Summations Only

Bullshit."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" still retains its value in spite of the fact that the Bible has some errors.And frankly, its just terrible theology that the Bible is either totally and literally accurate or it has no value whatsoever. Its a false dichotomy and a detriment to christianity.

I know, but that's beside the point. It still retains its value.

Can we agree that its within the point? I see his broader message that you mention, but I was just focusing on that smaller part. Honestly, I don't think his point is all that clear...He starts with:

quote:

---

I have never known any christianity that was not based on the idea that the whole bible was absolutely true. Message 80

---

Which is followed by the same reasoning you just outlined. But then he gets to:

quote:

---

Without a literal bible, christianity is absolutely worthless. Message 84

---

Now, maybe "literal" and "absolutely true" mean the same thing to them, but to me it obfuscates the point being made.When you're getting into literal-ness, you're getting more into doctrine than dogma, imho. I see that (better now), but there's more to it. "Christianity" is not just what he's making it out to be and "dogmatic" doesn't have to be non-doctrinal. The Golden Rule is both dagmatic and doctrinal. I didn't intend it, as and example, to be limited to a doctrinal one, I just used it because I thought we could all agree that its in the bible and it has truth and that Genesis having an error doesn't mean we have to throw out the Golden Rule along with it. Too, if you do use it as a piece of dogmatic content, then it could address the wider point as well, no?

The only way I can make sense of what your saying is if the point is that christianity looses its worth because it didn't come up with the valuable truth itself. Let me outline it: Yeah, I'm sorry. That's not making much sense to me. Are you relying on the worth of christianity to be the invention of the valuable truth?

What is this "problem"? What's wrong with an ultimately baseless morality? That's just not true. Utlitarianism is just one branch consequationalism, which is paralleled by other types of ethics like deontology.You can read about that kind of stuff here:Normative ethics - WikipediaOn top of all that, you could just be a Muslim instead. Or some other religion. They've have their own bases in morality that aren't necessarily based on the Bible. Sure there is. Like I said early, even after you realize that Genesis contains errors, The Golden Rule still has its value. That it has value is a reason to accept it. Too, you could just plain old like it and it accept it for that reason. Or you could accept it becuase following it makes you feel better. Or because you think it will get you into heaven. Or... well, as you can see there are other reasons.Setting up this false dichotomy as a way to force Biblicalism as some sort of necessary default is just terrible theology, by the way. You should prop it up on its merits instead. Falling on it as the least worst makes it look bad. People have been saying that crap for a long time... Did you know there were people who believed that you'd have to throw the whole Bible away if it was proven that the Earth wasn't in the center of the solar system? Don't you think that is a bit silly? Well you're in the same boat. Why not? The Golden Rule still has value even though Genesis contains errors.

Oh wow... Biblical literalism as done you wonders.You're doing a disservice to your specific faith and Christianity in general. Please stop it. You're making the rest of us look bad.

I think he's serious. He really is just a jerk who hates us.