How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Trailblazer]

That actually would have been a sacrifice. But still a mostly meaningless one.

So do you think that the death on the cross without the resurrection is meaningless?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For those of you who don't take the story of the Fall literally…..how do you envision the Fall of Man happening? And if it didn't happen, what use is Jesus?

From what I’ve been taught through an in-depth study of the Bible, I think You’re exactly right…. Jesus’ sacrifice is a ransom (Matthew 20:28). Through his sacrifice, Jesus “bought back” what Adam lost for himself & his descendants: the prospect of eternal life.
It’s not for nothing that the Apostle Paul contrasts Jesus with Adam (1 Corinthians 16:21,22), & calls Jesus, “the Last Adam [who] became a life-giving spirit.” -1 Cor. 15:45.

The Bible portrays Adam as a real person. If not, how could he be in the genealogical lineage of Jesus at Luke 3:38? Otherwise, it makes no sense.
That same verse also tells us that Adam was a “son of God.” So Adam wasn’t created to die. He could have lived forever, if he had just remained obedient to that simple prohibition “don’t eat from the tree.” But Adam did, bringing imperfection (sin), sickness, and eventual death to him and to his descendants.
This is the reason the Bible records Adam’s immediate offspring, for the next several generations, were living for over 900 years…. They were genetically closer to Adam’s original perfection.

As the human race, we have the opportunity to gain everlasting life, thanks to Jesus’ sacrifice, by exercising faith in it (John 3:16). Exercising faith means following Jesus, and being obedient. Living forever, for the vast majority of people, will be here on Earth. -Psalm 37:29; Matthew 5:5; Rev. 21:3,4

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

mindless physical process can generate great complexity as well.

Like what? Can you give examples?

Have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do you think that the death on the cross without the resurrection is meaningless?

What was there to die for?

 

[exchemist]

Like what? Can you give examples?

Have a good day.

The structure of minerals, or the shape of a landscape.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The structure of minerals, or the shape of a landscape.

I see no comparison. Do you think they compare even remotely to the integrated and functional structures found within living systems?

 

[Koldo]

Adam and Eve put sugar in their porridge. ;-)

While I don't consider myself "Christian," the Christian mythology I still find inspiration in I read symbolically.

The Fall of Man represents humans beginning to differentiate between the Self and the rest of the Universe. Christ, hanging on the Cross, is the Fruit of the Tree of Life and Death (and produces some bittersweet wine and decadent but hearty meat!) and represents the death of the Self being reborn as one with the Father (the Universe as a personified Whole).

This is exactly why I generally dislike symbological interpretation. They are often just a reflection of the mind of the reader and nothing else.

 

[Koldo]

So Jesus had to die because mankind fell? Who made that rule?

Have you read the bible?

 

[exchemist]

I see no comparison. Do you think they compare even remotely to the integrated and functional structures found within living systems?

I am simply answering the question you asked. Mindless physical processes can, and do, indeed produce structures of great complexity.

Though perhaps, being a JW, you have to deny the science of this.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This is exactly why I generally dislike symbological interpretation. They are often just a reflection of the mind of the reader and nothing else.

Symbolic interpretation gives the myth life. Take it away and you have a dead thing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What was there to die for?

A principle

 

[Koldo]

Symbolic interpretation gives the myth life. Take it away and you have a dead thing.

Let it die the good death then. Don't create a zombie out of it.

 

[wellwisher]

Its only a fall if you think living eternally as witless children is a good thing. Adam seizes the knowledge of good & evil, making himself equal to the gods. That is not a fall. If we take the layout of the garden and the layout of the tabernacle as a suggestion then the layout suggests the tree is the ark of the covenant. Through this covenant or through the ten commandments within it one seizes equality.

But Paul describes Jesus as someone who doesn't consider equality with God something one ought to grasp. Paul describes knowledge of good and evil as a catalyst which produces sin in people. The light does not merely reveal evil but causes it to grow.

How to reconcile the two is first that you don't have to hold these two views exclusively. They do not have to sync together. They are ways of looking at the same text; and Paul's writing suggests that he is aware of the first view.

There were two symbolic trees in the Garden of Eden; Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The tree of life is symbolic of natural instinct, while the tree of knowledge is connected to the unnatural environment of civilization, based on will and choice and education. The first sustained civilization appear about 6000 years ago.

The main problem with knowledge of good and evil is that type of knowledge is often subjective and temporal, whereas instinct, which evolved through natural selection over the eons, is more naturally objective and optimized. Knowledge of good and evil is not natural but manmade; temporal.

All human atrocity can be traced back to some form of socially accepted subjective knowledge of good and evil; collective or individual. When Hitler decided the Jews were evil and the Arian race was good, this did not lead to good. When Democrats decided parents are evil domestic terrorists, while their minion teachers brain washing children in the shadows of grade school was good, did this bring about good?

Satan tricked Eve and Adam to accept good and evil; law, by making them think they would be like a god deciding the fate of others. This was partially true. In the end all that did was make humans cruel and perverted, with self serving leaders rigging the game of law, so they could play god; Hitler.

Original sin is because law and knowledge of good and evil is taught and is not innate like instinct. Prejudice is taught and good and evil can become confused; long standing grudges. Cultures have their own clan ways, which is taught to children, as a way to indoctrinate them into the herd. It hard to be sinless after that, since such subjective laws of good and evil and the needs of group dependency, does not offer a clean path for natural righteousness.

