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

[ppp]

I'm a student of the Urantia Book revelation.

Home - TruthBook

Home page of truthbook.com where visitors easily navigate to the free Urantia Book, inspiring stories and quotes, pictures of Jesus and more.

truthbook.com

Ah. I have heard of it, but never read it.

 

[F1fan]

Like many Biblical stories there is a grain of truth in the Israelites creation narrative.

The "fall" happened first in heaven in the mind of a high celestial administrator. The "war in heaven", a war of allegiance, spilled over onto the earth by corrupting our resident "planetary prince" who in turn mislead many loyal staff and subsequently confused the world.

The Urantia book doesn't reveal any grains of truth. Truth has to be factual. The statements have to be verifiable as true, and no holy book can do this where it comes to their larger plot lines. The confusion seems to come from believers thinking their texts are true and authoritative.

 

[F1fan]

Ah. I have heard of it, but never read it.

My sister was into it in Boulder, CO. I have a copy of the book which has over 2000 pages. It is like a phone book size book, mostly text. It makes the Bible look small. It goes into a lot of detail about many things that no one can verify, like other planets, other life forms, and descriptions of different humanoid aliens. It does include Jesus quite a bit. It has ideas like the Thought Adjuster, celestial administrators, etc. Whoever wrote it put a lot of work into it. It's pretty creative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can "he" choose if he already chose

He is omnipotent too is part of the claims of believers. So he could repeatedly choose. An omnipotent omniscient God could choose to remake the universe countless times. He would already know all of the results ahead of time, but if we look at people we will see the same behavior where they will choose a certain behavior even if they know the result.

The problem with omnipotence and omniscience is that sort of endless self contradiction. My argument was against the concept because then no matter what a person did it was ultimately God's fault. Your point is a bit better because it shows the inherent self contradictory results of the combination of the two.

@dybmh cannot see how his "solution" was to limit God's omniscience. Buy if one limits a beings omniscience then it is no longer omniscient. My argument has always been based upon fault. Since the Garden of Eden myth misses the obvious. God is the one that was at fault in that myth. But I do like the even more basal approach that you are using.

 

[F1fan]

Trailblazer has a unique understanding of language. Knowledge is whatever she believes including what she believes by faith. Evidence for a belief is whatever she declares supports her belief according to personal rules for evaluating it that she agrees doesn't convince critical thinkers, although she calls herself one as well. She says that beliefs are neither assumptions nor claims. It's not helpful to explain why you disagree.

I can't tell if her use of language aims to convince others or herself, or both. Her use seems to blur the word knowledge in the sense that we all can know about Zeus from Greek lore, and claim we know about this god. She reads texts about Baha'u'llah's description about God and she takes this lore to a next step to believe she knows about God, and thus knows God exists. That is a leap of faith she hasn't acknowledged doing as far as I can tell. The precision of thought is a skill that religion can't thrive within.

No one says they know Zeus exists because they read what is written about this god, and that is likely because there is no community of believers that encourage that judgment. Is it odd that modern theists tend to only believe in gods that have some degree of popularity and community? Religions die as the community of believers move on or die, much like neighborhood churches die and the Magachurch 5 miles away grows.

 

[dybmh]

He is omnipotent too is part of the claims of believers. So he could repeatedly choose. An omnipotent omniscient God could choose to remake the universe countless times.

true

He would already know all of the results ahead of time, but if we look at people we will see the same behavior where they will choose a certain behavior even if they know the result.

but there are infinite results, all of those infinite results are infinite possibilities for each individual thing. from gods perspective all is known, each individual free-thinking being chooses which of those infinite possibilities is theirs.

the free thinker claims it

carpe deim!!!!! seize the day. seize it. own it. the day is yours, subd. literally.

The problem with omnipotence and omniscience is that sort of endless self contradiction. My argument was against the concept because then no matter what a person did it was ultimately God's fault. Your point is a bit better because it shows the inherent self contradictory results of the combination of the two.

it's not so black-and-white. forcing complexity into simple is Christian.

@dybmh cannot see how his "solution" was to limit God's omniscience.

you say it, but you don't explain it. probably because my solution is somewhat complex, and so you avoid it, preferring simple and wrong.

Buy if one limits a beings omniscience then it is no longer omniscient.

i never limited omniscience. the author knows the whole book from beginning to end.

My argument has always been based upon fault. Since the Garden of Eden myth misses the obvious. God is the one that was at fault in that myth. But I do like the even more basal approach that you are using.

it was a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan....

you are only focused on the surface plan, like the serpent. that's how the serpent was trapped. you also seem to be duty-bound to the Christian version in-spite of renouncing Christianity.

If you are "blaming" God for something in the myth, would you please tell me what you are blaming God for?

Also, most reasonable people agree, "there's at least two sides to every story". I see 5 stories in the myth. How many stories do you see?

