How should the problems with religious historical accounts be dealt with?

maquiscat said:

And yet at least you and I have thought about it. And I know we aren't the only ones. Look at Mercedes Lackey's Velgarth series. In there exists a Goddess who has 4 aspects, Maiden, Warrior, Mother and Crone. Actually, we don't even have to hit the fantasy world, because there are many pagans, past and present, who view a 3 aspect Goddess, sans the Warrior. Having the various aspects and even confining one aspect to a mortal body with limitations on the use of abilities, is not a far fetched concept.

The "narrative" as you call it is, purposefully I believe, left vague enough that either thought path, the three in one or that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are completely separate entities, are entirely valid. I honestly don't see enough there to set in stone either one.

Click to expand...

No, we really haven't thought it at all. Trinitarians pretend to think it, but you can't think an impossible thought. You can't think a triangle with four sides.; you can talk about it and discuss its impossibility. But to claim that you "understand" or actually think the triangle with four sides is a pretense.

So too with trinitarianism. If Christianity is anything it must be honest and authentic. Trinitarianism introduces pretense into Christianity: the pretense that you actually understand what it means to have one God with three persons, all different, yet all identical. This isn't a claim that God has 3 "aspects". It's a claim that God is and isn't Jesus. God is both. Jesus is both. So is the Holy Spirit. It is a claim that God transcends the principle of identity. He may well do that, but it's not a thinkable thought.

As to the gospel (which isn't more or less a narrative -- it IS a narrative; that's what "evangelion" means: a story about a victory), there's nothing vague about the dramatis personae: God sent his only son into the world, knowing he would be killed, to show the depth of his love. Not only is that the basic plot -- it is emphasized and highlighted by Jesus' parables (the stories within the story) which are often about a father sending his son, or a messenger, or a stewart, who is killed or disregarded or otherwise rejected.

I think John 3:16 gets it exactly right. And I think 1 Cor 15 gets it right. I don't see the need for a supplement in the realm of theology that focuses outside the narrative. It adds absolutely nothing to the message, near as I can tell. Which is probably why nobody in the early church bothered with it: not Paul or John or Peter or James or Mark or Matthew or Luke. None of these say anything other than Jesus is the son of God. That's good enough for me.

tererun said:

many religions tell stories that are simply factually not true.

Click to expand...

Religions are not people and therefore they cannot tell stories.

tererun said:

Since there is a good now flame rule in effect perhaps we can get a decent discussion going on this.

many religions tell stories that are simply factually not true. There are reasons for this. perhaps it is parable, or perhaps it is ignorance. My personal belief is that, especially in the case of big religions, school should educate our children on the basic beliefs and history of religion as it has been a huge influence in society. Even an atheist who doesn't believe in god knows that the idea has had massive effects.

So right here we have a non-offensive open discussion. How do we include religion in education, which is important to understanding the world we live in, while also dealing with the ideas that conflict with reality and science? For example at what point do you put aside the adam and eve story and start looking at historical records.

Click to expand...

The only place I see for religion in school is in history. Many historic events are influenced by the religious beliefs of the players and they should be explained with the required context. Also, some major religious events, such as the reformation, are worthy of including in history classes as well.

I don't think religious views need to be discussed in science classes unless they get into the history of science.

afr0byte said:

With the number of people that think it's appropriate to open a public/government meeting with a prayer...I'm going to guess that no we can't behave like adults in this respect.

Click to expand...

If it was a legitimate class on the histories and theories of various religions, the complaints wouldn't come from the secularists, the complaints would come from the religionists because their particular religion wasn't taught as the one true one.