|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Too much secularism is a bit dry to me. |
Culture is plenty rich; why need we have such metaphysics? Aren't there other stories, literature, music and art to sustain us? |
Meh. Culture's a bit weak for my tastes. Never liked culture to be honest. Sorry, I need my Loki and Wotan and Yggdrasil and all the rest. Maybe it's too much D&D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Kuros
| Quote: |
| The story of Adam and Eve explains who we are and why we are. Science does a great job of explaining how we are and what we are. |
Either one accepts the theory of evolution or christianity but not both, they are mutually exclusive.
Christianity is predicated on the idea that man brought death and disease into the world by his sin thus necessitating Christ's incarnation and death to redeem mankind.
The theory of evolution tells us that death existed long before the advent of man.
People who claim to accept both the teachings of Christianity and the theory are being dishonest. |
Clearly you don't understand the proper role of allegory or myth. Even Plato understood myth played a role. I'm going to stick with Plato, on this one.
Apparently there are literalists on the anti-theist side, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Kuros
| Quote: |
| The story of Adam and Eve explains who we are and why we are. Science does a great job of explaining how we are and what we are. |
Either one accepts the theory of evolution or christianity but not both, they are mutually exclusive.
Christianity is predicated on the idea that man brought death and disease into the world by his sin thus necessitating Christ's incarnation and death to redeem mankind.
The theory of evolution tells us that death existed long before the advent of man.
People who claim to accept both the teachings of Christianity and the theory are being dishonest. |
Clearly you don't understand the proper role of allegory or myth. Even Plato understood myth played a role. I'm going to stick with Plato, on this one.
Apparently there are literalists on the anti-theist side, as well. |
Well, clearly you don't either. What do you consider to be the purpose of a myth/allegory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mithradates Wrote:
| Quote: |
[quote="mithridates"]
| Omkara wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Orthodox church has a lot more emphasis on tradition than just parsing quotes from the Bible and pretending that they can be applied to everything. |
Since anything follows from a contradiction, we can apply it to anything. |
What does that mean? A little bit vague here. |
The Bible contradicts itself on many important issues, both moral and historical. On the moral issue, we can often chose the side of the issue which best suits our desire, and justify our position therefrom. We can argue both for and against slavery, for example, claiming absolute authority in each case.
As a result of these inconsistencies, we have many different churches, each holding incompatible positions.
| Quote: |
Hey, interesting anecdote: I just noticed that the Orthodox Church and Dawkins happen to agree on this point that he always brings up:
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/brorthoc.htm
| Quote: |
| Let us define our terms by talking of a number of words which are used in this context. First, there is the useless phrase 'born Orthodox'. This does not exist. Nobody is 'born Orthodox', we are all born pagans. That is why we first exorcise and then baptise. More acceptable are the terms, 'born to an Orthodox family' and 'cradle Orthodox'. It is interesting that people who condescendingly use terms such as 'born Orthodox' call the children of 'converts', 'converts'. In fact of course in their incorrect language, the children of 'converts' are 'born Orthodox'! |
|
I see your point. However, the term "pagan" is a term that only makes sense inside of the Christian worldview; the children must be converted. Hence, they commit the abuse which Dawkins loathes: they bring that child into the fold before the child has a chance to make an informed and objective choice. So, we still end up with a "Christian child."
| Quote: |
| Remember how he always objects to children being 'Catholic children', 'Protestant children' and so on? Well, so do they. I hope that your point above was not that all churches are the same; they're not. |
Addressed above. Anything follows from a contradiction: Quakers and snake-charmers and Mormons and the thousands and thousands of others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
Mithradates Wrote:
| Quote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Omkara wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Orthodox church has a lot more emphasis on tradition than just parsing quotes from the Bible and pretending that they can be applied to everything. |
Since anything follows from a contradiction, we can apply it to anything. |
What does that mean? A little bit vague here. |
The Bible contradicts itself on many important issues, both moral and historical. On the moral issue, we can often chose the side of the issue which best suits our desire, and justify our position therefrom. We can argue both for and against slavery, for example, claiming absolute authority in each case.
