3 ms·

Loosely, no. Sorry. :-/ Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. Genesis was regarded a

by pnathan 13y ago

Loosely, no. Sorry. :-/ Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). Pretty sure the modern literalist movement is a post-1850 phenomenon. I don't get into the creation story discussions, it is entirely irrelevant in many ways to me. Waste of our time, IMO. Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. I read in one intro book on it (by a rabbi, I think) that doubt is one of the defining characteristics of Jewish faith. Anyway, modern scholarship tries in part to disentangle what was meant in the context of that time and place, determining what the precise meaning (or set of meanings) could have meant, then drawing out inferences to be taken from the work. This does involve, from time to time, revising our understanding of what happened when, where, and why. The story of the early reformation is, in one dimension, loosely a story of rereading the texts and throwing out certain interpretations based on closer analysis.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
> Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. I called them "creationist crackpots" for a reason. What I don't get, is why what shouldn't be interpreted literally, isn't simply stricken from the canon. I mean, what is the point of writing about a world created in seven days (oops, six), if we know it wasn't? Sabbath? > Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). That's sooner than I expected. Which leaves us around 6 centuries to amend the book. > Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. Even if they aggressively show interest in doubt and questioning, I doubt it's for actually doubting an questioning, like, to the point of having some members realizing their religion is probably wrong after all. Here's a related example, from http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ """ Once, when I was holding forth upon the Way[1], I remarked upon how most organized belief systems exist to flee from doubt. A listener replied to me that the Jesuits must be immune from this criticism, because they practice organized doubt: their novices, he said, are told to doubt Christianity; doubt the existence of God; doubt if their calling is real; doubt that they are suitable for perpetual vows of chastity and poverty. And I said: Ah, but they're supposed to overcome these doubts, right? He said: No, they are to doubt that perhaps their doubts may grow and become stronger. [1]: http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ """
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Could it be that "creationist crackpots" is what triggered the downvotes above? If not, feedback about I did wrong would be most welcome.

by pnathan 13y ago

loup-vaillant 13y ago

> Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. I called them "creationist crackpots" for a reason. What I don't get, is why what shouldn't be interpreted literally, isn't simply stricken from the canon. I mean, what is the point of writing about a world created in seven days (oops, six), if we know it wasn't? Sabbath? > Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). That's sooner than I expected. Which leaves us around 6 centuries to amend the book. > Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. Even if they aggressively show interest in doubt and questioning, I doubt it's for actually doubting an questioning, like, to the point of having some members realizing their religion is probably wrong after all. Here's a related example, from http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ """ Once, when I was holding forth upon the Way[1], I remarked upon how most organized belief systems exist to flee from doubt. A listener replied to me that the Jesuits must be immune from this criticism, because they practice organized doubt: their novices, he said, are told to doubt Christianity; doubt the existence of God; doubt if their calling is real; doubt that they are suitable for perpetual vows of chastity and poverty. And I said: Ah, but they're supposed to overcome these doubts, right? He said: No, they are to doubt that perhaps their doubts may grow and become stronger. [1]: http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ """

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Could it be that "creationist crackpots" is what triggered the downvotes above? If not, feedback about I did wrong would be most welcome.