,

I'm not arguing that it's impossible to think up some version of a supreme being without knowledge of the Bible. There are many religions that are possible. However, it is impossible to arrive at exactly the version of God that is presented in the Bible.

But I agree with you here: reason and tradition without the Scriptures are dead, or at least stale

Not exactly what I said, but OK. "Dead" implies that they were alive at all, though.

Logically, if we can say that a metaphysical system of right and wrong is by definition imperceptible, then how can we say that there is an internal sense of justice? If we can feel what is right and what is wrong, how do we reconcile this with the idea that metaphysics is beyond the senses? You may call this the realm of the soul, but there is still the problem of its physical effect.

Good questions. But I would disagree that the system of right and wrong is imperceptible in its entirety. We know when something happens whether that happening is right or wrong - morality is something perceived (therefore perceptible). As you point out, we can feel what is right and what is wrong. I think I know what you're getting at, however; perhaps a better way of saying it is that the system of right and wrong is by definition inexplicit, and therefore contains a metaphysical aspect - there is no way one can create a universal definition that can describe adequately the whole of what is right. Though we cannot perceive this universal definition, we can access it through our conscience.

Any serious definition of right and wrong will have to be at least partially metaphysical, owing to the lack of a perceived all-encompassing definition, but it will also have to address the material and temporal effects of such actions. A wrong done will result in hurt - something palpable, temporal, in all senses real. The question then becomes, is it the wrong itself that is felt, or merely the hurt resulting from that wrong?

This is not the answer I expected from you, and I think you have a point. But you also contradict yourself just a tad. If there were a universal system of right and wrong, then there wouldn't be such a thing as a moral dilemma -- there would only be times where our personal desires conflict with this sense of right and wrong. And, of course, whereas you ascribe this as consciousness tapping into a universal code, I would ascribe it to an experience-based system of rewards and punishments -- and (ye Gods) even a Kantian sense of what one would want everyone else to do in a given situation. Motivation in humans is very complicated -- a universal system of right and wrong does not do it justice.

But even framing the situation as "right vs. wrong" is not the correct way to look at it. As you may have guessed, I am more relativist in this regard, and I would not say that a given action is automatically right or wrong without looking at its context. Even then, the best we can do sometimes is say that a certain action is "understandable" given the context.

A less-lengthy history of Protestant teaching says this is not correct. Because the stated purpose of religion is to prepare the living for the afterlife, it becomes necessary to know how to prepare for the best afterlife possible. The behavioral aspect of religious doctrine is not intended to make the world a better place, it's individualized for individual saving. All attempts to make the world a better place are prideful and intended for slothful human comfort, are they not? Without the Bible, the methods of preparation for the afterlife would be unknown.

Somewhere, Walter Rauschenbusch is turning in his grave. Remember the Lord's Prayer: 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven'. The very idea that the behaviours taught by religion are not meant to do good in the world seems quite absurd; I know of no honest religious person who would say our behavioural concerns should focus only on the hereafter. After all, the very purpose of religion is to create and codify a moral order in this world even though the reward may be without.

Isn't it interesting that it took almost 1,900 years for this idea to gain any traction? I would argue that it was the influence of the humanist Enlightenment that got people thinking about better Earthly lives. It would not have been possible to get anywhere with these ideas before then. The Bible seems conflicted on "Good Works", and there is no prescription for changing or even helping a society in a general way in order to reflect a Christian viewpoint. Sure, you're encouraged to help others, to treat the poorest of the poor as if they were Christ, but not in an organized way.

The initial primary argument against communism was that it sought to create a "Heaven on Earth," a "secular salvation" in utter defiance of Christianity. The logical conclusion to this complaint is that organized Earthly happiness is undesirable.

Thus, just because the Bible may be True (capital T), this doesn't mean that all Judeo-Christian religions aren't false. However, the converse is not true. I.e., If the Bible is false, then all JC religions are necessarily false. Would you disagree with this?

No, not at all. In fact, I think I'd be hard-pressed to say it better myself.

By corollary, then, we should be able to say that it is possible that all religions based on the Bible are, themselves, false. What would make them false? Incorrect interpretations. Taking a mythological view of certain parts of the Bible, but not others, because they conflict with contemporary scientific understanding is placing the science above the religion. Why? Because the science is what causes the doubt. Before Darwin (yes, him), Science and Theology were pretty much one and the same. There was Lamarckism, but that's a different story altogether. We see now, however, that Liberal Theology has bent toward Science as it pursues directions that are no longer governed by Discovering God's Creation. (This is an outsider's view.)

I think the question is a peripheral one, though, since what we're discussing here should probably relate more to what constitutes 'true', 'True' and 'false'.

Well, the way I define these terms is that true actually happened in a factual sense; True represents conditions of existence; and false neither happened nor represents conditions of existence (I do not make a distinction between False and false, because if either Truth or truth are False, they are also false -- aren't they? Can a truth be False? Naaahhh).

Now, where's my NAS?

[MagusYanam]

Exam week. Boy am I glad I don't have finals & midterms anymore!

Heh. Lucky for you. I just got mine back and I was somewhat disappointed - an A- in Chinese and a B in Intro to History. Could have been worse, I suppose.