As a result of these inconsistencies, we have many different churches, each holding incompatible positions. |
Nope, that's not where different churches come from.
| Quote: |
Hey, interesting anecdote: I just noticed that the Orthodox Church and Dawkins happen to agree on this point that he always brings up:
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/brorthoc.htm
| Quote: |
| Let us define our terms by talking of a number of words which are used in this context. First, there is the useless phrase 'born Orthodox'. This does not exist. Nobody is 'born Orthodox', we are all born pagans. That is why we first exorcise and then baptise. More acceptable are the terms, 'born to an Orthodox family' and 'cradle Orthodox'. It is interesting that people who condescendingly use terms such as 'born Orthodox' call the children of 'converts', 'converts'. In fact of course in their incorrect language, the children of 'converts' are 'born Orthodox'! |
|
I see your point. However, the term "pagan" is a term that only makes sense inside of the Christian worldview; the children must be converted. Hence, they commit the abuse which Dawkins loathes: they bring that child into the fold before the child has a chance to make an informed and objective choice. So, we still end up with a "Christian child." |
I can tell you didn't read the link. The whole thing is against the concept of a one-time conversion. This paragraph is especially valid (it applies to children too):
| Quote: |
| As regards, mixed marriages, discernment is vital. I have seen Orthodox 'converts' pester and pester their spouses into becoming members of the Orthodox Church. The result is always negative. On the other hand, I have seen people wait patiently for ten, twenty, thirty years, without even mentioning the possibility of joining the Orthodox Church, and then the other spouse spontaneously asks to join. They have been converted by the Christian example of patience of the other spouse. |
You'll notice that even Dawkins makes a distinction between radicalism and moderation:
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=HSatukeQzFM
(start at about five minutes into the video)
The only point he makes is that radicalism can hide underneath a cloak of moderation, so let's not treat something with reverence just because it's a religion. That's true. But note that he never tries to make the point that radicalism and moderation are one and the same. Why have you misunderstood him on this point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I Wrote:
| Quote: |
| As a result of these inconsistencies, we have many different churches, each holding incompatible positions. |
Mithradates Wrote:
| Quote: |
| Nope, that's not where different churches come from. |
It is a causal factor, though not a sufficient explanation.
| Quote: |
| I can tell you didn't read the link. |
I read the paragraph you posted, not the link.
If the author and Dawkins agree on this point, then there is evidence of some good thought on the subject on the part of the Orthodox Church.
| Quote: |
The only point he makes is that radicalism can hide underneath a cloak of moderation, so let's not treat something with reverence just because it's a religion. That's true. But note that he never tries to make the point that radicalism and moderation are one and the same. Why have you misunderstood him on this point? |
I don't see where I have misunderstood him. I have in passages defended his work, but my opinions are my own. If you see a passage where I have misunderstood him, do point it out specifically.
I agree with Dawkins that there is a useful distinction. I think, with others, that the moderate get an unfair break. They are distinguished right out of the problem, whereas their weak epistemologies are at the root of the problem. Faith is an insufficient epistemological criterion. Knowledge is demonstrable. Articles of faith are not. That upon which Christianity is founded is not demonstrable. Out of this weak foundation grows the extreme factions, distinguished from the moderate only in terms of zealotry, not in terms of credulousness.
I grant, however, that some individuals have in their own practice distinguished clearly between belief and knowledge. But to teach faith as a virtue, as Dawkins points out, only puts the shit into the soil out of which grow fanatics, the bane of civilization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Kuros
| Quote: |
| The story of Adam and Eve explains who we are and why we are. Science does a great job of explaining how we are and what we are. |
Either one accepts the theory of evolution or christianity but not both, they are mutually exclusive.
Christianity is predicated on the idea that man brought death and disease into the world by his sin thus necessitating Christ's incarnation and death to redeem mankind.
The theory of evolution tells us that death existed long before the advent of man.
People who claim to accept both the teachings of Christianity and the theory are being dishonest. |
Clearly you don't understand the proper role of allegory or myth. Even Plato understood myth played a role. I'm going to stick with Plato, on this one.
Apparently there are literalists on the anti-theist side, as well. |
Well, clearly you don't either. What do you consider to be the purpose of a myth/allegory? |
To teach a principle or a truth. The truth of the story being absolutely true on every level is not the truth I speak of.
