I need a 'fundamentalist' christian please - have question

[ahundredtimes]

So up the road live a family of charming christians. And their daughters come and babysit sometimes. And they are very charming and lovely, and ds2 enjoys talking to them about God. And they enjoy talking to him and answering his questions, and they like giving dh and I books about why the bible is true etc. It is all quite fair and fine and we are charming atheists.

Last night ds2 was enjoying just such a conversation, as he was reading a book about dinosaurs. And babysitter said 'did you know that God made the dinosaur bones and left them in caves for us to find?'

and ds2 said 'Now I didn't know that' and settled down for a chat.

Fine. I said to him 'did you ask her WHY he would think to do such a thing?'

Now can anyone tell me if this is current fundamentalist thinking or has ds2 totally made it up? It's rather a fascinating idea really.

'That it's important to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, otherwise it's all up for grabs.'

I did a lovely essay on miracles in the bible (well I say lovely ahven't had grade back yet LOL) which sorta addressed that issue.

A lot of currenta cademic thought is that it doesn't need to be the inspired word of God- a lot can be gained from reliving the evident awe and wonder the Disciples and thsoe who knew Jesus actually had. many christians dont' beleive all thats in the Bible, but they beleive He was a great man who did amazingt hings but probably these were somewhat embellished (as is Human nature) over time and simply with the aim of convincing people of His glory and wonder.

It's something you ahev to be aware of when reading the NT- the progression of the reasons for writing. amrk wrote for an audience who may have even remebered, or had aprents who remembered, jesus and his stories are simplr yet full of wonder and compassion; by the time you get to Luke the mythology (not as in fairy stories- mythology is the magical aspects given a story over time) has grown and is so much more evident.

I don't beleive the Bible is the literal Word as Biblical Chrsitians do, I do however belive its a tstament to the wonderful works of jesus, and a source ofhuge isnpiration in terms of the messages therein- specifically (and this si what I try to remember) 'Love one another'.

In telligent Design imo is a bit weird, they justify things like the dinosaurs as God's sense of humour but ultimately imo its just a way of excusing whre the bible isn't scientific. Now science isn't everything by any means but by nature its the best we have, whereas Genesis is a allegory that covers so amny aspects of Humanity (did my other essay this term on the rape of Dinah- which covers so much from tribalism at that time to feminsism) but even manages to contradict itself slightly- whya re there 2 Genesis stories?

it's also worth remembering that The Bible is but part fo a canon of works, some of which was selected for inclusion. many of these are probably lost to antiquity (the Q document for example, but those we have such as the Gospels of Phillip and Thomas are wonderful reading. I know the argument there is that the Gospeals selected were by Diving inspiration etc, but in reality Humanity is motivated by many things are one of the biggest ahs to be promotion of ones own beliefs above others- and I suspect thats where the choice of gospeals originate from.

Right, okay, I see that.

But why do some christians - the not nice, mad ones - bother to think that up in the first place? I mean why the desire or necessity to do so?

I'm quite confused, everyone is drawing different lines all over the place, some are even being drawn with tin cans.

Why do soem Christiands come up with these ideas?

presumably because of the efect darwinism has had on Christianity, they're looking for a midway that is palatable to many

ALSO schools can't teach creationism as fact but can suggest alternatives, so the mor thats out there the better

Thank you Peachy.

Though, I still struggle a bit with this,I mean by the idea that the gospels, my understanding is that they were written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.

but then I think that if I had faith then I wouldn't. Do you think? Which is why I don't understand the dinosaur bones thing, it's a waste of energy, surely everyone has to have faith in order to make the spiritual leaps of imagination and understanding? And if you don't have faith then you're left scratching your head, and all the talk about archeological evidence is a bit of a red herring really.

Peachy - also as a Christian are you allowed to believe that the Bible isn't the world of God? Is that okay?

I believe in the creation, I also believe dinosaurs existed (although possibly not quite as long ago as scientists say), I also believe that evolution has played some part in it all (but I don't believe that we used to be monkeys/chimps/gorillas/whatever they reckon we used to be)

My take is that while the world was "created in 7 days"....it was man, many years later that defined a "day". A day could quite easily have been 1000's of years, or even 10,000's of years. IYKWIM

There have been many animals which have become extinct in recent history, so there's nothing to say that dinsaurs also didn't exist and become extinct.

The gospels vary widely in time span- Mark was written 9curent estimate) 70- 90 years afte the death fo Chrsit, I have seen suggestions thatit was even written as earlya s AD40. The rest progress from there onwards, the assumptin being that Mark is taken as a source but also this missing Q document (there has to be some continuity because of all the stories that apepar in differing Gospeal but with a different slant).

When I started my course (which is in World Religions not just Chrsitinity) there were loads fo people who beleived then over the next few years that dropped off to one!. However, I haev noticed thats changing abck- you go through the stage of challenging it all- well if The Bible wasn't written in that way then etc etc etc,. A lot of us though- myself included are finding new ways of understaning teh spirituaity without having to accept the historical nature. Its a bonus that Chrsitians accept Bible scholarship (the Qur'an for example has an equally debatale genesis by Islam doesn't have the same tradition of scholarship). But you can have faith in the message and the spirit without necessarily beleiving that it matters what Mark's name really was.