I'm not arguing that it's impossible to think up some version of a supreme being without knowledge of the Bible. There are many religions that are possible. However, it is impossible to arrive at exactly the version of God that is presented in the Bible.

Well, if thinking of God as being exactly the way He is portrayed in the Bible is what you mean by the concept of God then of course you'll need the Bible to come to that concept, but this almost seems like circular reasoning to me.

Not exactly what I said, but OK. "Dead" implies that they were alive at all, though.

What, weren't they?

This is not the answer I expected from you, and I think you have a point.

So you expect that under normal circumstances that I don't have a point? Or is it just that you expect to disagree with me?

For curiosity's sake, what answer did you expect from me? I hope I'm not contradicting myself somewhere...

But you also contradict yourself just a tad. If there were a universal system of right and wrong, then there wouldn't be such a thing as a moral dilemma -- there would only be times where our personal desires conflict with this sense of right and wrong. And, of course, whereas you ascribe this as consciousness tapping into a universal code, I would ascribe it to an experience-based system of rewards and punishments -- and (ye Gods) even a Kantian sense of what one would want everyone else to do in a given situation. Motivation in humans is very complicated -- a universal system of right and wrong does not do it justice.

But even framing the situation as "right vs. wrong" is not the correct way to look at it. As you may have guessed, I am more relativist in this regard, and I would not say that a given action is automatically right or wrong without looking at its context. Even then, the best we can do sometimes is say that a certain action is "understandable" given the context.

You seem to be misconstruing my argument somewhat. You say I ascribe the moral consciousness as tapping into some kind of code. I would differ with your word choice there, because 'code' implies something explicit and universal - two words which I deliberately avoided, except when implying knowledge we do not have as moral beings. There is a definition, but it is not universal (at least the way we can perceive it), it is situational. Because our moral consciousness is limited, if there is a universal definition, we cannot formulate it, we can only access it through situation. Like I said earlier:

the system of right and wrong is by definition inexplicit, and therefore contains a metaphysical aspect - there is no way one can create a universal definition that can describe adequately the whole of what is right. Though we cannot perceive this universal definition, we can access it through our conscience.

My problem with relativism in the regard you mention is that it can excuse, for example, racism in the South because children were raised by racist parents, grew up in a segregated community or whatnot - a context, in other words, which might make racist tendencies understandable, but they are still wrong. I would say that there can be no moral excuse for racism - you don't give Southerners a pass just because they don't have a good education or were raised in a racist household.

Isn't it interesting that it took almost 1,900 years for this idea to gain any traction? I would argue that it was the influence of the humanist Enlightenment that got people thinking about better Earthly lives. It would not have been possible to get anywhere with these ideas before then. The Bible seems conflicted on "Good Works", and there is no prescription for changing or even helping a society in a general way in order to reflect a Christian viewpoint. Sure, you're encouraged to help others, to treat the poorest of the poor as if they were Christ, but not in an organized way.

The initial primary argument against communism was that it sought to create a "Heaven on Earth," a "secular salvation" in utter defiance of Christianity. The logical conclusion to this complaint is that organized Earthly happiness is undesirable.

What I find interesting is the rather unique way you have of looking at church history. In the Old Testament, you will find that references to the afterlife are few and far between, and that most of them are not very appealing. 'Sheol' is the word most often used for the afterlife, and let's just say it's not a place you're going to want to hang around for most of eternity. No, the dao of the Hebrews into which Jesus was raised was very much concerned with the affairs of this world, whatever way you choose to look at it.

Even after Jesus (who makes a bit more mention of 'eternal life' and 'the Kingdom of God' and was in the minority at the time among Jews in that he thought there even was an afterlife), the tendencies of the early church either drifted toward the concerns of this world, or were looking to the sky waiting for the world to end (which it didn't). At last, St. Paul was forced to write some epistolary material saying, in essence, 'alright, show's over, everybody back to work'. Since then, the concerns of the Church seemed like they would mostly have kept to the long Jewish tradition of this-worldly focus, if it hadn't been for the Gnostic movement's influence.

It's not until the Dark Ages that you really get the despair and poverty needed to turn the Church's focus more toward a better hereafter, and by then, the original teachings of Jesus, the wisdom of the Hebrews and the innovations and codifications of the kerygmatic period were lost to all but the sparse and mostly clerical literati, who would have had some interest in making sure the focus of the Church was on the hereafter. It wasn't until the Enlightenment, then (getting back to modern history) that increased literacy and interest in affairs of church and state among the common folk began to happen. So you have the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment proper, the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution - all of which (except perhaps the last one) encouraged a new generation of Europeans to rethink the ways they'd lived for the past 1300 years. So you end up with thinkers like William Ellery Channing, Horace Bushnell and Washington Gladden on this side of the Atlantic and F. D. Maurice and Albrecht Ritschl on the other, trying to reconstruct the Gospel from a contemporary perspective while remaining as true to the time it was written as they could. That was what created the Social Gospel.

