4 ms·

I appreciate the time and effort you put into this response. I'm afraid we still don't see eye to eye, but that's ok. My goal isn't to try to influence you, I'm

I appreciate the time and effort you put into this response. I'm afraid we still don't see eye to eye, but that's ok. My goal isn't to try to influence you, I'm also writing for my own benefit -- in some ways I'm still working through my own worldview. > The most recent pieces were written two millenia ago, and people had a very different idea of what a history was supposed to do. Yet there were contemporary Roman historians who had a rather modern idea of what history was supposed to do. > Gen 1-11 (Adam and Eve, the flood) should be read in the context of the mythology of the other nations. Yet Paul treats Adam's existence as a key theological fact in Romans 5:11-21. His argument doesn't make sense if Adam didn't really exist. Do we know better than Paul? If so, what else is Paul wrong about? I much prefer C.S. Lewis's brand of Christianity, but I remember being bothered by the fact that he doesn't seem to take the Bible that seriously, and his arguments from aesthetics never carried much weight for me. His view that an individual is either in harmony with God and is set free, or is in stubborn rebellion against God and in slavery, doesn't mirror reality: atheists aren't rebelling against God any more than a Christian is rebelling against Thor. > I think the one of the strongest arguments is that the Bible's description of human nature is pretty accurate. Have you looked at descriptions of human nature in other religions? Buddhism and Taoism in particular seem to have a lock on the ups and downs of being human. Yet what Christian would take that as evidence for their supernatural truth claims? > The atheism of the twentieth century But there isn't a single atheism of the twentieth century. Stalin and Sartre were both atheists, but their values couldn't have been more different. This is where words like "humanism" are helpful. I've certainly met plenty of atheists who are wonderful, genuine, fulfilled people.