100x, the main theological problem that results in some Christians needing a more literal interpretation of Genesis isn't the creation story per se (ie how the world was formed), but it does involve the issue of how sin and death came into the world. Paul talks of how "just as the result of one sin was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that bring life for all men". In some circles this (and similar passages) are built up so that there needs to be a literal "Adam", in order for Christ's death to be equally effective. And in order to get to that literal Adam you end up being bogged down in the 6,000-odd year timeline (thanks to the numerous genealogies in the Bible starting from Adam), and have to twist an awful lot of scientific evidence to get there.

Thank you all, this is really interesting.

So say the bones of Jesus were discovered, and sort of, for the purpose of this conversation, were irrefutably his, like they had a huge sign on them saying 'here lies the body of Jesus of N, our messiah, the people's prince who died on the cross etc' sort of thing.

Would the whole of Christianity dissolve because he hadn't been resurrected? Or would those of Faith, still be able to say 'we understand that the symbol of J's resurrection suggests hope and redemption in the eyes of God, and it is on that basis we can continue to be Christians' ? Because I'd want to be able to say and believe that (though I am actually a bit of a lost cause and have some way to go I think before I can even arrive at faith).

Does that make sense? I do apologise if these are silly questions.

Don't most (all?) of the genealogies dat to jospeh anyhow, whereas he's not really supposed to be christ's father?

Which is fairly god evidence its about the way that things were at that time (ie in a tribal society ancestry being everything ) rather than literally true?

Ahundredtimes, Was chrsits boduily resurrection necessary? Could not his spirit have been resurrected in spiritual body? thats an interetation I have heard anyway, and would simply be the logical argument for that scenario.

Well it's certainly not all written in hard lines this is it?

It seems to be that you either just have to Make the Leap and believe and allow and understand your faith to be a 'filter' if you like of your spiritual life. I don't see how else anyone can be persuaded. Do you?

I thinks exactly how it is- eitehr you feel' it or you don't. I do know one person who says she ahs just lerned to believe throughout childhood but that seems a very immature faith, wheras someone who has gone away from their beliefs, or had them trested, would have a more 'mature' faith perhaps?

Paul in 1Cor 15:17 "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins".

Further in the same passage he says (v22) "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

Without the resurrection then there is no victory over death (which is the punishment for sin), and no gift of the Holy Spirit to all who follow, the main outpourings being those after the ascension.

(I dont mean offence by immature or mature either- perhaps more deeply investigated migt be better, thsoe were just the terms I ahve heard used before!)

Peachy, the genealogies would have been mostly to impress Jewish readers, but I doubt that the overall timescale would vary that significantly regardless whether Joseph or Mary were used. It is still goign to be closer to a 4,000 year timeline than a x million one.

But do you hold that to be true LadyMuck? I mean would your faith (if you have faith) be futile then? Would it all be for nothing, because Paul says it would, if Christ didn't rise after death?

Mind you, I reckon Peachy's point about his spirit rising is spot on probably. So crisis over probably.

Well, I obviously have a fairly comfortable feeling that if the Romans and Jews of the day were unable to recover a body, then your chances are pretty slim, so I have to say that my belief in a bodily resurrection as historical fact feels pretty strong. The death of a preacher who taught "love one another" isn't that life-changing I'm afraid.

When you talk about a "spiritual" resurrection - what do you mean? Is a body that can be seen (obviously there are various post-resurrection pre-ascension sightings reported in the New Testament)?

I don't know what I mean!

I think I'm just trying to work out - post our evangelical somewhat fundamental babysitter - how the desire/need for empirical fact or historical evidence sits alongside faith.

As a result I have understood some things more, and confused myself a great further. . . .

A great deal further.

ALdyMuck- I was just hypothesising thea rgument that would be used, but I guess i would have to mean a visible body- manifest if you like.

(my point about the genaologies wasn't specifically related to timescale- agree with you there, it was just about how they don't really work anyway- thereby imho rendering the timescales alrgely irrelevant anyway I suppose but I hadn't thought that far ahead at the time)

Might it be time for a chat about "Some people beleive... What do you think?"

I suppose it would be interesting to boil things down to see which historical bits that one can't do without. The order and timing of creation isn't actually that fundamental in the scheme of things, but the introduction of sin and death are probably more crucial.

As for the babysitter, I guess the question would be "why would God "hide" dinosaur bones to test us?" Though if she is a teenager then she probably hasn't had the more usual tests of faith that comes - death of a loved one, illness, infertilty etc. I would find the idea of a God who tried to catch people out like that quite depressing.

Peachy, when you say that the genealogies don't "work", what do you think that they are intending to do, that they don't in fact achieve?

they don't work in that they don't draw a direct line between christ and Adam, that is the accepted academic POV. At least, it was from the Ldy at trinity who lectured on that aspect to us.

From the cultuiral perspective of adhering to the tribal Jewish love of inheritance they work perfectly of course