By corollary, then, we should be able to say that it is possible that all religions based on the Bible are, themselves, false. What would make them false? Incorrect interpretations. Taking a mythological view of certain parts of the Bible, but not others, because they conflict with contemporary scientific understanding is placing the science above the religion. Why? Because the science is what causes the doubt. Before Darwin (yes, him), Science and Theology were pretty much one and the same. There was Lamarckism, but that's a different story altogether. We see now, however, that Liberal Theology has bent toward Science as it pursues directions that are no longer governed by Discovering God's Creation. (This is an outsider's view.)

Well, the way I define these terms is that true actually happened in a factual sense; True represents conditions of existence; and false neither happened nor represents conditions of existence (I do not make a distinction between False and false, because if either Truth or truth are False, they are also false -- aren't they? Can a truth be False? Naaahhh).

Somewhat flawed thinking: who decides what the correct interpretations are, when the possibility is that all JCI religions are wrong? That, and the 'mythological view of certain parts of the Bible' is justified - I thought we'd been over this! - because religion and scientific understanding should not conflict; they are two separate realms of knowledge, and never the twain shall meet! Religious understanding is one thing, empirical understanding is something completely different. Religion needs its mythology, but more importantly, a religion needs adherents who can recognise the myth as True instead of carrying it into the realm of the empirical and trying to make it true, which is not only bad science, but bad religion. So for the love of God stop trying to establish religious Truth as empirical truth! You were the one who insisted on the dichotomy in the first place. The creation myth can be True, not true and not false by the definitions you were so kind as to provide - that's what I've been saying all along! So what is it you're trying to argue?

[ST88]

Well, if thinking of God as being exactly the way He is portrayed in the Bible is what you mean by the concept of God then of course you'll need the Bible to come to that concept, but this almost seems like circular reasoning to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say earlier that the Bible was not the only means to get to the JC God? My argument is that it is the only possible means to get there. God can't be reasoned out.

Not exactly what I said, but OK. "Dead" implies that they were alive at all, though.

What, weren't they?

"Reason and tradition are dead without the Scriptures, or at least stale," you say. I would have to say that -- again, as they apply to God -- reason and tradition would be non-existent without the Scriptures. It is "The Scriptures" that posits the idea of God, takes it from a loose collection of Semitic mythologies and puts it into a semi-coherent doctrine.

Now, this is my inner non-believer talking (as opposed to the outer non-believer). There were thousands of such mythologies among various tribes throughout human history and pre-history. This particular one survived in part because it was written down in such a compelling way. Without such a document(s), the mythology would have died out like the rest of them did.

So, in this sense, I was agreeing with you. However, as I didn't believe this is what you actually meant, and as there would not have been a Christianity without the original Judeo part of it, I said that reason and tradition from a Christian perspective would not have existed.

This is not the answer I expected from you, and I think you have a point.

So you expect that under normal circumstances that I don't have a point? Or is it just that you expect to disagree with me?

For curiosity's sake, what answer did you expect from me? I hope I'm not contradicting myself somewhere...

No, nothing like that. My position has many flaws, as I'm sure you're aware. You just pointed out something that I didn't think we would be getting into. But do you really think I'm going to give you the keys to the trap door underneath me?!?

Seriously, sometimes you get into a discussion on this site and lose sight of the fact that the other person is not necessarily your adversary, and that there is common ground. It shocks the heck out of me when it happens even after all this time.

But you also contradict yourself just a tad. If there were a universal system of right and wrong, then there wouldn't be such a thing as a moral dilemma -- there would only be times where our personal desires conflict with this sense of right and wrong. And, of course, whereas you ascribe this as consciousness tapping into a universal code, I would ascribe it to an experience-based system of rewards and punishments -- and (ye Gods) even a Kantian sense of what one would want everyone else to do in a given situation. Motivation in humans is very complicated -- a universal system of right and wrong does not do it justice.

But even framing the situation as "right vs. wrong" is not the correct way to look at it. As you may have guessed, I am more relativist in this regard, and I would not say that a given action is automatically right or wrong without looking at its context. Even then, the best we can do sometimes is say that a certain action is "understandable" given the context.

You seem to be misconstruing my argument somewhat. You say I ascribe the moral consciousness as tapping into some kind of code. I would differ with your word choice there, because 'code' implies something explicit and universal - two words which I deliberately avoided, except when implying knowledge we do not have as moral beings.

Then what does this mean?

Though we cannot perceive this universal definition, we can access it through our conscience.

You seemed to be saying that even though we can't come up with a working definition of "right" in our earthly thought processes, on some platonic moral contiunuum it nevertheless exists, and we can somehow access it ("tap into it") without really knowing what's up there. The clarification you offered of it being situational helps a bit, but appears to be awfully close to relativism. That is, unless I didn't partially misunderstand you, and your situational definition actually encompasses a platonic right and wrong for that situation in a universal sense. In which case, my initial objection would still be valid. Am I not trying hard enough to find a difference between a universal right and wrong and your situational right and wrong?

My problem with relativism in the regard you mention is that it can excuse, for example, racism in the South because children were raised by racist parents, grew up in a segregated community or whatnot - a context, in other words, which might make racist tendencies understandable, but they are still wrong. I would say that there can be no moral excuse for racism - you don't give Southerners a pass just because they don't have a good education or were raised in a racist household.

