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]

Dunno.

It's hard to say exactly what Paul said because all we have are one side of a conversation (his letters to congregations in different places), not the correspondence that generated the response in the first place. He was also heavily edited after the fact by the same people that edited other things you mention. (For example, there are internal inconsistencies about the role/status of women.)

Don't get me wrong, Paul and the "Pauline Heresy" (preaching to gentiles and G-d as an airy, fairy, other-worldly presence, amongst other things) had horrible and far-reaching consequences. Reading the texts that we do have suggests that he apparently was very territorial and got pissy when people tried to replace him in whatever authority position he thought he had.

As an aside, it look like we broke Bill's comment page. :( Sorry Bill.

- Jeho

[jehosefatz.livejournal.com]

By the way, all this being said, I don't necessarily disagree with you on much.

But, I don't think that it matters all that much whether Jesus existed or not. Considering that "Christ" is a title, not a name, it's theoreticalloy possible (some might say even necessary) to be a follower of Christ (a Christian, if you will) whether there was an historical Jesus or not.

To me, there are more important questions like:

-- What does it mean to be a Christian, exactly? (Some people seem to be really confused on this point, based on their behavior.)
-- How should Christians deal with the apparently less than Christian legacy that has been created and continues to be created? (which you mention, above)
-- Why are arguments presented that literal inpretation is the only interpretation? Ancient people's were a lot smarter than we give them credit for and were perfectly comfortable dealing with metaphor and parable. What makes us so uncomfortable in the 21st century?
-- Why is it necessary to force change on others (for example, change laws to bolster particular religious views)? The description of Jesus' life in the Gospels didn't seem to suggest that necessity. Frankly, I think that in order to grow in any spiritual way it's necessary to have something against which to compete. It forces one to challenge assumptions and make personal decisions about how to implement abstractions.

I see some interesting things happening in the American Catholic church as a result of the pedophilia scandal that involve these sorts of questions. Eventually, I think they will spawn a movement that will go back to very early Christian roots -- smaller, community based, semi-insular groups of believers, less prosletyzing, less structure, and more Christianity.

Oddly enough, a more Jewish model.

- Jeho