We do this, and Christians have done this since the Renaissance, when we read Greek myths. We recognize that the stories are in a sense myths. AND SO DID MANY GREEKS. But there is still a value in the myth.
For example, did David slay Goliath with a sling? Almost certainly not. But the story represents the triumph of common individuals fighting on their own soil using improvised devices against a superior trained conventional force. I do not even have to believe that the Jews ever won or even waged such guerilla combat. The principle taught by the myth has independent significance from the actual historical existence of the myth.
You two remind me of a friend of mine, who thought Plato's idea of having gold, silver, and bronze souls was patently ridiculous. I said, "I think its rather compelling." He said, "So you believe your soul is made out of metal?" I laughed, "Of course not, not literally. But I do believe people have different inherent capacities from birth, and one way of expressing this truth is by assigning them different classes of souls."
And yes, I can consider value in a myth even though it aspouses principles with which I may not precisely agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Kuros
| Quote: |
| The story of Adam and Eve explains who we are and why we are. Science does a great job of explaining how we are and what we are. |
Either one accepts the theory of evolution or christianity but not both, they are mutually exclusive.
Christianity is predicated on the idea that man brought death and disease into the world by his sin thus necessitating Christ's incarnation and death to redeem mankind.
The theory of evolution tells us that death existed long before the advent of man.
People who claim to accept both the teachings of Christianity and the theory are being dishonest. |
Clearly you don't understand the proper role of allegory or myth. Even Plato understood myth played a role. I'm going to stick with Plato, on this one.
Apparently there are literalists on the anti-theist side, as well. |
Well, clearly you don't either. What do you consider to be the purpose of a myth/allegory? |
To teach a principle or a truth. The truth of the story being absolutely true on every level is not the truth I speak of.
We do this, and Christians have done this since the Renaissance, when we read Greek myths. We recognize that the stories are in a sense myths. AND SO DID MANY GREEKS. But there is still a value in the myth.
For example, did David slay Goliath with a sling? Almost certainly not. But the story represents the triumph of common individuals fighting on their own soil using improvised devices against a superior trained conventional force. I do not even have to believe that the Jews ever won or even waged such guerilla combat. The principle taught by the myth has independent significance from the actual historical existence of the myth.
You two remind me of a friend of mine, who thought Plato's idea of having gold, silver, and bronze souls was patently ridiculous. I said, "I think its rather compelling." He said, "So you believe your soul is made out of metal?" I laughed, "Of course not, not literally. But I do believe people have different inherent capacities from birth, and one way of expressing this truth is by assigning them different classes of souls."
And yes, I can consider value in a myth even though it aspouses principles with which I may not precisely agree. |
What if we retold the story of David and Goliath, but replaced David with 'a brave hijacker who flew a plane into a building' and Goliath with 'the US'? Would it still have the same intrinsic value?
I'm more inclined to go with Levi-Strauss's opinion that myths are commands to the individuals of a culture on how properly to behave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with Kuros on this one. Myths can give us insight that other forms of writing and story telling cannot.
Do you know Plaot's allegory of the Cave? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
I'm with Kuros on this one. Myths can give us insight that other forms of writing and story telling cannot.
Do you know Plaot's allegory of the Cave? |
Yes.
I don't dispute that myths give us insight (specifically into our own cultural values), but their intrinsic value is to define the accepted norms of behaviour, hence some Greek myths are retained and some biblical parables are commonly retold, but most are long forgotten. Their antiquity (or even, their 'timelessness') is the source of their rhetorically-constructed authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Kuros
| Quote: |
| The story of Adam and Eve explains who we are and why we are. Science does a great job of explaining how we are and what we are. |
Either one accepts the theory of evolution or christianity but not both, they are mutually exclusive.
Christianity is predicated on the idea that man brought death and disease into the world by his sin thus necessitating Christ's incarnation and death to redeem mankind.
The theory of evolution tells us that death existed long before the advent of man.
People who claim to accept both the teachings of Christianity and the theory are being dishonest. |
Clearly you don't understand the proper role of allegory or myth. Even Plato understood myth played a role. I'm going to stick with Plato, on this one.