Well now, of course relativism can excuse such thinking. But we don't arrest people for being racists. We arrest them for the actions they commit in the name of racism. We may find it exceedingly distasteful, disgusting, horrifying, or what have you. But people have a right to think what they want to think. Even Creationists. Is racism wrong? For me, it is wrong. It is my opinion that racism leads to unlawful actions against other races. Does this mean that I should actively try and convert racists into Social Democrats? Personally, I believe argumentative conversion to be unethical. The best that I can do is present counter-arguments to force the racist to fall back on a stance of "I believe it because I believe it"; then hope that this fall-back position will expose this way of thinking for the irrational folklore that I believe it to be. In an ideal situation, this breaks the cycle of racism that gets passed down. but people will only change if they want to change. uh... What were we talking about? Oh yes, well, you may find it distasteful, disgusting, "wrong," etc. that there are racists in the world. But in my view it's a part of the current human condition that "different" is "scary". People's thinking can only evolve on their own schedule. So, while it's "wrong" according to me, it's not a punishable "crime". The difference being that in Christianity -- as far as I can tell -- wrong=crime.

Was that a digression on my part? Hmm...

The original topic of this particular argument was that the existence of metaphysics does not equal God. Which essentially means that we can't really expect our ideas about what God might be to coincide with the reality of the world, or even the reality of the metaphysical world. Unless you believe in the Bible. Set aside the argument of this thread for a moment (which, I guess, won't be all that hard at this point). Relativism says that both our views are understandable; and even if they were mutually exclusive, they would both be understandable. But right and wrong in this case boils down to facts (truth), not morals (Truth), and they are facts which we will probably never know. Non-relativism says one of us is morally right and the other is morally wrong (Truth) in addition to being factually correct or factually wrong (truth). This is something I am not hard-wired to accept. Go figure.

Getting back to the thread, Doesn't it seem like a hybrid mythology/eschatology would try to encompass both relativism and non-relativism by stating that the factual truth is simultaneously less and more important than Truth? That is, it is more important that the factual truth be in line with currently known truths; and it is also more important that the resulting falsehoods be in line with currently known Truths (maybe there is a difference between false and False, since -- in the hybrid view -- there are falsehoods, but no Falsehoods).

Isn't it interesting that it took almost 1,900 years for this idea to gain any traction? I would argue that it was the influence of the humanist Enlightenment that got people thinking about better Earthly lives. It would not have been possible to get anywhere with these ideas before then. The Bible seems conflicted on "Good Works", and there is no prescription for changing or even helping a society in a general way in order to reflect a Christian viewpoint. Sure, you're encouraged to help others, to treat the poorest of the poor as if they were Christ, but not in an organized way.

The initial primary argument against communism was that it sought to create a "Heaven on Earth," a "secular salvation" in utter defiance of Christianity. The logical conclusion to this complaint is that organized Earthly happiness is undesirable.

What I find interesting is the rather unique way you have of looking at church history. In the Old Testament, you will find that references to the afterlife are few and far between, and that most of them are not very appealing. 'Sheol' is the word most often used for the afterlife, and let's just say it's not a place you're going to want to hang around for most of eternity. No, the dao of the Hebrews into which Jesus was raised was very much concerned with the affairs of this world, whatever way you choose to look at it.

No argument about the Hebrews being very concerned with the affairs of this world. But to what end? Didn't Job await his own personal resurrection as a probable end to his suffering? Apparently, some Hebrews had the false belief that suffering was the result of some recent sin activity. If this were so, then it would be easier to accept that the ritualistic earthly behaviors described in the early OT were part of some earth beautification project whereby people could wash themselves and offer their pigeons as tokens of their righteousness. But this here-and-now aspect strikes me not as a way of purifying oneself throughout life for life's sake, but as preparation for the life to come. That is, to be in the correct state once reaching God's antechamber.

Sure, the OT is filled with the collectivity of the "New Israel" promise, but emphasis is placed on individual behavior. Where collective behavior is mentioned, it is often about other tribes or about a group of individuals who all exhibit the same behaviors.

And it's not surprising that the affairs of this world are stressed so often. It's quite likely that people of this era were already fully committed to believing in gods, afterlives, all kinds of mythologies. So the stress on what this particular god wants one to do would be quite important. This does not negate the effects of earthly activity on the type of afterlife one has. Nor does it imply that the earthly activity will make earthly life better.

Jesus came around and said that it was no longer necessary to use the vast majority of those behaviors described in the OT, and to focus on the afterlife. could it be that these behaviors were being used as ends in themselves and that Christ's arrival was a reminder of the afterlife? Putting on my agnostic hat for a moment, I find this:

Jewish apocryphal literature of the second and first centuries BC contains new eschatological developments, mainly concerned with a more definite doctrine of retribution after death. The word Sheol is still most commonly understood as the general abode of the departed awaiting the resurrection, an abode having different divisions for the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked. In reference to the latter, Sheol is sometimes simply equivalent to Hell. The word Gehenna is usually applied to the final place of punishment of the wicked after the last judgment, or even immediately after death; paradise is often used to designate the intermediate abode of the souls of the just, and heaven their home of final blessedness. Christ’s use of these terms shows that the Jews of his day were sufficiently familiar with their New Testament meanings.
-- BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE AFTERLIFE IS UNIVERSAL

This Islamic source on Biblical study seems to imply that because the literature around this time had started to focus more on a Hebrew afterlife, it was only a matter of time before a figure emerged to put these words into flesh, as it were. But taking the NT at face value would tend to give one the impression that the stress on earthly life in the OT was being misconstrued as a replacement for actual God worship.

