Liberal Christianity without Creation?

[I, Brian]

That's what I mean, Quahom - the Crucifixion and Resurrection surely require the Original Sin of the Garden of Eden?

So if a Liberal Christian point of view negates the literalism of the Garden of Eden, then aren't they also negating the literalism of the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

Simply exploring the topic.

[aburaees]

"Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world..."

Is this not why one man [Jesus] came to release the world from sin and death?

And is this not why Jesus was called "the last Adam"?

If we can reduce the Eden event to a symbol or metaphor, can we not also do the same with the crucifixion and the resurrection, or even Jesus himself?

.


edit: oops, Brian got there before me.

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

That's what I mean, Quahom - the Crucifixion and Resurrection surely require the Original Sin of the Garden of Eden?

So if a Liberal Christian point of view negates the literalism of the Garden of Eden, then aren't they also negating the literalism of the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

Simply exploring the topic.

It depends on how a person understands or interprets the meaning and reason behind Jesus' execution and resurrection.

Plus, even if Genesis isn't meant to literally tell us what happened, it doesn't mean it doesn't truthfully tell us what happened. (Playing devil's advocate here.)

The symbolism in Genesis is amazing. Personally, I feel that to take the story completely literally impoverishes the message.

The tree of knowledge, the tree of life, the snake, the fruit, the garden ... the meaning of "Eve," the meaning of "Adam" ... This is a wisdom message.

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

It depends on how a person understands or interprets the meaning and reason behind Jesus' execution and resurrection.

Plus, even if Genesis isn't meant to literally tell us what happened, it doesn't mean it doesn't truthfully tell us what happened. (Playing devil's advocate here.)

The symbolism in Genesis is amazing. Personally, I feel that to take the story completely literally impoverishes the message.

The tree of knowledge, the tree of life, the snake, the fruit, the garden ... the meaning of "Eve," the meaning of "Adam" ... This is a wisdom message.

What then is the criteria for determining which parts of scripture are to be taken as literal, and which parts of scripture are to be taken as metaphorical?

Symbolism could be interpreted into many other Bible stories which have traditionally been taken as literal since they were first written.

Conversely, symbolic/metaphorical aspects of scripture could be given a literal interpretation if a person feels the need to.

Since Adam and Jesus in scriptue are effectively portals for sin entering and exiting the world, should not the metaphorical interpretation of one be linked to a metaphorical interpretation of the other, and vice-versa?

.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

That's what I mean, Quahom - the Crucifixion and Resurrection surely require the Original Sin of the Garden of Eden?

So if a Liberal Christian point of view negates the literalism of the Garden of Eden, then aren't they also negating the literalism of the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

Simply exploring the topic.

If the liberal Christian point of view is that There is no orginal sin, then it would mean by deduction that the death of Christ did not serve any purpose...certainly not the purpose of removing the stain of a sin that doesn't exist...

It would also logically conclude that nothing Jesus said about getting to the father but through Him, is true. Since there is no orginal sin, there is no need for an intercedent on Man's behalf. In short, we don't need Jesus at all...

Hence the liberal Christian's perspective would be (I suspect), Jesus is nice to have around, but not required.

Since we would be basically "good", we should have no problem meeting with the Father face to face. That is also an Islamic perspective. There is no original sin, so an intermediary is not required, and Jesus is defunct as a savior. In Islam, the term "messiah", is much different than the Christian view of messiah or "redeemer". Also, Jesus is important but not the "key" to God the Father.

However, the Bible is specific on the fact that God can not look upon sin, and that a sinful man is a dead man (and all that entails, inside and out). Our mantle is bleached white and pure because of the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf, so God can now look upon a man, for his sins are washed clean from him. This can not be interpreted, it must be considered at face value, else there is no point in calling one's self Christian, liberal or otherwise.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by aburaees

What then is the criteria for determining which parts of scripture are to be taken as literal, and which parts of scripture are to be taken as metaphorical?

Symbolism could be interpreted into many other Bible stories which have traditionally been taken as literal since they were first written.

Conversely, symbolic/metaphorical aspects of scripture could be given a literal interpretation if a person feels the need to.

Since Adam and Jesus in scriptue are effectively portals for sin entering and exiting the world, should not the metaphorical interpretation of one be linked to a metaphorical interpretation of the other, and vice-versa?

.

There is no criteria (that we are given), except in specific situations. It is an assumption made by men, that we can interpret the Bible as we see fit. However, the only time we are told something is a metaphor in the Bible is when Jesus tells a "parable", no other time.

v/r

Q

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is no criteria (that we are given), except in specific situations. It is an assumption made by men, that we can interpret the Bible as we see fit. However, the only time we are told something is a metaphor in the Bible is when Jesus tells a "parable", no other time.

v/r

Q

Thank you, that pretty much explains how I feel about the issue. I'd say that it's a modern trend to interpret the Bible more metaphorically than literally, especially since people find it difficult to reconcile science with the Bible.
Personally I see the creation process of Genesis following the order one would observe if they were viewing it in fast-foward from an Earth-stationed perspective.
If the crucifixion is to be considered a literal event, then the Eden rebellion should be considered literally too since one event is the solution to the problems caused by the other. I can't begin to conceive of a literal historical solution to a metaphorical mythological problem.

Just my thoughts.

.

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by aburaees

What then is the criteria for determining which parts of scripture are to be taken as literal, and which parts of scripture are to be taken as metaphorical?