Apparently there are literalists on the anti-theist side, as well. |
Well, clearly you don't either. What do you consider to be the purpose of a myth/allegory? |
To teach a principle or a truth. The truth of the story being absolutely true on every level is not the truth I speak of.
We do this, and Christians have done this since the Renaissance, when we read Greek myths. We recognize that the stories are in a sense myths. AND SO DID MANY GREEKS. But there is still a value in the myth.
For example, did David slay Goliath with a sling? Almost certainly not. But the story represents the triumph of common individuals fighting on their own soil using improvised devices against a superior trained conventional force. I do not even have to believe that the Jews ever won or even waged such guerilla combat. The principle taught by the myth has independent significance from the actual historical existence of the myth.
You two remind me of a friend of mine, who thought Plato's idea of having gold, silver, and bronze souls was patently ridiculous. I said, "I think its rather compelling." He said, "So you believe your soul is made out of metal?" I laughed, "Of course not, not literally. But I do believe people have different inherent capacities from birth, and one way of expressing this truth is by assigning them different classes of souls."
And yes, I can consider value in a myth even though it aspouses principles with which I may not precisely agree. |
What if we retold the story of David and Goliath, but replaced David with 'a brave hijacker who flew a plane into a building' and Goliath with 'the US'? Would it still have the same intrinsic value?
I'm more inclined to go with Levi-Strauss's opinion that myths are commands to the individuals of a culture on how properly to behave.
|
The brave hijacker myth seems like a pretty crappy myth. Let not my defense of the medium of myth convince anyone that I think all myths must be valuable. Its also wierd to call it a myth because, you know, it actually happened. I'm really not sure what you're driving at there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Stevie_B wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Kuros
| Quote: |
| The story of Adam and Eve explains who we are and why we are. Science does a great job of explaining how we are and what we are. |
Either one accepts the theory of evolution or christianity but not both, they are mutually exclusive.
Christianity is predicated on the idea that man brought death and disease into the world by his sin thus necessitating Christ's incarnation and death to redeem mankind.
The theory of evolution tells us that death existed long before the advent of man.
People who claim to accept both the teachings of Christianity and the theory are being dishonest. |
Clearly you don't understand the proper role of allegory or myth. Even Plato understood myth played a role. I'm going to stick with Plato, on this one.
Apparently there are literalists on the anti-theist side, as well. |
Well, clearly you don't either. What do you consider to be the purpose of a myth/allegory? |
To teach a principle or a truth. The truth of the story being absolutely true on every level is not the truth I speak of.
We do this, and Christians have done this since the Renaissance, when we read Greek myths. We recognize that the stories are in a sense myths. AND SO DID MANY GREEKS. But there is still a value in the myth.
For example, did David slay Goliath with a sling? Almost certainly not. But the story represents the triumph of common individuals fighting on their own soil using improvised devices against a superior trained conventional force. I do not even have to believe that the Jews ever won or even waged such guerilla combat. The principle taught by the myth has independent significance from the actual historical existence of the myth.
You two remind me of a friend of mine, who thought Plato's idea of having gold, silver, and bronze souls was patently ridiculous. I said, "I think its rather compelling." He said, "So you believe your soul is made out of metal?" I laughed, "Of course not, not literally. But I do believe people have different inherent capacities from birth, and one way of expressing this truth is by assigning them different classes of souls."
And yes, I can consider value in a myth even though it aspouses principles with which I may not precisely agree. |
What if we retold the story of David and Goliath, but replaced David with 'a brave hijacker who flew a plane into a building' and Goliath with 'the US'? Would it still have the same intrinsic value?
I'm more inclined to go with Levi-Strauss's opinion that myths are commands to the individuals of a culture on how properly to behave.
|
The brave hijacker myth seems like a pretty crappy myth. Let not my defense of the medium of myth convince anyone that I think all myths must be valuable. Its also wierd to call it a myth because, you know, it actually happened. I'm really not sure what you're driving at there. |
My point is that the value of myth is contingent upon its appeal to our own cultural values, as well as the self-reflexive construction of the eternality of the truth it dramatizes by taking a form that signifies its timelessness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
I Wrote:
| Quote: |
| As a result of these inconsistencies, we have many different churches, each holding incompatible positions. |
Mithradates Wrote:
| Quote: |
| Nope, that's not where different churches come from. |
It is a causal factor, though not a sufficient explanation.
| Quote: |
| I can tell you didn't read the link. |
I read the paragraph you posted, not the link.