Even after Jesus (who makes a bit more mention of 'eternal life' and 'the Kingdom of God' and was in the minority at the time among Jews in that he thought there even was an afterlife)...

Oh come on. Before we continue, let me just say that Jesus "makes a bit more mention of enternal life" is like saying the human brain is a bit more complicated than the brain of a wood louse. OK. Sarcasm taken. We now return to our regularly scheduled MagusYanam:

...the tendencies of the early church either drifted toward the concerns of this world, or were looking to the sky waiting for the world to end (which it didn't). At last, St. Paul was forced to write some epistolary material saying, in essence, 'alright, show's over, everybody back to work'. Since then, the concerns of the Church seemed like they would mostly have kept to the long Jewish tradition of this-worldly focus, if it hadn't been for the Gnostic movement's influence.

It's not until the Dark Ages that you really get the despair and poverty needed to turn the Church's focus more toward a better hereafter...

You make a compelling case for the sweep of history. But I would take issue a little with the content of Paul's writings. Sure, he explains what is OK and what isn't. But he stresses, on absolute terms, that these worldly things are not all that important except as they relate to humanity's relation to the kingdom of God (inheriting). Circumcision? Not all that important, but if you're already circumcised, don't worry about it. Just don't get it done and expect that you'll be automatically saved. (paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 7:18-19)

You would also have to begin the Dark Ages at about the time Christianity was accepted by Constantine I in the 4th century, when the Gnostics were wiped out.

An admittedly short and superficial survey of pre-Byzantine Christian literature would tend to indicate that the afterlife "reward" was the focus and purpose of various behaviors regardless of financial circumstance.

By corollary, then, we should be able to say that it is possible that all religions based on the Bible are, themselves, false...

Well, the way I define these terms is that true actually happened in a factual sense; True represents conditions of existence; and false neither happened nor represents conditions of existence (I do not make a distinction between False and false, because if either Truth or truth are False, they are also false -- aren't they? Can a truth be False? Naaahhh).

Somewhat flawed thinking: who decides what the correct interpretations are, when the possibility is that all JCI religions are wrong? That, and the 'mythological view of certain parts of the Bible' is justified - I thought we'd been over this! - because religion and scientific understanding should not conflict; they are two separate realms of knowledge, and never the twain shall meet!

Except when religion makes claims about scientific understanding. And no, this hasn't been settled. Even now, Christians are trying to affect government policy decisions based on their presumed understanding of scientific concepts that are derived almost exclusively from the Bible. If we are to understand certain passages in the Bible to be metaphorical, well then, how much worse and more contorted will the literary interpretations be? How much more will they be willing to bend in any direction to achieve the goals of the interpreter?

Religious understanding is one thing, empirical understanding is something completely different. Religion needs its mythology, but more importantly, a religion needs adherents who can recognise the myth as True instead of carrying it into the realm of the empirical and trying to make it true, which is not only bad science, but bad religion. So for the love of God stop trying to establish religious Truth as empirical truth!

Yowza! This ecompasses the whole of my entire thesis. If religious Truth isn't empirical, then where does it come from? If humans were somehow born with a Bible imprinted on their brains then I would not argue. But the cycle of teaching/learning is the only thing keeping it afloat. Again, religious does not equal metaphysical. Even if you accept Kant's view that metaphysics is beyond question, you still have to fill that Kant-shaped hole with a religion of some sort through teaching. The better it fits into that hole, the more likely we are to believe it.

Empiricism and religious understanding do not have to be mutually exclusive, even if the religion is a True one. Naturally, non-believers like myself would say that religious understanding is empirical -- end of story. But even believers should be lost in the wilderness without empirical understanding of what they believe.

You were the one who insisted on the dichotomy in the first place. The creation myth can be True, not true and not false by the definitions you were so kind as to provide - that's what I've been saying all along! So what is it you're trying to argue?

I have to differ with that. The dichotomy was not exclusively mine. The Niebuhr argument does necessarily have to make a distinction because it must differentiate itself from inerrant orthodoxy. That there can be Truth without truth is exclusively coming from this argument.

My argument has been that the creation myth, as described, can't be True if it is not true. This is not because the story, as a separate entity, may or may not be a literary document to be taken as such. It is because the assumptions made about the characters involved depend on their actions as if they were actual beings. Without the truth of the story, we are left with what becomes a compromise of doctrine with the secular world. If various Christian religions want to acknowledge that part of the Bible need not be interpreted exactly as written, then what's left? Again, knowledge of God is not a priori.

But let me take a different tack for a moment.

What is the factual truth behind the Niebuhr myth? Let's construct something. Niebuhr seems to want to view the story of Eden as an allegory of the human condition. At one point in its history, humanity was naive and "without sin". At a turning point of evolution, cultural development, and/or what have you, humanity suddenly becomes knowledgable of the moral continuum of good and evil and is never the same. And, of course, in the religious view, God is somewhere in there. According to what we know from anthropology, this turning point could be a) the moment that evolution implies when apes became sentient humans; b) the moment when humans discovered agriculture; c) the moment when humans first started domesticating animals, d) the moment when God first spoke to humans, etc. Does the factual truth matter?

