Common Misconceptions of Christianity
I’d like to burn some very typical straw men. Hopefully, in the debate over Christianity, these unnecessary issues can be avoided.
Creation - Neither Genesis nor any of the scriptures demands that the earth and universe is only 6- to 10- thousand years old. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom) could mean long periods of time. The words “there was morning and there was evening, the first day” could be translated “there was beginning and ending, the first (yom)”.
(BTW, the narrative moves to the surface of the earth in Genesis 1:2. While stars were certainly already in existence, their light was not visible on the surface of the earth until the opaque early atmosphere cleared).
Adam and Eve – While scripture does indicate they were specially created, there are gaps in the biblical genealogies that could place Adam and Eve back 60- to 90-thousand years. This would also predict increasing discovery of a common DNA originating between east Africa and the Mesopotamia.
(BTW, the word for “rib” means “side”. The story of Eve’s creation could mean God created her from Adam for symbolic purposes. I speculate a biopsy, of sorts, from the side, with a few million variations to the DNA producing a female. )
Talking Snakes - A boa constrictor with vocal cords is not in view here. That image comes largely from medieval art. The “serpent” in the garden was intelligent and used for evil. One can only speculate what sort of being it was (perhaps one no longer extant).
The Flood – The fact that a great flood is found in various cultures indicates that it happened. Two questions emerge: which account is most accurate and whether the flood was global or local.
I’m of the opinion that the flood was regional rather than global for several reasons. First, while the flood was universal in effect, it was only regional in extent due to human’s not having moved much beyond the Mesopotamia at the time. A global flood was unnecessary.
Secondly, language like “under all the heavens”, “all the earth”, etc. are most likely from the perspective of the observer, i.e. a flood from horizon to horizon. “Mountains” could be translated “hills” with rain and water “covering” (or running over) them rather than submerging them.
Thirdly, this would mean there were not polar bears and penguins, etc. on the ark, but only animals indigenous to the region and of special relation to man.
Fourthly, a global flood would have torn the ark to pieces, no matter how well built. And it certainly would not have landed anywhere near its original location.
Fifthly, the scripture itself said a “large wind” was used in the evaporation process. Such a wind would have virtually no effect in a global flood.
Finally, if the flood were only regional why not just have Noah, his family, and whatever animals needed, hike out of the area and be safe? Why a big specifically-built ark? I think because God often operates via symbols teaching important truths or significance, i.e. salvation in Christ or deliverance through troubled waters (trials).
Use of Metaphor – The scriptures use metaphor and other literary devices. One need only utilize common exegetical analysis and context to determine what any author meant as literal or metaphorical (and on a case-by-case basis).
Inerrancy – If there are consequential or factual errors in the Bible that does not mean Christianity is false. However, I find it remarkable how well the Bible holds up to scrutiny and that there are plausible answers to discrepancies. Personally, I hold to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
Hell – is not a place of torture (external) but of torment (internal). There are many descriptions of hell in the scriptures. The “fire” is most likely not the chemical combustion we’re familiar with. It, combined with all the other descriptions, reduces to separation from God and the judgment of God.
This does not make hell more tolerable (that’s not possible). But it does dispel hillbilly theology that has poor souls swatting flames for eternity! Christ depicted conversation taking place “in the flames”. No person could have a conversation while on fire! On our familiar planet, one is in mindless torture if burning.
It is, however, a profound tragedy to be eternally separated from God. It is a “spiritual chaos” one enters when the intact “self” survives the physical body. There are indications that some kind of body could exist in hell.
Heaven – is a remarkably physical place. It is not ethereal or immaterial. It is a combination of a “new heaven and new earth”. We will live on earth in physical bodies that are “spiritual” which nonetheless have access to one another and continued exploration of the universe without many of the limits of current bodies affected by entropy, etc. Christ’s resurrected body could be touched and he ate food, etc. This describes the redeemed, resurrected body.
This is not to be confused with an intermediary state which is not physical. At death, one goes either into the very presence of God to await the resurrection of the body, or in a state of chaos to await final judgment.
“God will not allow anything to happen in your life that you can’t handle” – False! Scripturally, there are plenty of things that happen that one cannot handle! Devastating things! The accurate teaching is that nothing will happen that God’s grace will not get one through.
“You must become like children” - Christ said to “humble yourself like a little child”. It does not mean to be naïve, ignorant, gullible, or irrational.
Pascal’s Wager – This is not an argument for God nor necessarily addressed to atheists. Pascal used a popular gambling motif to shake the French laity out of spiritual complacency and to at least move them in the direction of God.
Further, the Wager, as it is commonly used, is not allowed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. He said if Christ was not risen, then the jig is up! Christianity is false! He did not say believe it anyway “just in case” or because it provides a positive way of life.
I hope these internal considerations provide food for thought.
Tags: Pascal's, Wager, adam, and, creation, eve, flood, heaven, hell, inerrancy, More…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on -
Hi Kevin,
This time, as in the last debate you start out with the dogmatic assertion that it is the Christian god that created the Earth. Everything is fitted around that assumption. Scientific terms dropped into the argument do not give in any credence. Those who use this method of rationalization do not really understand Science. If they did then they would reject the Genesis account.
