by Labate 17 Replies latest jw friends
Landy - "So what did they teach you was the reason Jesus came to the earth and had to die then? Or was Jesus' existance allegorical as well?"
I'm not Catholic, but I was under the impression that the RCC has subtly reinterpreted the atonement doctrine so that the particulars don't actually need Genesis to be literal... i.e., Genesis is symbolic, and in its own way, "Jesus' sacrifice" (though no less significant) is symbolic, too.
I could be mistaken.
I think you could be right ....
Landy,
My understanding is pretty much what Vidiot states. There was still the concept of "original sin" though, which may seem contradictory.
I have difficulty explaining it now, because I have not believed any of it for a very long time.
Edit: I did not see Landy's last post, before posting.
You learn something new everyday!
You;ll have to forgive my ignorance - I thought all christian belief was founded on the lieral ransom. Seems convenient that they can discard what the find difficult as allegorical though.
Landy - "Seems convenient that they can discard what the find difficult as allegorical though."
I'd call it shrewd foresight on the RCC's part, all things considering.
That means beginning with an assumption that there is an answer to all questions that doesn't involve the supernatural. - Me
Not quite right. Science doesn't assume there are no supernatural answers. - Coded Logic
The difference is between methodological and ontological naturalism.
The first is a working assumption that every scientist must make in order to do their job. Even scientists who pray for healing on a Sunday must assume that the efficacy of the cancer drug they are studying on a Monday is not being skewed by a god who is healing only those who were prayed for.
In evolutionary biology even scientists like Ken Miller who is a christian, must assume there are naturalistic answers to the questions he researches. If he investigates the evolution of the bacterial flagellum he must exclude "god-did-it" as a possible answer. This is methodological naturalism.
Ontological naturalism is a philosophical position that there actually is no such thing as a supernatural realm. Scientists do not have to subscribe to this idea in order to do good work.
On the "ransom" thing, it is only JWs who fixate on the Adam-Jesus equivalence. Russell taught that Jesus only died for Adam who was always destined to sin. Rutherford changed that to something like the value of the perfect life that Adam possessed. Typical lawyer.
Most christians believe that Jesus died as a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of believers - or all sins depending on theological flavour.
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. - Isa.53
He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him - 2Cor.5
So most christians have no problem dropping Adam and keeping Jesus.
Here endeth today's sermon - go in peace.
Some argue that evolution proves there is a God.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