[MagusYanam]

No, nothing like that. My position has many flaws, as I'm sure you're aware. You just pointed out something that I didn't think we would be getting into. But do you really think I'm going to give you the keys to the trap door underneath me?!?

Seriously, sometimes you get into a discussion on this site and lose sight of the fact that the other person is not necessarily your adversary, and that there is common ground. It shocks the heck out of me when it happens even after all this time.

I'm sorry about that - in all seriousness, I meant no offence. I'm sure you've noticed this by now, especially in my choice of subject material at college: I love working with ideas and how they relate; I'm not so good at working with or relating to people. (It's why I'll never become a pastor and why I'll probably end up eschewing other jobs that require a great deal of social interaction.) Often I see only that which is writ in front of me, and I regret that often I can't see the author behind it (which is probably why I have to keep referring back to other people's works in literary criticism, heh).

But on with the discussion, cheery frightfully ho! (If I may borrow the Lord Wimseyism, that is.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say earlier that the Bible was not the only means to get to the JC God? My argument is that it is the only possible means to get there. God can't be reasoned out.

It looks like we're running up against a bit of a 'chicken or the egg' problem here. If the Bible was the 'only possible means to get [to the JCI God]', one has to wonder how Abraham got there. As an historical-critical aside moment: Abraham was almost definitely based on a real person or a real group of people, probably a line of patriarchs of a particular wealthy Chaldean family. Chances are good that he was a real person - there are details of his personality that authors of the time would likely have been hard-pressed to invent (according to my high-school OT literature class). Now, suppose it happened the way the Bible says it happened for a moment: Abraham was a real person who was really visited by Yahweh, who told him 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee' et cetera, and Abraham obeyed.

Now, how would Abraham have understood God? He didn't have the benefit of a Bible, didn't have the benefit of a writ creation story (even by Biblical inerrantist standards - Moses didn't happen until long after Abraham, I think everyone can agree). He had only (if he was lucky) the Enûma Elish and a tradition in which Yahweh was very little more than a tutelary or familial deity. A visitation likely wouldn't have convinced him that he was talking with the One God, he and his descendants would have reasoned it out based on what they knew from their own tradition and religious understanding.

Then what does this mean?

Though we cannot perceive this universal definition, we can access it through our conscience.

You seemed to be saying that even though we can't come up with a working definition of "right" in our earthly thought processes, on some platonic moral contiunuum it nevertheless exists, and we can somehow access it ("tap into it") without really knowing what's up there. The clarification you offered of it being situational helps a bit, but appears to be awfully close to relativism. That is, unless I didn't partially misunderstand you, and your situational definition actually encompasses a platonic right and wrong for that situation in a universal sense. In which case, my initial objection would still be valid. Am I not trying hard enough to find a difference between a universal right and wrong and your situational right and wrong?

Ah, I see I didn't eschew the use of the word 'universal' entirely after all. My point is the same, though. A 'universal definition' may exist - if it does we can perceive a part of it - but to be truly universal, as a prerequisite this definition must be situational. One cannot even try to formulate a universal moral code (i.e. one that works in any situation to which it is applied) without first taking into consideration the fact that where morality is concerned, circumstance does matter. A successful universal morality would have to cover every circumstance in human history (and some that haven't happened yet), which is why I think creating a universal standard of morality is impossible. But that is not to say we don't have some partial knowledge of this situational ethic that we cannot access.

This isn't relativism by my book - relativism would seem to assert that circumstance is the only material to morality, a view with which I don't really hold - there are some moral truths that, while not completely transcending situation, do in most every thinkable situation hold roughly the same value: the wrongness of, for example, murder, rape or racism. It's difficult to think of any circumstance under which murder, rape or racism would be morally justified in any capacity.

Oh yes, well, you may find it distasteful, disgusting, "wrong," etc. that there are racists in the world. But in my view it's a part of the current human condition that "different" is "scary". People's thinking can only evolve on their own schedule. So, while it's "wrong" according to me, it's not a punishable "crime". The difference being that in Christianity -- as far as I can tell -- wrong=crime.

I think the legal terminology here is counterproductive. Law and morality are two completely different beasts. Morality has some basis for guiding law, but that doesn't mean that that which is on the books is right. I would say that racism is morally wrong. It may be legal and it may not be a crime, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. Racism creates an unequal standard on the value of human beings based on external characteristics, which is empirically false presumption (I know from experience that it's possible to have more in common with an African-American or an Asian than with another Caucasian, for example) and which is also inherently dangerous to the social order (which is, if you will, the basis for morality) - surely you can see how. So no, it's not just a 'different' way of thinking that may strike you or me as 'scary'. It defies reason, basic human decency and fellow-feeling, and it is something which racists will eventually have to throw out when they acknowledge that it does so.

Alright... whew... I think before moving on to the rest of this portion of your previous post, I'll address another (though related) portion.