Symbolism could be interpreted into many other Bible stories which have traditionally been taken as literal since they were first written.

Conversely, symbolic/metaphorical aspects of scripture could be given a literal interpretation if a person feels the need to.

Since Adam and Jesus in scriptue are effectively portals for sin entering and exiting the world, should not the metaphorical interpretation of one be linked to a metaphorical interpretation of the other, and vice-versa?

.

I have always taken the approach that the Bible is a great work of literature that is meant to teach us collectively, especially in western civilizations, how to live an inspired and moral life while we are on earth. As with any great work of literature, there are many levels of understanding within it. All levels of understanding are not as readily available to all readers. That depends upon the readers' philosophical orientations, sexual gender, family experiences, life experiences, etc. The great marvel of it is that it is so accessable to so many people of differing talent levels and abilities.

flow...

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is no criteria (that we are given), except in specific situations. It is an assumption made by men, that we can interpret the Bible as we see fit. However, the only time we are told something is a metaphor in the Bible is when Jesus tells a "parable", no other time.

De 30:6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live …


OUCH! That's gotta hurt, being literal and all.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

De 30:6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live …


OUCH! That's gotta hurt, being literal and all.

Loving God with all our heart our mind and our strength is a literal commandment, yet the heart is a pump, the mind is a computer and strength is force. Perhaps there is an essence of these physical things, we are not fully aware of.

In the literal sense, to circumsise is to remove a covering from something...to cut away that which hides.

Besides, when God speaks directly to man, I suppose He can say what ever he wants. I certainly am not going to ask Him if He is being literal or metaphorical...

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

I have always taken the approach that the Bible is a great work of literature that is meant to teach us collectively, especially in western civilizations, how to live an inspired and moral life while we are on earth. As with any great work of literature, there are many levels of understanding within it. All levels of understanding are not as readily available to all readers. That depends upon the readers' philosophical orientations, sexual gender, family experiences, life experiences, etc. The great marvel of it is that it is so accessable to so many people of differing talent levels and abilities.

flow...

Agreed, however for those who would profess to be Christian it commands us to live a moral live, it does not suggest we learn to...Unlike inspiring literature, the Bible is also a book of laws that we are to obey. It gives no quarter for any particular station in life... In fact as I recall, God says no man has privilige over another (no favorites or exceptions to the rule). And I don't believe there is a metaphor in these commandments to us...

v/r

Q

[flowperson]

Q

As I said, I believe that the Bible is a work of literature open to interpretation based upon one's talents and abilities.

I, and many other believers, do not view it as a book containing rigid rules to govern our behaviors, as you obviously do, but a compendium of stories that demonstrate the positive truths of living life based upon moral choices which establish and preserve bonds of love and caring among us and our neighbors.

I also believe that the OT leans more towards your interpretation, and the NT towards mine. I would also like to note here that the OT G-d declares that jealousy rules his domain. I do not believe that is the perspective portrayed in the NT.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Q

As I said, I believe that the Bible is a work of literature open to interpretation based upon one's talents and abilities.

I, and many other believers, do not view it as a book containing rigid rules to govern our behaviors, as you obviously do, but a compendium of stories that demonstrate the positive truths of living life based upon moral choices which establish and preserve bonds of love and caring among us and our neighbors.

I also believe that the OT leans more towards your interpretation, and the NT towards mine. I would also like to note here that the OT G-d declares that jealousy rules his domain. I do not believe that is the perspective portrayed in the NT.

flow....

Without the OT, the NT means nothing. As someone else pointed out "Why is God coming to save me?" This person did not understand the OT.

I'm not about to peg you or anyone else as a "sinner" (who am I to judge?). But if you are a professing Christian, you must consider the message of the OT. If you do not, then you have only half the story of man.

The Bible, in its entirety, tells the story of the relationship between God and Man.

If I were a stranger, I would want to know the whole story. And in learning the whole story, I would wonder why man doesn't accept it and move with it...

Even if He wasn't my "God"...why would man ignore such a benevolent "God", for a few simple laws?

Because, we are stiff necked? Hard hearted? Self centered? We want to do as we see fit? God is dead? We know better? It's all relative?

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[flowperson]

Q

Duly noted, but your thoughts are obviously not my thoughts, and I don't think we're going to change each other's thoughts.

Name calling isn't going to help either. This is my last comment on this thread, but then I believe that this probably has been your primary objective here, and elsewhere on the board, and also with other participants. Not a very moderate attitude IMHO, but then, as you said, neither of us are here to judge each other.

Maybe you should take a deep breath and go for a few rides on the beach. Me, I'd be fishing if I were there.

Recursive arguments are inherently non-functional.

Oh...I've been meaning to ask you if you played in a role on Star Trek Next Generation ?

Bye !

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Q

As I said, I believe that the Bible is a work of literature open to interpretation based upon one's talents and abilities.

I, and many other believers, do not view it as a book containing rigid rules to govern our behaviors, as you obviously do, but a compendium of stories that demonstrate the positive truths of living life based upon moral choices which establish and preserve bonds of love and caring among us and our neighbors.

I also believe that the OT leans more towards your interpretation, and the NT towards mine. I would also like to note here that the OT G-d declares that jealousy rules his domain. I do not believe that is the perspective portrayed in the NT.

flow....

I'm not interpreting anything. I just repeated what was in the Bible...

v/r

Q