Christian parents sue government over school's transgender policies

Clearly it was significant for the Apostle Paul that Adam was a real man (sin was able to enter the world through one man, just as grace then abounds through one man)

It is only since the reformation that the creation myths in Genesis have been taken literally. Earlier scholars would have used a number of methods including allegory and the spiritual sense of the reading. They used the idea of a chariot pulled by four horses as their image of giving equal weight to different ways of interpreting a text. www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/new-cambridge-history-of-the-bible/theories-of-interpretation-the-quadriga-and-its-successors/ED40582B6C0230CACC77B1A5248BC33E

In the 21st century those that read the myth and poetry of the Bible literally are more likely to be conservative Protestants. There are more of them in the US than in England.

Also, remember the Bible uses a plethora of genres. It's not about picking and choosing as much as it's about determining how each passage was supposed to be read by the original reader. The gospels are eye witness accounts, and then there are wisdom books, poetry, Old Testament history etc. Jesus's parables, for example, were not real events, but stories that conveyed a message (e.g. The lost sheep was not talking about a literal sheep)
Whether or not you interpret Genesis as historic events or synbols for what happened, the point is God chose to reveal the truth using those words. That he created the world and mankind to rule it under him, and that we all reject the ruler God and try to run our lives without him, but we fail to rule ourselves, society or the world. (and then the resolution to this is developed in the rest of the Bible...)

I do think that being exposed to a moderate religion as a child is fine TBH. In a society which sees it as a private matter... No push to display faith etc.

With my personal theory about brain thing.

Those who don't have that need will discard it.

Those who have a strong drive to find meaning in terms of the ever present why are we here, what happens after etc way. Have a starting point to stick with or move away from.

And those who feel a bit of that but not hugely. The 'must be something not sure what' people have a default.

To have no default and start looking at the millions of options. With no exposure and so no basic. Well I believe this, I think that is not right. I mean you can end up anywhere esp with the internet.

Just my opinion.

Ah cool. I had an example ready but yes.

So when it comes to the original comment which was that by definition Christians believe we were made in God's image.

And I said no they really don't.

That's what I was talking about.

Loads of people who describe themselves as Christian, don't believe that. I mean I haven't done a survey obv. My point being that loads of people who consider themselves part of a certain religion. Don't do so because of belief, but other reasons. Some will be devout, some will believe some bits (that are meaningful / speak to them). Some will believe very little or none.

It's a really interesting topic.

In history here when going to church was widely done. I don't think that means people were different- more spiritual, more devout etc.

I don't think people really change.

Always you will have I'd think a large amount of people who have an internal spiritual... Component? Of them, some will seek out a belief system that is meaningful to them. Many will stay in the religion they are familiar with. Some will be devout. Some will not have a strong feeling of what brings them the meaning they seek, but the broad tenets etc fit well enough.
Others I think just don't have that component at all. Not due to anything apart from how their brain just is.

So there's always, whether it's expected to worship or not so much. The same mix. And the numbers of worshippers goes up and down depending on social norms.

Ah ok.

Yes my list ^ a while back used that term I think.

That makes perfect sense Nice Gerbil.

They are cultural Christians. Many won’t even believe in God.

Ah. I did a list earlier. Of why.

Main reason in my area is cultural.

Eg.
Lots of friends parents came from Ireland or Italy.
Obviously v RC countries.

So being RC is about things like-

Link to country in question, link is important from an identity pov I suppose. All feel their background is a big part of who they are. And the religion is a big part of that. I hope that makes sense.

Big life events religious.
Baby christened religion. Relatives come over. Big family thing, gets everyone together. Familiar ceremony etc.
Same marriage funeral. Oh and first holy communion confirmation of course.

A sense of community.

Sorry that's not very good. I'll think of an example.

‘Has anyone asked Sally & Nigel what scientific evidence they have for the existence of God? Or is it perfectly OK to teach children lies, as long as you are their parents?’

Science is the study of the materially real, not the supernatural.

Loads of things we teach children have nothing to do with science.

We could probably make a distinction between…

1. The teachings of the church that people know, understand and agree with.
2. The teachings of the church people don’t understand. For example, a high proportion of believers don’t understand the incarnation.
3. The teachings of the church people know and don’t agree with.

But as a starting point we have to state what the church teaches. And the church doesn’t teach the world was created in seven days.

