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

[Colt]

Really? You would have to believe that as an atheist? The first claim is false, Very few atheists believe in something from nothing. I do not know of any that do. As to the rest we know that they are true. We do not accept those by faith, we accept those due to evidence.

It appears that the spokesman that you chose was not very bright at all.

Meanwhile most Christians do believe that something came from nothing. There is even a Latin phrase for that belief.

God would be eternal, so no, most Christians do not think that there was a time when God did not exist or a time when there was nothing.

"God is the first truth and the last fact; therefore does all truth take origin in him, while all facts exist relative to him."

 

[Colt]

You didn't ask me, but my answer (explained more fully there) is no. The garden story was told to explain why man's life was so hard in a universe ruled by a tri-omni god. I consider it very likely and possibly provable if one did the research that for centuries, questioning the truth of the story would be considered blasphemous and result in stoning.


OK, you're both right. My language was sloppy. Go ahead and insert the missing words (some, many, etc. where all is implied by their omission). I usually try to be more precise, as with "insufficient evidence" for "no evidence." I agree that Abrahamic religion is not the origin or even the major driver of climate denial, which is likely the petrochemical industry. However, it is a major facilitator for belief in such claims by teaching that belief by faith is a virtue and that the wisdom of the world is foolishness, and that God intends for earth to be destroyed soon. It's a major facilitator of all faith-based thinking in the West, including vaccine denial and election integrity denial, also very destructive ideas.

I'd add that teaching that faith is a virtue is and the wisdom of the world foolishness is likely a major facilitator of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which I believe is properly understood as believing that all belief is by faith because one is not aware that there is any other way to make decisions, and thus all opinions are equal.

• I don't need faith to believe that our universe might be godless. I can't find a need for a god. To do what? The world around us appears to have assembled itself and to run itself without intelligent oversight. To assume that it couldn't have done that is an incredulity fallacy.
• Maybe you don't realize it, but you already believe that not all life comes from other life. Do you consider God (disembodied mind) alive? If so, then God is life that didn't come from previous life. If not, then what you call life came from a god that is not living.
• What precision do you need a god for? Is this the fine-tuning argument? If so, that's easily defeated. If the universe needs to be fine-tuned to support life, then no deity can be said to be the author of those limitations, but rather, their discoverer and implementor - just like man discovers the constraints imposed on him by nature and puts them to work for himself.
• And we know that order can emerge from chaos. A book by that title taught me what dissipative structures are in the eighties. You can read my thoughts on that here (bottom of post)

View attachment 79557


Lacking sufficient evidence to believe in gods, agnostic atheism is the only logical position possible for a strict critical thinker and empiricist unwilling to believe by faith. To be a theist requires faith, which is always generates a non sequitur (unsound conclusion).

The Supremacy of Purposive Potential​

102:5.1 (1123.7) Although the establishment of the fact of belief is not equivalent to establishing the fact of that which is believed, nevertheless, the evolutionary progression of simple life to the status of personality does demonstrate the fact of the existence of the potential of personality to start with. And in the time universes, potential is always supreme over the actual. In the evolving cosmos the potential is what is to be, and what is to be is the unfolding of the purposive mandates of Deity.

102:5.2 (1124.1) This same purposive supremacy is shown in the evolution of mind ideation when primitive animal fear is transmuted into the constantly deepening reverence for God and into increasing awe of the universe. Primitive man had more religious fear than faith, and the supremacy of spirit potentials over mind actuals is demonstrated when this craven fear is translated into living faith in spiritual realities.

102:5.3 (1124.2) You can psychologize evolutionary religion but not the personal-experience religion of spiritual origin. Human morality may recognize values, but only religion can conserve, exalt, and spiritualize such values. But notwithstanding such actions, religion is something more than emotionalized morality. Religion is to morality as love is to duty, as sonship is to servitude, as essence is to substance. Morality discloses an almighty Controller, a Deity to be served; religion discloses an all-loving Father, a God to be worshiped and loved. And again this is because the spiritual potentiality of religion is dominant over the duty actuality of the morality of evolution." UB 1955

The Certainty of Religious Faith​

102:6.1 (1124.3) The philosophic elimination of religious fear and the steady progress of science add greatly to the mortality of false gods; and even though these casualties of man-made deities may momentarily befog the spiritual vision, they eventually destroy that ignorance and superstition which so long obscured the living God of eternal love. The relation between the creature and the Creator is a living experience, a dynamic religious faith, which is not subject to precise definition. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. And this is just why the God of worship claims all allegiance or none.

