Why does Christianity evolve?

[nobspeople]

Arguably, Christianity was as different, when it originally started amongst the various groups with different ideals, than today's view.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... rsity.html

Even among modern Christian societies, there are differences (Catholic, Protestant and (Eastern) Orthodox).

If Christianity is so right, so strong, so righteous, so...'God'... one would think it would change its environment and not be changed by its environment.
It seems, at least in America, American society is, in some ways, changing Christianity.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... he-gospel/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christia ... t_b_817102 *

So why does it change over time? Is it 'God's will'? Is it just made up mumbo jumbo? Or do people just not care, anymore?

EDIT: * Forgot to include originally

[Paul of Tarsus]

if you wish to contend something I have typed is false, feel free to present your rationale in a logical and manner with verifiable proof ; children's cartoons do not a counterargument make.

Children's cartoons are the perfectly appropriate counterargument to "anything is possible." When you're claiming that we can't know for certain that something made-up is false, you are correct and saying so is a sloppy use of language. The other side of the same coin, however, isn't that it's reasonable to think that any of those made-up things are true; the stories in the Bible are sharing the space of probability with all things that have been made up, including the contents of children's cartoons.

If we cannot know reality, then why would anybody object to cartoons? According to JW's view, cartoons can be as real as anything else. After all, he just got done arguing that we cannot know what is real, so it seems odd for him to turn around and judge cartoons to be unreal.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Difflugia in post #20]

The other side of the same coin, however, isn't that it's reasonable to think that any of those made-up things are true; the stories in the Bible are sharing the space of probability with all things that have been made up, including the contents of children's cartoons.

Wouldn't that be based on an assumption that the stories in the bible are indeed 'made up'?

We can know for a fact that the Flintstones are 'made up', because the creators made them up, and they even explain their ideas and motives. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flintstones )


One can believe that the stories (or some of the stories) in the bible are made up, but many are clearly written as testimonial accounts, histories of a people, prophecies, visions, letters to real people concerning then-current events, etc. What is the evidence that the authors were 'making up' those stories?


I may have misunderstood the point you were making, and if so, I apologize.


Peace again to you.

[Difflugia]

If we cannot know reality, then why would anybody object to cartoons? According to JW's view, cartoons can be as real as anything else. After all, he just got done arguing that we cannot know what is real, so it seems odd for him to turn around and judge cartoons to be unreal.

Because it was actually an attempt at the "motte-and-bailey fallacy".

The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed.

"Anything is possible" is the absolutely defensible, but also absolutely meaningless, retreat position.

[Difflugia]

Wouldn't that be based on an assumption that the stories in the bible are indeed 'made up'?

We can know for a fact that the Flintstones are 'made up', because the creators made them up, and they even explain their ideas and motives.

In the sense that JehovahsWitness is talking about what we can and can't know, then we can't "know" that the story behind the Flintstones is any less real than anything else. Perhaps the "creators" said that they made it up because they were embarrassed that they received divine revelation that The Flintstones happened. We may have reasons for thinking that the Bible stories are based on some reality and The Flintstones isn't, but JehovahsWitness didn't make any of those arguments. The argument was simply (but entirely) that we can't know for sure that the Bible is false. For the same reason (anything is possible for reasons that may be beyond our knowledge), we can't know for sure that The Flintstones is. That's why the argument is so weak and JehovahsWitness tried to walk it back a bit ("Of course I don't mean cartoons!").

One can believe that the stories (or some of the stories) in the bible are made up, but many are clearly written as testimonial accounts, histories of a people, prophecies, visions, letters to real people concerning then-current events, etc. What is the evidence that the authors were 'making up' those stories?

The evidence that the authors were making up the stories is the inclusion of obviously fictional events. The supernatural events in the Bible almost certainly (we can't "know" for sure, though ) didn't happen in real life. Walking on water, water to wine, and people coming back from the dead are, according to every experience we share, effectively impossible. That's why the argument that they're not impossible must retreat behind "anything is possible." Anything more than that is much more difficult to defend.

I may have misunderstood the point you were making, and if so, I apologize.

I think you understood the point I was making, but are asserting that it doesn't apply to the Bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

I do know for a fact, though, that the Bible is a departure from reality

Since you don't know what reality is, you cannot know that the Bible's stories and doctrines reflect reality.

Nice called attempt at a switch and bait:evasion duly noted. Now, when you are done dancing will you be supporting your claim or not?

Nobody can do more than offer their opinion on their own perceived reality based on what knowedge they have. We make decisions every day as to what we will accept as reliable and true or fictional based on the above. But from there to claim we "know for a fact" that something has departed from reality (as opposed to departed from what we believe to be reality) requires absolute knowledge of what is true: thus effectively laying claim to be the very thing atheists claim not to believe in.

