Chimp writes:
I was expressing my extreme incredulity. Nothing more, nothing less.
No worries. Incredulity is a natural thing to do. But in the rigorous sense of debate, nothing can be taken for granted unless your 'opponant' grants you it. Incredulity is just one of those things you can only introduce when you've reached understanding with those in the opposing camp.
-
You are right in that there's nothing wrong with someone changing their mind. But, just to take the example of Adam and Eve, I disagree that everything still holds together. The theology of Christians is still that God created mankind. But if you discard the only explanation you have for that creation, how can your theology still "hold together"? Get rid of the Adam and Eve story, and where do you have any explanation for how God created Mankind.
Look at it this way. I believe Adam and Eve were real people. There are other Christians (ie: people who satisfy the same criterion for God saving them as I satisfied in order that he saved me) who don't believe Adam and Eve were walking talking people. Our two theologies differ yet we are both Christian.
Now if I was to change my view from the current position to their position I would change theology but not my being a Christian. My being a Christian doesn't depend on my view on Adam and Eve, it depends on whether God saved me or not.
-
I don't know what your definition of "Science" is, or when you though Science started. But I would say that some people would certainly always have wondered whether a talking snake could be real or allegorical based on their observation that no snakes or indeed any other animals apart from humans had ever been observed to talk. I would make that a scientific analysis.
Fair enough. In which case we concur: folk 2000 years ago could be expected to have as much trouble with the notion of talking snakes as we could be expected to have now (if we aren't believers in God).