Wow.

[mapsedge]

...this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

Dr. Francis Collins

Full text here.

(Thanks Jeho)

Comments

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

Technically, anything not personally experienced is "hearsay". So, since neither of us read the original languages in their idiomatic form and/or have access to primary source documents or "smoking guns" (thus requiring interpretation of anything we might have access to), we're having a battle of "hearsay", anyway. And, so are the scholars. Primary sources are too scarce, all of them require interpretation, and there have been too many hands in the pots, all with agendas.

As stated, personally, I believe that he existed because I think it is as likely as not, and I err on the side of belief (see also, Paschal's Wager). There are a lot of things that have been attributed to him that I don't believe and I don't think are necessary to believe or to call oneself a Christian (which I don't.)

I also know that there are Christians that make assertions or justify bad behavior of all sorts based on "facts". There are also Wiccans, Pagans, and misc others who do the same. For example, show me proof that is any stronger that shows that any aspect of modern neo-paganism is an unbroken survival of pre-Christian nature religions. Or, if you'd rather show me the proof that Gerald Gardner is a true recipient of an ancient, survived Book of Shadows from an ancient, hereditary, working coven.

There are people who believe those things with no better "proof." And, so long as they are decent people who leave me alone and use their spiritual lives to enhance their experience of their temporal lives, I'm perfectly happy with that... be the Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist, Frisbetarian*... whatever.

- Jeho

* An obscure sect who believe that when one dies after living a good life, one's soul becomes a Frisbee stuck on the roof of a giant house until such time as a Savior with a great Ladder is born who will redeem them.

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

Dude. Lot of vitriol. I'm not sure where it's coming from, but I'm sorry for pushing those buttons.

Unless they can force everyone to accept that fact, then their mythos and their claim to divine authority (ever heard of Manifest Destiny?) is no more 'True' than anyone else's.

This was exactly my point. Sorry I didn't make it better.

I think I'll go back into lurking mode now.

- Jeho

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

Well, not being Christian (as I stated earlier) I'm not really comfortable being an apologist for them except to say that if one is going to demand unequivocal proof from one, one should demand unequivocal proof from all (this was the point of the Wicco/Pagan argument -- I never said *you* personally were either). Frankly, I can't think of a single spiritual path off the top of my head that is not founded on some critical tenet (or set of tenets) that is unprovable, if not unknowable.

Now, in short, the gist of what I was trying to say is that despite the fact that I am not Christian, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that Jesus existed, albeit probably not in the form that we have come to know about him in the 21st century.

Now, if you want to continue this discussion which has taken a decidedly ad hominem sort of twist that I'm not particularly happy with, I'm happy to do so in private and get it out of William's comments log.

William has my personal email address. Ask him for it. I'm happy for you to have it.

- Jeho