jondeval 4y ago
You make some really fantastic points here. > His argument doesn't make sense if Adam didn't really exist. I think you are completely correct. CS Lewis provides and extensive set of thoughts about paradisal man in 'The Problem of Pain'. He does this in a way that incorporates an understanding that man evolved from lower common ancestors while attempting a faithful, albeit not literalistic view of the story of the garden. You may or may not have read those chapters, but either way do you think that a possible reconciliation along these lines can exist? More concretely Pope Pius XII lays out just such a reconciliation in the encyclical Humane Generis that asserts two points: (1) The theory of evolution should be taken seriously and there is strong evidence that human beings evolved from a common ancestors with the apes and (2) The story of Adam and Eve is a story about a real event, although the language expressing the truth of the event should not be interpreted strictly literally. If you're still on the thread I would be curious to get your thoughts.
prewett 4y ago
Yeah, I'm similiarly working through my worldview, which at the moment involves exploring a Bible that is true but need not be literally true. One nice resource is http://thetorah.com http://thetorah.com, which are essays by orthodox (and Orthodox) academic Jews discussing Judaism and biblical interpretation in light of current historical understanding. They are solid academics and faithful Jews, so it is a good example of the synthesis. > Yet there were contemporary Roman historians who had a rather modern idea of what history was supposed to do. I'm not sure that is true, although I haven't read any Roman historians. My understanding is that ancient histories were written to fit a theme. I think that Gospels are pretty factual, but in the introduction to Luke the author specifically states his purpose: "that you may know the certainty of the things you were taught" (Luke 1:4). Presumably accurate facts are indispensable to this end, but the point is not "this are the events of Jesus and possibly how socio-political events shaped them" like a modern history of, say, Rome or Venice would be. I think Polybius and Josephus are regarded as fairly accurate, but I think Polybius was trying to figure out why the Romans were successful, and Josephus had an agenda of making Romans (or certain Romans) look good. But I think Tacitus simply made up German-barbarian characteristics without even ever travelling to Germany, since his goal was to comment on Rome's decadence. [1] Although my point was more towards the Old Testament, which was written/edited/collated five hundred years earlier and modern detached analytical objectivity-as-far-as-possible was not their goal. > [Adam, Romans 5] Personally, I've never thought Paul's argument made any sense even with a historical Adam... I've never thought that the Catholic argument for original sin, being transmitted through Adam made any sense, either. I thought I've read somewhere that Paul saw Adam as representational, but I have no idea how I'd find that. Certainly Paul is happy to symbolize: in Gal 4:24 he says that we can take Hagar and Sarah symbolically, representing two different convenants. If Gen 1 is of the myth genre, then Adam representing humanity makes sense. It's always been my view that regardless of the existence of Adam, each of us has made the same choice and willfully sinned, so in that sense each of as is Adam, and Gen1-Adam "represents" each of us. (I'm not sure that's an orthodox argument, though) I guess I don't see Paul being wrong about events before recorded history as a problem, though. He's making a point about who Jesus is, not an archaeological assessment, although his archaeology reflects the Jewish consensus of his day. > C.S. Lewis I've always thought C.S. Lewis had a high view of the Bible, so I curious where you felt he didn't take it seriously. Was it from _Mere Christianity_ where he more or less says that Gen 1 - 11 is of the myth genre? He was a literature professor, so it seems like he's likely to have a quality opinion. > atheists aren't rebelling against God any more than a Christian is rebelling against Thor I think Lewis would disagree with you. Lewis was Anglican, so if NT Wright is representational of (orthodox) Anglican thought, God created a temple on earth (the garden, can't remember why this is a temple) where the image of the deity is humanity. We were to be co-creators and be his partners in finishing creation, but we rebelled. Christ fixed that problem, so the co-creation project is back on track. Atheists, by definition, are not co-creating with God, they are doing their independent thing. Elsewhere I think Lewis sees independence as essentially rebellion; imagine if, say, the southern States decided to ignore the government in Washington. Last time that happened, the government considered it rebellion. (This gets complicated, though, since I don't think American Christians are on board either. And I expect that some non-Christians are acting more onboard than some Christians. I'm not convinced that simply "praying the prayer" gets you into heaven, but Jesus said we don't have the information to judge someone's salvation, only the fruit that we see. But given that Jesus expects to say to some people doing miracles for him "depart, I never knew you", I think that if there is a Last Judgment, a lot of people are going to be in for a surprise, in both directions. Kind of like the Calormene guy in Lewis' _The Last Battle_) > Buddhism, Taoism I have read some about both. A friend gave me a great book _Why you are NOT a Buddhist_, which is really clear. The author had really good insights about American (Western?) culture, too, some of the best I've seen. I think he wrote it to disabuse Americans who consider themselves Buddhist because they slap some meditation into their lives. As I understand Buddhism, it's essentially that life is pain and we can escape into nirvana-nothingness (except nirvana is beyond concepts) by realizing that everything is impermanent and detaching from our desires. (I'm sure this is a gross simplication) I think Buddhism is a rational choice if there is no possibility of our desires being fulfilled. But if Christ has reconciled all things, death is vanquished, earth will be recreated/restored, evil will be banished, I'll take that route if it's viable. Besides, I'm not convinced that we can really get rid of our deep desires; and if they are there because God put them there, we won't be able to. I'm not really sure what Taoism says, beyond life is ambiguous and you need to flow with the inherent tensions (if that is even right). The book _Taoism_ by Holmes Welch is a brilliant analysis of Lao Zi's work, and goes into several levels of interpretation, which are insightful, and end up concluding that one of Lao Zi's goals was the instruction of a method of mystical experiences. Unfortunately I have completely forgotten all the details. It didn't seem relevant, though. Obviously Christianity has no monopoly on insight into human nature and how to live. But as far as I can tell, Buddhism is escape-from-the-world, but I'd rather co-create with God. To be fair, American Evangelicals are largely escape-from-the-world as well. Anyway, my original argument was for the truth of Christianity, and I think it offers more truth about human nature than Buddhism. It certainly offers a better future, if it's true. [1] https://acoup.blog/2020/02/07/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-iiia-by-the-princess-irulan/ https://acoup.blog/2020/02/07/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

jondeval 4y ago

You make some really fantastic points here. > His argument doesn't make sense if Adam didn't really exist. I think you are completely correct. CS Lewis provides and extensive set of thoughts about paradisal man in 'The Problem of Pain'. He does this in a way that incorporates an understanding that man evolved from lower common ancestors while attempting a faithful, albeit not literalistic view of the story of the garden. You may or may not have read those chapters, but either way do you think that a possible reconciliation along these lines can exist? More concretely Pope Pius XII lays out just such a reconciliation in the encyclical Humane Generis that asserts two points: (1) The theory of evolution should be taken seriously and there is strong evidence that human beings evolved from a common ancestors with the apes and (2) The story of Adam and Eve is a story about a real event, although the language expressing the truth of the event should not be interpreted strictly literally. If you're still on the thread I would be curious to get your thoughts.