When Hitler made a law that made the Jews evil, how was one supposed to respond in a natural way. The law says one thing and you will be called evil by the law, if you do not go along. The police will come and you will end up with the fate of the Jews. Or do you find courage to do what is objectively right; help the innocent, which is called wrong by the law. One can be placed in a no win situation, so you do nothing and hope for the best, feeling guilty with no power to do what is objectively right.

Even Atheists, who do not believe in God or religion, also make laws of good and evil, such as Creation is evil and Evolution is good with nothing in the middle. It is black and white with no compromise. Religion is not the common source of evil. The common source is law or knowledge of good and evil, practiced by humans.

Jesus came along preaching the forgiveness of sins, since he knew that manmade law was subjective and too easy to manipulate by evil minded and self serving people. So to resist bad law was not a sin, even if the bad leaders, playing god, deemed it so. The divine God will forgive you. Jesus did nothing worthy of death, yet the shady lawyers; caretakers of law, contorted the law to say that even the innocent are worthy of death, since their law could have no exceptions, for their self serving power; was not for objective truth and righteousness.

In Revelations, the AntiChrist will make alterations in law to suit his needs. This does not lead to good but rather hearts will grow cold; brings on death, as was prophesied by God in the Garden. A good defense lawyer will use law to make evil look innocent. Law is corruptible. In some Democrats run large cities in the USA, law favors the criminals more than their victims; looting. This was always the problem with law. It is not coincidence that the Democrat party likes to make too many laws and regulations. Jesus said there will be forgiveness of sin by God, if you ignore law of evil intent and outcome.

Paul said, All things are lawful but not all things edify. All things are lawful, but I will not be mastered by anything. One cannot be force to use gender pronouns and you eat anything even if the law says it is unclean. But sometimes laws are practical guidelines, so do not become addicted trying to ignore the law. The righteous man living by faith attaches us back to our inner voice which is connected to the tree or Life; instinct.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Let it die the good death then. Don't create a zombie out of it.

Or, just don't kill it in the first place. ;-)

Not that I am against the resurrection of old beliefs or peices together different parts from living and dead beliefs in order to create one's own Frankenstein's creation of a spirituality. It's kind of what I do. I consider myself something of a spiritual scavenger; it's a result of my creative nature to blend symbols in order to find deep inspiration in life.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There has been no demonstration that God is discoverable via evidence.

Trailblazer uses nonstandard rules to connect evidence to conclusions, not those of academic pursuits such as law and science. Her rules are her own. All we know about them is that they connect what she calls her evidence to what she says it supports for her.

That is true for humans but it does not apply to God.

That was a response to, "Even imperfect knowledge makes one responsible if he had the power to prevent an outcome with the twitch of a nose." You're giving your rules, but they're not mine.

To compare what is expected of humans to what is expected of God is the fallacy of false equivalency.

Comparing is always appropriate. So is contrasting. What you want is separate standards for man and gods, but your only justification is that gods aren't men. So what? That's a special pleading fallacy - unjustified double standard.

Only an illogical nonbeliever would hold God accountable for things that only humans are accountable for. God cannot be held to the same standards as humans because God is not a human.

This is more special pleading. I assume that you would give a good reason why a god is not morally liable for the same actions that we would call immoral from a human being if you had one, but you don't. You simply want to excuse the deity. I understand, but I have no reason to do that. Your argument so far is unconvincing.

God gave humans free will so that they would be accountable for their actions.

That isn't working out too well for man. A good god gives good will, not free will, which allows for malice.

To blame God for what humans are responsible for is just a way to try to abdicate responsibility.

I see it the other way around. A tri-omni god is responsible for everything, and that what YOU are doing is looking for a way to abdicate THAT responsibility.

we are not God's children, so God bears no responsibility towards us

Then what responsibility do we have to such a god. Why give such a god a second thought? Why defend its choices and actions as you do?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Have you read the bible?

Of course. I grew up on it. My family were Fundies. I was trying to show the absurdity of 'blaming the victim' rather than the perpetrator of the dilemma.

 

[dybmh]

Sorry but you are already handwaving. You do not get to abuse quantum mechanics. You are trying to limit God's omniscience. In other words you have already conceded the argument since you have admitted that he is not omniscient. If God was omniscient there would be only one version.

Perhaps your problem is that you are looking at it from a human perspective, since it would appear that way. But if God was omniscient he would have known from before the creation. It sort of makes the whole exercise pointless.

What's hand-waving? Clearly I don't know what it is.

 

[dybmh]

Oh, so we are now in a fictitious universe with a God.

No. Real universe with a hypotheitcal god. That's your claim.

My claim only dealt with the limitations of an omnipotent and omniscient God. He only exists for the exercise.

There are no limitations on omnipotent and omniscient. Aren't those the qualities that produce the faux-contradiction?

You said "He only exists for the excercise". I know. I'm honestly not sure why a logical person would be reacting this way.

This is your claim. See below. Are you abadoning it? Conceding? Lost interest?

Yes, one cannot have a moral God that is omnipotent and omniscient.

The limitation is on the material world not on God. It really is a simple idea.

 

[dybmh]

What was there to die for?

To make a lasting impression on all future generations. It's called a martyr. Although that impression is almost exclusively emotional.

For those without a heart, they won't recognize its signficance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's hand-waving? Clearly I don't know what it is.

We can see that.

When you use a totally unrelated field of science that you do not understand at all that is handwaving.