102:6.2 (1124.4) The gods of primitive men may have been no more than shadows of themselves; the living God is the divine light whose interruptions constitute the creation shadows of all space.

 

[Trailblazer]

What was there to die for?

Our sins, according to the Bible, and also according to Baha'u'llah.

“That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. The purpose of God, moreover, was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. This same honor, Jesus, the Son of Mary, besought the one true God, exalted be His name and glory, to confer upon Him.”​

Gleanings, pp. 75-76​

According to Baha'u'llah, another reason for the cross sacrifice of Jesus was as follows.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.” Gleanings, pp. 85-86​

 

[exchemist]

The Supremacy of Purposive Potential​

102:5.1 (1123.7) Although the establishment of the fact of belief is not equivalent to establishing the fact of that which is believed, nevertheless, the evolutionary progression of simple life to the status of personality does demonstrate the fact of the existence of the potential of personality to start with. And in the time universes, potential is always supreme over the actual. In the evolving cosmos the potential is what is to be, and what is to be is the unfolding of the purposive mandates of Deity.

102:5.2 (1124.1) This same purposive supremacy is shown in the evolution of mind ideation when primitive animal fear is transmuted into the constantly deepening reverence for God and into increasing awe of the universe. Primitive man had more religious fear than faith, and the supremacy of spirit potentials over mind actuals is demonstrated when this craven fear is translated into living faith in spiritual realities.

102:5.3 (1124.2) You can psychologize evolutionary religion but not the personal-experience religion of spiritual origin. Human morality may recognize values, but only religion can conserve, exalt, and spiritualize such values. But notwithstanding such actions, religion is something more than emotionalized morality. Religion is to morality as love is to duty, as sonship is to servitude, as essence is to substance. Morality discloses an almighty Controller, a Deity to be served; religion discloses an all-loving Father, a God to be worshiped and loved. And again this is because the spiritual potentiality of religion is dominant over the duty actuality of the morality of evolution." UB 1955

The Certainty of Religious Faith​

102:6.1 (1124.3) The philosophic elimination of religious fear and the steady progress of science add greatly to the mortality of false gods; and even though these casualties of man-made deities may momentarily befog the spiritual vision, they eventually destroy that ignorance and superstition which so long obscured the living God of eternal love. The relation between the creature and the Creator is a living experience, a dynamic religious faith, which is not subject to precise definition. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. And this is just why the God of worship claims all allegiance or none.

102:6.2 (1124.4) The gods of primitive men may have been no more than shadows of themselves; the living God is the divine light whose interruptions constitute the creation shadows of all space.

What source are you quoting?

later: no need, I’ve found it: the Urantia Book.

 

[Trailblazer]

The atheist chooses a shallow narrow and corrupt definition of God in order to reinforce their delusions.

I might add that the atheist chooses a shallow narrow definition of evidence in order to reinforce their 'belief' that there is no evidence for God..

 

[dybmh]

Your argument already failed.

False claim. You admitted you didn't read it. Willful-ignorance is your god.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. To try to refute my argument you had to put limitations on what omnipotence and omniscience are. In other words you have to refute your claim to even try to refute me. You did all of the heavy lifting for me.

Not true. I don't have to put any limits on it. That's the point. All youre doing is assuming you know my argument. Ignorance and arrogance are your gods.

How is God moral? You are clearly not talking about any Abrahamic gods. As you demonstrated, even if you do not realize it, the Abrahamic God is not moral or good.

You haven't read my argument. Unless you are yourself a god, then you don't know what I'm about to say.

---

@Orbit, forgive me for tagging you? This is what I am talking about when an atheist is making god claims. It's not in the form of "I have experience of a a god." It's "I am a god".

 

[Trailblazer]

But since this hypothetical, or even real God, made the material world he is responsible for everything in it. If he is omnipotent and omniscient then he is responsible for the actions of everyone. Thanks again for your help on refuting @Trailblazer 's claim.

Nobody refuted my claim.
That is patently absurd as well as completely illogical. If God was responsible for the actions of everyone then God would go on trial for all the crimes that are committed.

Only an atheist would say something this absurd and illogical. Thank God that atheists are a very small percentage of the world population, and that they do not run the justice systems around the world.

"In God We trust."

 

[exchemist]

Nobody refuted my claim.
That is patently absurd as well as completely illogical. If God was responsible for the actions of everyone then God would go on trial for all the crimes that are committed.