Science and the bible are not compatible. Day and night is created by the spin of the Earth around its star which we now know is one among hundreds of billions. According to that 3000 year old Science book the sun was created four days after day and night was created. The people who wrote this fable had no idea of the knowledge we now take as common place. For example, if people understood the Theory of Evolution which is virtually proven by the existence of DNA and therefore disproves the biblical account, the term “DNA” would not be used by apologists in their arguments. Science makes observations and then draws conclusions. You are starting out with the conclusion and are making your own rationalizations about Christianity around it.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin Harris on -
Reg, please don't miss what my entire post is about. Here are some common misconceptions concerning Christianity. It is not a post on why or whether Christianity is true.
My step here is to evaluate internal consistency. Then at least we'll know whether to even consider external evidence (is Christianity true).
And now, you've uncovered another one! Your misconception is that the Christian Scriptures should apparently be worded with modern scientific and technical precision! Of course not! But the earth's rotation and DNA are certainly not incompatible with God.
And how did you miss that I pointed out the stars (sun) were prior to the earth, but became visible on the earth's surface at a given point, and that is what is probably being described? Phenomenological language (which scientists still use today) was employed in the scriptures as it spans pre-modern eras. That, and the fact that the Hebrew language is 1000 times smaller than the English language, shows why broader terms and stories are used.
If you want to see a religious text that literally teaches things that are incompatible with known science, go look at the Qu'ran. You'll find that sperm comes from a man's chest, the sun once set in a puddle of mud, and meteors are literally Allah hurling missiles at demons!
One more illustration. If you walked into my kitchen and asked me "why is the kettle boiling?", I could answer in terms of the flame communicating to the metal of the kettle heating the water and throwing off the molecules as steam. Or I could say, "I put it on to have some tea". Both answers are correct! Ancient texts, like the Scriptures, often fall into the latter category.
-
Permalink Reply by Jewelz on -
If you want to see a religious text that literally teaches things that are incompatible with known science, go look at the Qu'ran. You'll find that sperm comes from a man's chest, the sun once set in a puddle of mud, and meteors are literally Allah hurling missiles at demons!
Absolutely ridiculous, right? Did you know some Islamic apologists claim the word "sulb" better translates to "loins" so the first passage is saying the seed is produced between the loins and the bottom of the ribs? They say this is more scientifically accurate because the seminal vesicles and prostate gland located there produce over 90% of seminal fluid. They also claim the second passage is just misunderstood and actually says he followed the road until it looked as though the sun were setting in a puddle of mud, perhaps over a dark muddy body of water. As for that last passage - HA! How absurd! We all know Eloah Allah hurling meteors at evil demons is TOTALLY different than Allah Eloah destroying evil, sinful cities via a rain of fire!
It's like they can rationalize anything, no matter how ridiculous! Isn't it funny how these Islamic apologists whose understanding is based on faith instead of logic or reason can't see how silly these passages are?
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
[face palm] [like] [pwned] Where are these buttons?
-
Permalink Reply by Jacob LeMaster on -
Those buttons would be awesome right now,,, lol
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
How do those attempts differ from your own? Actually, why should we entertain discussion of any of these rationalizations without some motivation for understanding why anyone would start with the perspective that either of these writings being rationalized have any rational basis to begin with.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on -
If you want to see a religious text that literally teaches things that are incompatible with known science, go look at the Qu'ran.
Or the Bible. The last I checked, bats were not birds. Nor is leprosy cured by sacrificing birds.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
Or the Earth, for that matter - but to learn that they actually need to look into the telescope.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Haynes on -
Are the explanations of these misconceptions aimed at other Christians, non-believers, or both?
You call them straw men, however they are actually arguments that get thrown at atheists by fundamentalist Christians fairly often. I've had to argue against them myself and it's exasperating. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure these "straw men" were not set up by some atheist somewhere just so he or she could tear them down.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin Harris on
-
Both.
-
Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on
-
Do you mean is Christianity true or is the Bible true? The “internal consistency” of what is to be evaluated first?
I do not think “that the Christian Scriptures should apparently be worded with modern scientific and technical” language. I am saying they are not compatible. I do not see the bible as scientific. It bugs me when Theists who start from the premise that not only is a god responsible for Creation, but that it is the god of the Christian bible. As for “Earth’s rotation and DNA may not be incompatible with god” - They are completely and utterly incompatible with any concept of the Abrahamic god. Using modern science to back up scripture is pointless (when speaking to Atheists) because back then they did not even know the world was round. (lets leave the Hebrew word “chug” for ”round” aside ). The writers were not aware of “science” in the modern sense.
The bit about seeing the stars is irrelevant. Life was not around until a few billion years after whatever early opaque atmosphere there may have been.
Can you clarify the line “This would also predict increasing discovery of a common DNA originating between east Africa and Mesopotamia”. It seems to imply 2 points of origin rather than 1 migration from east Africa.d
As regards “Heaven” do you believe in eternal life through Jesus and that you will be in a “remarkably physical place” for more than (say) 200 billion years?
Pascal’s Wager – I dismissed years ago.
-
Permalink Reply by bill owen on -
Could you maybe give a reason as to why DNA and the earth's rotation are incompatible with the Abrahamic God? Besides the fact that DNA isn't mentioned in the Bible? You have to get that the Bible was written for people BEFORE the scientific era to understand as well.
I think that DNA actually supports intelligent design theory, which supports Christianity. DNA is information. It has to have been written. Rocks can't write. Just throwing that out there.
What's new today
Events
Forum
America - "Love It or Leave It"
Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 1 hour ago. 29 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
The Republicans accelerate their downward spiral
Posted by Unseen on June 19, 2013 at 1:26pm 5 Comments 0 Likes
Videos
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