 

[Subduction Zone]

true



but there are infinite results, all of those infinite results are infinite possibilities for each individual thing. from gods perspective all is known, each individual free-thinking being chooses which of those infinite possibilities is theirs.

the free thinker claims it

carpe deim!!!!! seize the day. seize it. own it. the day is yours, subd. literally.



it's not so black-and-white. forcing complexity into simple is Christian.



you say it, but you don't explain it. probably because my solution is somewhat complex, and so you avoid it, preferring simple and wrong.



i never limited omniscience. the author knows the whole book from beginning to end.



it was a plan within a plan within a plan within a plan....

you are only focused on the surface plan, like the serpent. that's how the serpent was trapped. you also seem to be duty-bound to the Christian version in-spite of renouncing Christianity.

If you are "blaming" God for something in the myth, would you please tell me what you are blaming God for?

Also, most reasonable people agree, "there's at least two sides to every story". I see 5 stories in the myth. How many stories do you see?

Breaking up a post excessively shows that you are not reading it and understanding it. If you are responding to each and every sentence instead of trying to understand the point the whole post will sail over your head.


What you do not seem to understand is that to fix the obvious contradictions of omnipotence and omniscience is that you have to limit those two powers when it comes to your version of God. That means that your solution to the self contradictions is to make God neither. Ironically that is supporting those arguing against the concept.

 

[Muffled]

One does not remove evil by removing the knowledge of it. In fact that can make things far worse. The worst evils that I can think of were often done by people that did not realize that what they were doing was wrong in the first place. Your argument fails and since you could not refute my pickle argument it still stands.

You have been defeated by a pickle!!

I suppose the assumption is that perverted thinking is endemic but I can imagine that being removed also so only good thinking remains. I am still not convinced that perverted thinking is natural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ah.

what people know about a god is comfirmed to be true through their life experiences. I have no doubt this is what is happening with @Trailblazer

people confirmed what they knew about zeus when they saw lightning striking.

your shallow limited mental capabilities are noted.

also heartless.

That is merely confirmation bias. It is not confirmation. If one only counts the hits but does not count the misses then that does not count as evidence. And please, when you do not understand how your arguments display your own extremely "shallow limited mental capabilities" you should not accuse others of it.


What valid evidence do you have of God? Confirmation bias does not count. In your test you must be willing to accept both positive and negative results.

 

[Audie]

He is omnipotent too is part of the claims of believers. So he could repeatedly choose. An omnipotent omniscient God could choose to remake the universe countless times. He would already know all of the results ahead of time, but if we look at people we will see the same behavior where they will choose a certain behavior even if they know the result.

The problem with omnipotence and omniscience is that sort of endless self contradiction. My argument was against the concept because then no matter what a person did it was ultimately God's fault. Your point is a bit better because it shows the inherent self contradictory results of the combination of the two.

@dybmh cannot see how his "solution" was to limit God's omniscience. Buy if one limits a beings omniscience then it is no longer omniscient. My argument has always been based upon fault. Since the Garden of Eden myth misses the obvious. God is the one that was at fault in that myth. But I do like the even more basal approach that you are using.

Maybe a theist type can explain
True omnipotence.

 

[Muffled]

God isn’t known to exist. Don’t confuse your religious texts as historical.

The Bible is better than history. Historians have been known to lie but God never does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose the assumption is that perverted thinking is endemic but I can imagine that being removed also so only good thinking remains. I am still not convinced that perverted thinking is natural.

That is a very odd argument. No one was talking about "perverted thinking". Why take it to an extreme? This is called a strawman argument since that was not my argument at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe a theist type can explain
True omnipotence.

There will be as many explanations as there are theists.

 

[Audie]

I suppose the assumption is that perverted thinking is endemic but I can imagine that being removed also so only good thinking remains. I am still not convinced that perverted thinking is natural.

What do you mean by " perverted" thinking?

Other than the nastiness that is somehow
self elevating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is better than history. Historians have been known to lie but God never does.

The Bible is just man's word. We can show clear places in it where the authors made mistakes. It appears that you are claiming that God is incompetent.

 

[Muffled]

You already said this. You haven’t explained how belief in non-factual ideas is wise. It shows poor judgment.

Irrelevant. You haven’t explained how you are correct and they are wrong about their OWN BOOK. Your belief is irrelevant and self-serving. A wise person would know this.

I believe the Bible is factual.

I believe Jews do not have the Holy Spirit to guide them into the truth.

 

[Muffled]

What do you mean by " perverted" thinking?

Other than the nastiness that is somehow
self elevating.

I believe that would be anything short of God's perfection.

 

[Audie]

The Bible is better than history. Historians have been known to lie but God never does.

The Bible has scraps of history, all
of questionable accuracy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that would be anything short of God's perfection.

So then not really "perverted".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the Bible is factual.

I believe Jews do not have the Holy Spirit to guide them into the truth.

thank you for the info. I will have to relay this on to our Jewish members since they appear to be ignorant of this fact.