Only an atheist would say something this absurd and illogical. Thank God that atheists are a very small percentage of the world population, and that they do not run the justice systems around the world.

"In God We trust."

Most reputable judicial systems are scrupulously secular in their judgements.

 

[dybmh]

the Abrahamic God is not moral or good.

So, your argument is "Blasphemy, God is not moral. Hail Satan." That is not a logical argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

Almost everyone that has debated against her has commented on her lack of evidence

Not 'almost everyone', only atheists.
An atheist would not see evidence for God if it hit them in the face, and it is hitting them in the face and they STILL cannot see it.
There are reasons for that.

“So blind hath become the human heart that neither the disruption of the city, nor the reduction of the mountain in dust, nor even the cleaving of the earth, can shake off its torpor.” Gleanings, p. 39​

​

“Say: So great is the glory of the Cause of God that even the blind can perceive it, how much more they whose sight is sharp, whose vision is pure.” Gleanings, p. 106​

​

“And yet all, except such as God was pleased to guide, are bewildered in the drunkenness of their heedlessness!” Gleanings, p. 39​

​

Atheists rebel against the signs of God, which are Messengers of God. God cannot guide atheists and still honor free will.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Supremacy of Purposive Potential​

102:5.1 (1123.7) Although the establishment of the fact of belief is not equivalent to establishing the fact of that which is believed, nevertheless, the evolutionary progression of simple life to the status of personality does demonstrate the fact of the existence of the potential of personality to start with. And in the time universes, potential is always supreme over the actual. In the evolving cosmos the potential is what is to be, and what is to be is the unfolding of the purposive mandates of Deity.

102:5.2 (1124.1) This same purposive supremacy is shown in the evolution of mind ideation when primitive animal fear is transmuted into the constantly deepening reverence for God and into increasing awe of the universe. Primitive man had more religious fear than faith, and the supremacy of spirit potentials over mind actuals is demonstrated when this craven fear is translated into living faith in spiritual realities.

102:5.3 (1124.2) You can psychologize evolutionary religion but not the personal-experience religion of spiritual origin. Human morality may recognize values, but only religion can conserve, exalt, and spiritualize such values. But notwithstanding such actions, religion is something more than emotionalized morality. Religion is to morality as love is to duty, as sonship is to servitude, as essence is to substance. Morality discloses an almighty Controller, a Deity to be served; religion discloses an all-loving Father, a God to be worshiped and loved. And again this is because the spiritual potentiality of religion is dominant over the duty actuality of the morality of evolution." UB 1955

The Certainty of Religious Faith​

102:6.1 (1124.3) The philosophic elimination of religious fear and the steady progress of science add greatly to the mortality of false gods; and even though these casualties of man-made deities may momentarily befog the spiritual vision, they eventually destroy that ignorance and superstition which so long obscured the living God of eternal love. The relation between the creature and the Creator is a living experience, a dynamic religious faith, which is not subject to precise definition. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. And this is just why the God of worship claims all allegiance or none.

102:6.2 (1124.4) The gods of primitive men may have been no more than shadows of themselves; the living God is the divine light whose interruptions constitute the creation shadows of all space.

What's all of this for? Is this intended as a rebuttal to my post? It's mostly faith-based belief. It's probably what YOU believe, but you probably know that nothing in there that assumes the existence of a god is useful to an atheist. I also reject comments like "potential is always supreme over the actual." I'll take actual every time over possible. Or, "You can psychologize evolutionary religion but not the personal-experience religion of spiritual origin." Nope. Religious thought is some of the most fertile ground for psychology.

It seems I've been encountering theists trying to preempt criticisms as that writer did with that last comment I quoted a lot lately (here, here, and here; search for the word disqualify). Also, I've rebutted two posts in the last 24 hours informing me that I can't apply my moral values to a god. When asked why the double standard, one poster explained that a god is not a man. That was the argument. The other one offered less. Those "rules" are for themselves. Others are not required to respect them.

If God was responsible for the actions of everyone then God would go on trial for all the crimes that are committed. Only an atheist would say something this absurd and illogical.

But you were the one who said it. And yes, it's absurd.

So, your argument is "Blasphemy, God is not moral. Hail Satan." That is not a logical argument.

That wasn't an argument. It was a bare claim. And you changed it and then put quotes around his words mixed with yours. Blasphemy and Satan were your words, not his, and they're for believers to worry about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

@wellwisher thats being really hard on the Jews.

However...I understand you really are commenting on Paul's letters. It is an interesting perspective, so thanks!