Anyone can come to any conclusion they want, what they cannot lay claim to, without superhuman powers, is knowing for a fact what reality really is.

This is absolutely true.

[JehovahsWitness]

I do know for a fact, though, that the Bible is a departure from reality

Claiming to "know for a fact" that something has departed from reality is usually just sloppy wording for "have very compelling reasons to believe" that something has departed from reality.

Emphasis MINE

Granted, it is a possibility that Paul of Tarsus just posted {quote } ... "sloppy wording" but I think it best we leave him to clarify for himself if that is the case or not. I have no problem whatsoever with someone sharing what they believe (I do it all the time myself) as long as they are man enough to admit that is what they are doing when called out.






JW

[Paul of Tarsus]

Wouldn't that be based on an assumption that the stories in the bible are indeed 'made up'?

We can know for a fact that the Flintstones are 'made up', because the creators made them up, and they even explain their ideas and motives. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flintstones )

One can believe that the stories (or some of the stories) in the bible are made up, but many are clearly written as testimonial accounts, histories of a people, prophecies, visions, letters to real people concerning then-current events, etc. What is the evidence that the authors were 'making up' those stories?

Obviously it's not a good idea to base our judging stories as fiction on the admissions of the stories' authors. If we did judge fiction that way, then anybody could make up a story, and if they never admitted their fabrications, we would need to believe those stories!

Now, I suppose that many Bible stories are not falsifiable, and we should use our judgment regarding their basis in history. I say let's compare the content of those stories to what we know to be true. If a story is based on elements that are contrary to our knowledge, then we can sensibly conclude that those parts of the story at least are fabrications.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I do know for a fact, though, that the Bible is a departure from reality

Since you don't know what reality is, you cannot know that the Bible's stories and doctrines reflect reality.

Nice called attempt at a switch and bait:evasion duly noted. Now, when you are done dancing will you be supporting your claim or not?

LOL, JW, what you know and what I know are obviously very different.

And speaking of "dancing," you ignored almost everything I posted. Does that kind of evasion assure you that your beliefs are true?

[JehovahsWitness]

... JW, what you know and what I know are obviously very different.

....you ignored almost everything I posted.

LOL... Yes because almost everything you posted was irrelevant to my request. While I fear you will not address the issue of whether you were just using "sloppy wording" in your claim to know for a fact what has departed from reality as has been suggested (see below), your last post reflected a much more balanced approach.

Well done. I'll let you off the hook and hand you over the last word .... enjoy!



JW

I do know for a fact, though, that the Bible is a departure from reality

Claiming to "know for a fact" that something has departed from reality is usually just sloppy wording for "have very compelling reasons to believe" that something has departed from reality.

Emphasis MINE

[tam]

Peace to you,

Wouldn't that be based on an assumption that the stories in the bible are indeed 'made up'?

We can know for a fact that the Flintstones are 'made up', because the creators made them up, and they even explain their ideas and motives.

In the sense that JehovahsWitness is talking about what we can and can't know, then we can't "know" that the story behind the Flintstones is any less real than anything else. Perhaps the "creators" said that they made it up because they were embarrassed that they received divine revelation that The Flintstones happened. We may have reasons for thinking that the Bible stories are based on some reality and The Flintstones isn't, but JehovahsWitness didn't make any of those arguments. The argument was simply (but entirely) that we can't know for sure that the Bible is false.

But she did not just make that statement out of the blue; she made that statement in response to someone claiming that they know - for a fact - that the bible stories are a departure from reality.

(Though I think me commenting further on motives and/or how someone worded something is a bit meaningless, so I will leave it alone.)

One can believe that the stories (or some of the stories) in the bible are made up, but many are clearly written as testimonial accounts, histories of a people, prophecies, visions, letters to real people concerning then-current events, etc. What is the evidence that the authors were 'making up' those stories?

The evidence that the authors were making up the stories is the inclusion of obviously fictional events. The supernatural events in the Bible almost certainly (we can't "know" for sure, though ) didn't happen in real life. Walking on water, water to wine, and people coming back from the dead are, according to every experience we share, effectively impossible. That's why the argument that they're not impossible must retreat behind "anything is possible." Anything more than that is much more difficult to defend.

One would have to show that the authors believed that they were 'making it up' in order to assert that they were 'making it up'. I don't think anyone has ever successfully shown that to be true. There is no evidence that the people writing the accounts believed that they were writing fiction. On the contrary, and taken at face value, it appears to be quite obvious (to me at least) that the people writing the accounts believed that they were writing about true events, especially in the testimonial accounts.

I may have misunderstood the point you were making, and if so, I apologize.

I think you understood the point I was making, but are asserting that it doesn't apply to the Bible.

Yes, thank you.

Peace again to you.