Obviously beyond that there are plenty of people who are Christian but don’t follow various church teachings.

I would have assumed in the past they therefore had some kind of mainstream secular view, but I no longer know what the mainstream secular view is, because consensus seems to have collapsed, hence transgenderism, qanon, homeopathy etc.

Has anyone asked Sally & Nigel what scientific evidence they have for the existence of God? Or is it perfectly OK to teach children lies, as long as you are their parents?

‘I know loads of RC people and no. They do not believe the points in your post about god's image etc.’

If they don’t believe that humans were created in God’s image, in what sense are they Christian and what do they believe the relationship between people and God is?

I have to say this is not a topic of conversation I have ever had with secular people in real life.

In England.

Oh sorry. I mean how many RC people actually believe in transubstantiation.

Didn't finish my point!

‘And belief even within a fairly comprehensive organised branch of faith always can and should have room for adherents to take from it what fits with them within the main tenets.’

That isn’t the teaching of many religions and denominations though. The extent to which you can interpret or diverge from the stated beliefs is hugely controversial.

I am not in the Evangelical tradition, but isn’t it part of their teachings that any divergence from or addition to biblical teaching is sinful?

As far as I understand it, they can’t practice Ignatian prayer because it would add an extra interpretation to the bible and would therefore be sinful.

I know loads of RC people and no. They do not believe the points in your post about god's image etc.

I wrote a post listing some of the reasons that people who would say yes I'm Christian. Don't actually believe much or any of it.

I don't think there were any responses to that.

So if this is clearly symbolic and that bit etc and not to be taken literally but this part Is. I don't really get that at all.

I would have thought that then, that explanation of the question humans have always pondered-

Where did all this (stars sun earth animals etc) come from?
Why are we here/ what is our purpose (do we have one)?
All those things.

For then, it's as good a reason as anything else. Simple, comprehensive. I don't understand why back then it was for sure symbolic and not to be taken literally.

Plus of course there are groups that take it literally. Or at least big chunks of it.

Also, is there any other explanation of why childbirth is in general worse for us than for other mammals?

'But in any case, even in the ancient world many theologians believed that the creation account was meant as a spiritual explanation rather than an exact historical description, even if their reasons had nothing to do with modern scientific theories'

That is really interesting! Got any links etc so can read up?

Tailend- no wasn't to you! And your personal beliefs are interesting.

Incidentally I mean not saying X belief is wrong / right etc. I mean religion is all about belief. And belief even within a fairly comprehensive organised branch of faith always can and should have room for adherents to take from it what fits with them within the main tenets. And that as different groups have different interpretations of parts, so will individuals and that too is fine.

This is interesting though! So hope not coming across as really critical rather than saying what I think etc.

So just over half of Christians are Catholic.

The Catholic Church does not believe that the world was literally created in seven days and does believe in evolution.

It also believes that men and women are created in the image of God, and that what is unique about humans is that they are both material and spirit.

The materiality of humans is at the heart of Christianity as Christ was the word made flesh.

It doesn’t really leave much space for identities that just float about quite independently of the material body they are in.

While it's certainly true that in the ancient world there was no particular reason anyone would have thought a modern cosmos or evolutionary explanation would be a credible theory of how things came to be, the text is not a commentary on our modern views anyway. It's better compared to the pagan viewpoint at the time. The Jewish/Christian account differs from that in significant ways which may be more to the point if we want to understand what the text has to say.

But in any case, even in the ancient world many theologians believed that the creation account was meant as a spiritual explanation rather than an exact historical description, even if their reasons had nothing to do with modern scientific theories. There was quite a variety of viewpoints among patristic scholars about the extent to which that was the case, many of which were acceptable within the tradition of interpretation.

I assume the last remarks aren't made to me (I'm not in England, or speaking for most Christians there!) the point I was making about Adam and Eve wasn't about understanding of them changing with scientific advances, Genesis 2 (I do hope I've got the right chapter - might be 3!) was there since earliest times suggesting that it was always viewed symbolically. Why would people not have tried to describe their worldview using symbols in the past? I don't understand that.
I don't think being made in God's image has anything to do with people's bodies, and God certainly isn't male or female (normally I would've added, because being male or female is all about your body and God doesn't have one, but I suppose that doesn't wash with the gender identity view!)