If the author and Dawkins agree on this point, then there is evidence of some good thought on the subject on the part of the Orthodox Church. |
Yes. That's why they're my favourite. They also have a different view of heaven and hell by the way:
http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html
As before, there's a lot of religious terminology and I'm not suggesting that any atheist should agree with this, but I think the average atheist would prefer Christians to believe along these lines as opposed to what we're used to hearing in North America.
| Quote: |
The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.
This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.
While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God.
This is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church's existence, and, except where influence by western theologies, continued to be held by Christians beyond Western Europe and America even up to this day (including the roughly 350 million Orthodox Christians worldwide).
When you examine in context the source words which are translated as "hell" in English language Bibles the original understanding becomes clear. You will find that "hell" is translated from four different Greek and Hebrew words. These words are not interchangeable in the original language, yet, incredibly, in English-language bibles these words are translated differently in different places to fit the translators' theology (rather than allow the words of scripture to determine their theology). Not only did English translators dump these four very different words into one meaning, they were not even consistent with it and chose to translate these same words with different meanings in different places. It is no wonder that English readers of the Bible are confused. |
and:
| Quote: |
| The history of the English word "hell" is also revealing. The Old English word from which hell is derived is "helan", which means to hide or cover, and is a verb. So at one time the English church understood that to be judged a sinner meant one would cower and want to hide in fear when in God's presence. Unfortunately, because of the political expedience of controlling an often rebellious population, corrupt rules in the West, in collusion with corrupt clergy, and adopting ideas from non-Biblical yet popular fantasy novels such as Dante's Inferno, corrupted the use of this word during the middle ages. Eventually turning a verb into a noun by popular usage, even if theologically insupportable from the Bible. |
This is another link worth reading in its entirety, because it goes over a huge number of words that don't mean hell that have been translated as hell in English.
| Quote: |
The only point he makes is that radicalism can hide underneath a cloak of moderation, so let's not treat something with reverence just because it's a religion. That's true. But note that he never tries to make the point that radicalism and moderation are one and the same. Why have you misunderstood him on this point? |
| Quote: |
I don't see where I have misunderstood him. I have in passages defended his work, but my opinions are my own. If you see a passage where I have misunderstood him, do point it out specifically.
I agree with Dawkins that there is a useful distinction. I think, with others, that the moderate get an unfair break. They are distinguished right out of the problem, whereas their weak epistemologies are at the root of the problem. Faith is an insufficient epistemological criterion. Knowledge is demonstrable. Articles of faith are not. That upon which Christianity is founded is not demonstrable. Out of this weak foundation grows the extreme factions, distinguished from the moderate only in terms of zealotry, not in terms of credulousness. |
When I see him interviewed I note that he's very careful to be precise in what it is he's against, such as the labeling of children, not necessarily their religious background. I've never seen him say that he thinks simply being raised by religious parents is child abuse for example, just the labeling before the child has had time to decide. I agree with him not only because it makes sense but also because labeling a child as something when they are young is often a cause for rebellion anyway, so it's not even practical for the religious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote
| Quote: |
Christianity is predicated on the idea that man brought death and disease into the world by his sin thus necessitating Christ's incarnation and death to redeem mankind.
|
Kuros wrote
| Quote: |
Clearly you don't understand the proper role of allegory or myth. Even Plato understood myth played a role. I'm going to stick with Plato, on this one.
|
So which part is the myth?
Death is a consequence of man's sin or Christ died to redeem mankind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
I wrote
| Quote: |
Christianity is predicated on the idea that man brought death and disease into the world by his sin thus necessitating Christ's incarnation and death to redeem mankind.
|
Kuros wrote
| Quote: |
Clearly you don't understand the proper role of allegory or myth. Even Plato understood myth played a role. I'm going to stick with Plato, on this one.
|
So which part is the myth?
Death is a consequence of man's sin or Christ died to redeem mankind? |
Your conception of death is not the same as Christ's or the Bible's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
