[quote=""Politesse""]This thread is, in general, making a hash of soteriology, and generalizing as "normative" for all Christians a theory which is actually held only by some of them. [/quote]
"Some." Great. Now add in a No True Christian fallacy into the mix. Let's see, shall we? From PEW
About half [of global Christians] are Catholic. Protestants, broadly defined, make up 37%. Orthodox Christians comprise 12% of Christians worldwide. Other Christians, such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, make up the remaining 1% of the global Christian population.
Of all of those sects, only among
the Protestants "broadly defined" might one find less "normative" theories about soteriology (and that only among about a third):
The third group broadly defined as Protestants in this report is independent Christians. Independent Christians have developed ecclesial structures, beliefs and practices that are claimed to be independent of historic, organized Christianity. Independent Christians include denominations in sub-Saharan Africa that identify as independent from historically Protestant denominations, churches in China that are not affiliated with official religious associations and nondenominational churches in the United States.
Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and at least two-thirds of Protestants teach the exact same central message of Jesus as a sacrificial atonement to God for our "sins" that we've all been referring to itt. Only around 12% might--MIGHT--fall under your camp, so, no it's not "some" unless you mean "some 88% or more."
There have in fact been hundreds of formulations of what Christ's sacrifice and atonement actually meant
Few of which consider it purely figurative in the same manner as the events/characters in Genesis, or that Jesus was not real or did not actually get killed as a sacrifice to God for "our" sins. Once again, the issue is how YOU have invoked certain literary rules that you are not consistently applying.
The Eastern Church has never accepted the substitutionary view of atonement
Turning to PEW again:
Oriental Orthodox churches are those Eastern Orthodox churches that recognize only the first three ecumenical councils convened by the church’s bishops to discuss and determine matters of church doctrine and discipline — the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the First Council of Ephesus.13 Unlike the Eastern Orthodox Church, which embraces the Council of Chalcedon’s teaching that Christ has two natures, divine and human, Oriental Orthodox churches hold that Christ has one indivisible nature.
As you well know, the Council of Chalcedon also reaffirmed
the pre-eminence of the Creed of Nicea.
The point being that only a very small
percentage of cult members believe as you assert.
And finally.... for the millionth time in this thread, Poli is not questioning whether God or Jesus are "real".
Not being a literalist does not mean that you think everything in the Bible is a lie.
BIG straw. Fictional is the word you're looking for, not "lie."
And shall we recall, my statement to which this entire thread has been an incompetent rebuttal was not about whether any particular passage was literally true, but about whether non-literal readings predate post-modernism, as they evidently do.
More straw. Jobar was asking "whence literalism" NOT whether or not there have ever been non-literalists or whether or not inerrancy
(which was what he was really talking about) pre-dated post-modernism.
Regardless it was YOUR comments regarding the rules of figurative language--and their incoherent, inconsistent applications--that led us here. Don't go blaming waterfalls...