I have to differ with that. The dichotomy was not exclusively mine. The Niebuhr argument does necessarily have to make a distinction because it must differentiate itself from inerrant orthodoxy. That there can be Truth without truth is exclusively coming from this argument.

My argument has been that the creation myth, as described, can't be True if it is not true. This is not because the story, as a separate entity, may or may not be a literary document to be taken as such. It is because the assumptions made about the characters involved depend on their actions as if they were actual beings. Without the truth of the story, we are left with what becomes a compromise of doctrine with the secular world. If various Christian religions want to acknowledge that part of the Bible need not be interpreted exactly as written, then what's left? Again, knowledge of God is not a priori.

Permit me to be introspective for just a moment. Looking back over the discussion, I recall that debate over 'truth' as opposed to 'Truth' was a part of the original argument, but to my mind it was peripheral. What I was trying to do, however, was avoid the dichotomy where you kept insisting on it. My intent was to push the discussion in a direction where it would be over what it means for a liberal Christian to take Biblical myth seriously, since the garden-variety creationist diatribe unfailingly bemoans the fact that we 'theo-evos' are 'throwing away' Genesis. Which we 'theo-evos' are not, we merely go about finding its 'Truth' (your capitalisation and usage) in a way that better corresponds with the 'truth' (again, your usage) physics and biology have given us: that is, a universe that is twelve billion years old, a Solar System and thus an Earth which is four and a half billion years old, a dating system we know is able to work and a fossil record that would seem to indicate a history of morphological diversification and specialisation in life over long periods of time.

So what I've seen (and this is just my perspective, so please don't take offence) is that you have been trying to demonstrate that this is impossible by harping on a dependence structure I don't see as necessary - that 'Truth' is entirely dependent on 'truth'. I responded by pointing out that even by your definitions, 'Truth' and 'truth' are not necessarily so.

I have just offered this argument - the concept of Yahweh predates Moses and definitely the Jahwists, Elohimists, Deuteronomical historians and Priestly authors by a long stretch (probably having its origin in the Chaldean patriarchs), so the Bible as we know it cannot possibly be the origin of the God concept. If I may offer a bit of friendly advice: if you can refute or explain this and offer some proof that religious Truth is not any way independent of empirical truth, your argument would look a lot more convincing, and we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves.

It is because the assumptions made about the characters involved depend on their actions as if they were actual beings.

Also, could you please clarify the above statement? I don't follow from this point to 'Genesis must be lower-case true'. The assumptions made about any fictional or allegorical characters depend on their actions as though they were real characters. Heroes and villains are characterised by their actions, fictional or real. Also, where does doctrine fit into this entire scheme? Doctrine is the realm of tradition, not of Scripture, even though doctrine may have a scriptural basis.

What is the factual truth behind the Niebuhr myth? Let's construct something. Niebuhr seems to want to view the story of Eden as an allegory of the human condition. At one point in its history, humanity was naive and "without sin". At a turning point of evolution, cultural development, and/or what have you, humanity suddenly becomes knowledgable of the moral continuum of good and evil and is never the same. And, of course, in the religious view, God is somewhere in there. According to what we know from anthropology, this turning point could be a) the moment that evolution implies when apes became sentient humans; b) the moment when humans discovered agriculture; c) the moment when humans first started domesticating animals, d) the moment when God first spoke to humans, etc. Does the factual truth matter?

You're not extending Niebuhr enough logical charity. (Understandable, I suppose - I know I routinely deny the man logical charity in any of his opinions on war and political realism.) Niebuhr views Genesis 1 and 2 as allegory, true, but he sees the story itself as illustrative of the human sin of pride. I don't think it crossed his mind to view it as some kind of shrunken version of an actual (pre)historical event, which is what you seem to want to make of it.

So wait, where was I going with this? Oh, well, I suppose I was going to divert myself from the subject at hand sooner or later.

No argument about the Hebrews being very concerned with the affairs of this world. But to what end? Didn't Job await his own personal resurrection as a probable end to his suffering? Apparently, some Hebrews had the false belief that suffering was the result of some recent sin activity. If this were so, then it would be easier to accept that the ritualistic earthly behaviors described in the early OT were part of some earth beautification project whereby people could wash themselves and offer their pigeons as tokens of their righteousness. But this here-and-now aspect strikes me not as a way of purifying oneself throughout life for life's sake, but as preparation for the life to come. That is, to be in the correct state once reaching God's antechamber.

A good argument, but somewhat contradictory to your previous one along these lines. You seem to be saying here that being concerned with the affairs of this world is justified in a religious sense if it is kept in light of the affairs of the next, whereas in your original argument you seemed to be saying that concern with the affairs of this world is inexcusable in a religious sense on the grounds that 'all attempts to make the world a better place are prideful and intended for slothful human comfort'. So according to your current argument, why shouldn't Christianity have a social aspect, as long as we also keep in mind our eternal considerations?

Oh come on. Before we continue, let me just say that Jesus "makes a bit more mention of enternal life" is like saying the human brain is a bit more complicated than the brain of a wood louse. OK. Sarcasm taken. We now return to our regularly scheduled MagusYanam:

Heh, I deserved that one. Sarcastic understatement is a fine and subtle art; I seem to have screwed up that one good and dandy by using the proverbial sledge.