I am starting to think Paul is a mystic, and I also think he admires and likes Jewish lawyers more than it appears. There seems to me a tradition of self deprecation in the pentateuch. Recall that any little thing brings a death sentence, yet other parts of the law conflict with carrying out that sentence. Rather than disrespect I think Paul feels sympathy and is trying to extend that kind of culture for non Jews.

 

[dybmh]

Do you accept her evidence and her conclusions, thus believe Baha'u'llah is a real Messenger from the one true God? Their belief is that God does not communicate directly with non-Messenger humans.

Yes-and-no. I accept it, but, not in the way that she does. You're a messenger of God too.

Assuming their core claims are true, of which are not credible. Evidence needs to be true and factual, but theists are willing to treat core assumptions as true, therefore the following claims are true and valid as evidence.

Everyone does this and so do you. It's science. Observe --> Hypothesis --> Test ---> Review ---> Counter-test ---> review ---> repeat.

The hypothesis is assumed to be true at some point. Even if one starts with the counter-claim, falsifying the counter-claim, is assuming the core claim is true.

It also requires valid evidence, not assumptions, nor evidence that depends on assumptions.

It all goes back to definitions. Your test for hydrogen gas will fail if you defined it as water vapor.

What is that definition so I know what I am using (in your mind)? And then offer us the definition you think is valid (which no boudt differs from your special definition of gods).

The absolute source of everything that exists. This implies something which is beyond human conception. The manifestations connect to this higher divine consciousness and bring down evidence of it in writing. The more manifestations there are, the higher the probablilty that the divine consiousness exists.

What the Baha'i faith promotes and brings is evidence, not proof. @Trailblazer repeatedly states this.

 

[dybmh]

Your argument fails and since you could not refute my pickle argument it still stands.

You have been defeated by a pickle!!

You have not refuted my "choose your own adventure" argument. It still stands.

You have been defeated by a children's book!!

Choose Your Own Adventure - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Trailblazer]

Most reputable judicial systems are scrupulously secular in their judgements.

And STILL they do not put God on trial, accusing God of the crimes that humans commit. Only atheists do that.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you were the one who said it. And yes, it's absurd.

No, I am not the one who said it. @Subduction Zone said it in post #382.

But since this hypothetical, or even real God, made the material world he is responsible for everything in it. If he is omnipotent and omniscient then he is responsible for the actions of everyone. Thanks again for your help on refuting @Trailblazer 's claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am not the one who said it. @Subduction Zone said it in post #382.

But since this hypothetical, or even real God, made the material world he is responsible for everything in it. If he is omnipotent and omniscient then he is responsible for the actions of everyone. Thanks again for your help on refuting @Trailblazer 's claim.

Nope, you said it. Not me. You will not find this quote by me or even an implication of it in that post:

"If God was responsible for the actions of everyone then God would go on trial for all the crimes that are committed. Only an atheist would say something this absurd and illogical."

That is 100% you. You made an incredibly foolish strawman argument.

 

[ppp]

You didn't ask me, but my answer (explained more fully there) is no. The garden story was told to explain why man's life was so hard in a universe ruled by a tri-omni god. I consider it very likely and possibly provable if one did the research that for centuries, questioning the truth of the story would be considered blasphemous and result in stoning.

Tri-omni? Why do you think that Gensis 1 was first composed by post-monolatrist Hebrews?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False claim. You admitted you didn't read it. Willful-ignorance is your god.

Where did I admit that I did not read it? Are you talking about one of your foolishly long spiels that did not prove anything? But yes, you did in essence refute the claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient. You had to limit your god's version of omnipotence and omniscience which makes it without both of those traits.

Not true. I don't have to put any limits on it. That's the point. All youre doing is assuming you know my argument. Ignorance and arrogance are your gods.

But your argument did. What was that you said about "willful ignorance?

You haven't read my argument. Unless you are yourself a god, then you don't know what I'm about to say.

---

@Orbit, forgive me for tagging you? This is what I am talking about when an atheist is making god claims. It's not in the form of "I have experience of a a god." It's "I am a god".

I was only going by what you said. This is an incredibly odd claim on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have not refuted my "choose your own adventure" argument. It still stands.

You have been defeated by a children's book!!

Choose Your Own Adventure - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

No, sorry an incompetent argument that you yourself do not seem to understand does not refute me.

Once again, you are trying to limit God in your argument. It is your claim that we have a choice, but the only way that would be a choice would be if God was not omniscient. Limiting your god's omniscience is confirming my claim.