prewett 4y ago

Yeah, I'm similiarly working through my worldview, which at the moment involves exploring a Bible that is true but need not be literally true. One nice resource is http://thetorah.com http://thetorah.com, which are essays by orthodox (and Orthodox) academic Jews discussing Judaism and biblical interpretation in light of current historical understanding. They are solid academics and faithful Jews, so it is a good example of the synthesis. > Yet there were contemporary Roman historians who had a rather modern idea of what history was supposed to do. I'm not sure that is true, although I haven't read any Roman historians. My understanding is that ancient histories were written to fit a theme. I think that Gospels are pretty factual, but in the introduction to Luke the author specifically states his purpose: "that you may know the certainty of the things you were taught" (Luke 1:4). Presumably accurate facts are indispensable to this end, but the point is not "this are the events of Jesus and possibly how socio-political events shaped them" like a modern history of, say, Rome or Venice would be. I think Polybius and Josephus are regarded as fairly accurate, but I think Polybius was trying to figure out why the Romans were successful, and Josephus had an agenda of making Romans (or certain Romans) look good. But I think Tacitus simply made up German-barbarian characteristics without even ever travelling to Germany, since his goal was to comment on Rome's decadence. [1] Although my point was more towards the Old Testament, which was written/edited/collated five hundred years earlier and modern detached analytical objectivity-as-far-as-possible was not their goal. > [Adam, Romans 5] Personally, I've never thought Paul's argument made any sense even with a historical Adam... I've never thought that the Catholic argument for original sin, being transmitted through Adam made any sense, either. I thought I've read somewhere that Paul saw Adam as representational, but I have no idea how I'd find that. Certainly Paul is happy to symbolize: in Gal 4:24 he says that we can take Hagar and Sarah symbolically, representing two different convenants. If Gen 1 is of the myth genre, then Adam representing humanity makes sense. It's always been my view that regardless of the existence of Adam, each of us has made the same choice and willfully sinned, so in that sense each of as is Adam, and Gen1-Adam "represents" each of us. (I'm not sure that's an orthodox argument, though) I guess I don't see Paul being wrong about events before recorded history as a problem, though. He's making a point about who Jesus is, not an archaeological assessment, although his archaeology reflects the Jewish consensus of his day. > C.S. Lewis I've always thought C.S. Lewis had a high view of the Bible, so I curious where you felt he didn't take it seriously. Was it from _Mere Christianity_ where he more or less says that Gen 1 - 11 is of the myth genre? He was a literature professor, so it seems like he's likely to have a quality opinion. > atheists aren't rebelling against God any more than a Christian is rebelling against Thor I think Lewis would disagree with you. Lewis was Anglican, so if NT Wright is representational of (orthodox) Anglican thought, God created a temple on earth (the garden, can't remember why this is a temple) where the image of the deity is humanity. We were to be co-creators and be his partners in finishing creation, but we rebelled. Christ fixed that problem, so the co-creation project is back on track. Atheists, by definition, are not co-creating with God, they are doing their independent thing. Elsewhere I think Lewis sees independence as essentially rebellion; imagine if, say, the southern States decided to ignore the government in Washington. Last time that happened, the government considered it rebellion. (This gets complicated, though, since I don't think American Christians are on board either. And I expect that some non-Christians are acting more onboard than some Christians. I'm not convinced that simply "praying the prayer" gets you into heaven, but Jesus said we don't have the information to judge someone's salvation, only the fruit that we see. But given that Jesus expects to say to some people doing miracles for him "depart, I never knew you", I think that if there is a Last Judgment, a lot of people are going to be in for a surprise, in both directions. Kind of like the Calormene guy in Lewis' _The Last Battle_) > Buddhism, Taoism I have read some about both. A friend gave me a great book _Why you are NOT a Buddhist_, which is really clear. The author had really good insights about American (Western?) culture, too, some of the best I've seen. I think he wrote it to disabuse Americans who consider themselves Buddhist because they slap some meditation into their lives. As I understand Buddhism, it's essentially that life is pain and we can escape into nirvana-nothingness (except nirvana is beyond concepts) by realizing that everything is impermanent and detaching from our desires. (I'm sure this is a gross simplication) I think Buddhism is a rational choice if there is no possibility of our desires being fulfilled. But if Christ has reconciled all things, death is vanquished, earth will be recreated/restored, evil will be banished, I'll take that route if it's viable. Besides, I'm not convinced that we can really get rid of our deep desires; and if they are there because God put them there, we won't be able to. I'm not really sure what Taoism says, beyond life is ambiguous and you need to flow with the inherent tensions (if that is even right). The book _Taoism_ by Holmes Welch is a brilliant analysis of Lao Zi's work, and goes into several levels of interpretation, which are insightful, and end up concluding that one of Lao Zi's goals was the instruction of a method of mystical experiences. Unfortunately I have completely forgotten all the details. It didn't seem relevant, though. Obviously Christianity has no monopoly on insight into human nature and how to live. But as far as I can tell, Buddhism is escape-from-the-world, but I'd rather co-create with God. To be fair, American Evangelicals are largely escape-from-the-world as well. Anyway, my original argument was for the truth of Christianity, and I think it offers more truth about human nature than Buddhism. It certainly offers a better future, if it's true. [1] https://acoup.blog/2020/02/07/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-iiia-by-the-princess-irulan/ https://acoup.blog/2020/02/07/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...