Somewhat flawed thinking: who decides what the correct interpretations are, when the possibility is that all JCI religions are wrong? That, and the 'mythological view of certain parts of the Bible' is justified - I thought we'd been over this! - because religion and scientific understanding should not conflict; they are two separate realms of knowledge, and never the twain shall meet!

Except when religion makes claims about scientific understanding.

Note my artful use of the word 'should'. I didn't say they don't conflict. My take is that when they do conflict, it usually means the defenders of the religious claim have overstepped their mark, and tried to impose an inapplicable set of truth claims (sorry, Truth claims) onto a framework that does not support them.

This looks like a good place to stop for now. I've been working on this clunker for almost an hour; perhaps we could try to keep our posts a little more concise... says Mr. Magus Y. Verbose.

[ST88]

This looks like a good place to stop for now. I've been working on this clunker for almost an hour; perhaps we could try to keep our posts a little more concise... says Mr. Magus Y. Verbose.

Yeah, OK. Just one little thing for now. A sidetrack, but I like sidetracks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say earlier that the Bible was not the only means to get to the JC God? My argument is that it is the only possible means to get there. God can't be reasoned out.

It looks like we're running up against a bit of a 'chicken or the egg' problem here. If the Bible was the 'only possible means to get [to the JCI God]', one has to wonder how Abraham got there. As an historical-critical aside moment: Abraham was almost definitely based on a real person or a real group of people, probably a line of patriarchs of a particular wealthy Chaldean family. Chances are good that he was a real person - there are details of his personality that authors of the time would likely have been hard-pressed to invent (according to my high-school OT literature class). Now, suppose it happened the way the Bible says it happened for a moment: Abraham was a real person who was really visited by Yahweh, who told him 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee' et cetera, and Abraham obeyed.

Now, how would Abraham have understood God? He didn't have the benefit of a Bible, didn't have the benefit of a writ creation story (even by Biblical inerrantist standards - Moses didn't happen until long after Abraham, I think everyone can agree). He had only (if he was lucky) the Enûma Elish and a tradition in which Yahweh was very little more than a tutelary or familial deity. A visitation likely wouldn't have convinced him that he was talking with the One God, he and his descendants would have reasoned it out based on what they knew from their own tradition and religious understanding.

Abraham is a sticky problem for both of us. Sure, he's got the understanding from a God who tells him things. And there was no Bible at this time, just as there was no Bible for Adam to tell him of the God of things to come. For that matter, Moses would barely have had a rough draft.

These early Biblical personnages didn't need the Bible, if they behaved as advertised, because God made himself known personally. The Bible is for those who have not actually heard the voice of God speak in complete sentences. Otherwise, why the need for the book?

One other point, and I'll be brief. Every single mention of the historicity that I've seen has stressed that there is no piece of historical evidence of Abraham. For such a non-royal citizen in this area of the world, I suppose this is not surprising. Even so, the story of the whole shebang started by this one guy strikes me as very like a Greek mythology. There are other problems with historical eras, mistranslations, and place names also that make this story suspect. In my opinion, chances are not "good" that this was an actual person, but instead was like your Adam, a figure meant to represent a link in a chain.

[micatala]

Here's my question.

If Genesis is a myth, why is it presented as the literal truth in the bible?

The bible gives me no reason to think otherwise.

Apologies for the digression from Magus and ST88 erudite discussion, but as I have asked YEC this before (and he has been gone for a while; welcome back YEC ), I wanted to bring this up again, even though Magus gave an answer above.

(From Trusting the Experts Thread)

Quote:
YEC Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

micatala wrote:
But it does pretty clearly say that the earth is immovable and that the sun moves.


YEC wrote:
ref please


micatala wrote:
You've never heard this argument before? You don't recall Galileo's condemnation based on the contention that the Copernican system was unscriptural?

At any rate, here is a sampling.

Joshua 10:12 and 13 "On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord int the presence of Israel: O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon,over the4 Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies."

Psalm 19:4-6 "In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridgroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; "

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

Job 38:4-6 "Where were you wehn I laid the earth's foundations . . . Who marked off its dimensions? . . On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone."

Obviously, we have reinterpreted these (and other verses) to reconcile them with what we have learned from science. However, in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, people who read the Bible and made what they felt was the most straightforward interpretation felt the Bible clearly stated that the earth does not move and the sun does.

As a reference for quotes on the views of churchmen on Copernicus, see Thomas Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution," or Santillana's "The Crime of Galileo."

and so I ask again,

If so many learned men of the church could be wrong about what the Bible said about the solar system, how can you be so sure that your particulary interpretation of how scripture applies to the development of life is not wrong? On the basis of this history, why would we trust the Bible more than science with regards to a scientific matter?

Whether or not we consider Genesis 1 and 2 as mythical or metaphorical in nature (and I agree with Magus that there is ample justification for doing so), it is a valid question whether it is accurate as history, and I submit we have VERY good reason to question its validity with regards to its pronouncements about natural history. Clearly, there are portions of the Bible that were considered reliable with respect to their pronouncements on the natural world in the past, and are no longer considered as such, for good reason.

What say you YEC?