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

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Wha

It is painful for ex-Chrisitian-atheists specifically to consider they were wrong about leaving their faith. They need a god which is null and void. Need it. So they conjure it and invoke it into themself. And, honestly it's fine. Until they go on the hunt looking for Christians and religious people to abuse. Then, it stops being fine.

What about theists who just don’t believe that the literary character is an actual deity anymore?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Creator Gods can make other Gods.

Maybe, but the story features a god with the power to create universes.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But things he can't do, because they just aren't in his nature. But God didn't want people to be robots. He wanted them to be completely free to do as much good or bad as they wanted.

See, Sarah Connor, Cyberdyne Systems is not evil. We merely allowed Skynet to learn evil and destroy the world.

 

[ppp]

Yes, I know what they’ve discovered, is that the DNA evidence indicates the woman, from whom we’ve all descended, came first. And that would indicate Eve.

Mitochondrial Eve doesn't refer to the "first woman" or the only woman alive at her time. She lived at a time when there were many other women, but only her mitochondrial lineage survives in present-day humans. In 10,000 years, your mom may be the Mitochondrial Eve of their day.

And the man from whom we’ve all descended, who came later, would be Noah!!

That would be impossible. Noah's genome could not contain or produce all of the genetic diversity that we see today in the Y-chromosome.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's irrational to think that any human test could apply to a god.

IIRC Gideon makes God jump through hoops.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The bible is way ahead of its time.

Lol. Literally every kingdom surrounding Israel had more scientific knowledge.

 

[Audie]

Mitochondrial Eve doesn't refer to the "first woman" or the only woman alive at her time. She lived at a time when there were many other women, but only her mitochondrial lineage survives in present-day humans. In 10,000 years, your mom may be the Mitochondrial Eve of their day.

That would be impossible. Noah's genome could not contain or produce all of the genetic diversity that we see today in the Y-chromosome.

Stand by to hear the same nonsense
again later.

 

[CG Didymus]

A lot of Christians do not seem to see the need for a real Adam and Eve. Man is just naturally flawed.

In the Baha'i "Hidden Words" it says...

O SON OF SPIRIT! Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then unto that for which thou wast created.​

But then the Baha'is also believe that humans have two natures?

From the point of view of the Baha’i Teachings, human nature fits this archetypal two-fold, or expansively, three-fold model: In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men.​

​

So, how "noble" is man's lower animal nature? And the God of the Baha'i Faith gives humans freewill to choose between the two natures? And for all the time humans have been on Earth, God has wanted them and has expected them to choose the higher spiritual nature? I'd say that is a built-in flaw by the supposed creator himself.

And then about this "spiritual" nature, we get mixed messages from each and every religion what this God wants from people. Did I say, "this God"? No, it's several different ideas about what and who the Gods are, one? many? or none?

 

[CG Didymus]

So, the law has changed, or perhaps Bible does not report correctly what Allah desired.

She says when the Bible was written? How many different Gods and marriage laws were there then? No, her God's laws were only for the children of Israel. Baha'is talk as if their God's laws were universal. They never were. And even now, with Baha'is talk of world unity, they still say "God's" laws, the Baha'i laws, will only be for Baha'is.

 

[CG Didymus]

Just what basis do you use, for thinking they are myths?

Believing that, completely negates the need and value of Jesus’ sacrificial death as a perfect man.

Because God is all-knowing, he knows they are myths? Whatever. But that is the problem... If the story of Adam and Eve isn't true, then man didn't fall. Sin didn't enter into the world. Making the sacrifice of Jesus for the penalty of sin not necessary.

 

[Trailblazer]

What's it an allegory of? What were the Bible writers allegorizing? Allegory, like metaphor and simile, is a literary form that uses substitution. What were they symbolizing with Adam and Eve. Nothing that they could have known anything about.

An allegory is a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
No, I do not think that people living at the time the Bible was recorded could have known what those symbols meant, since the Book was intended to be 'closed up and sealed' till the time of the end.

Daniel Chapter 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. 13 But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.​

The time of the end came when Baha'u'llah appeared at the end of the days and He unsealed the hidden meanings contained in the Bible.

I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, not a true story. I believe that the story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise is a symbol. The story contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of many explanations.

I believe that there was a real man called Adam and that He was the first Prophet of the Adamic Cycle of religion. I also believe we inherited the sins of Adam, but not because he ate an apple from a tree. This is how I believe the descendants of Adam inherited the sins of Adam:

“For the spirit and the soul of Adam, when they were attached to the human world, passed from the world of freedom into the world of bondage, and His descendants continued in bondage. This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin, was inherited by the descendants of Adam, and is the serpent which is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam. That enmity continues and endures. For attachment to the world has become the cause of the bondage of spirits, and this bondage is identical with sin, which has been transmitted from Adam to His posterity. It is because of this attachment that men have been deprived of essential spirituality and exalted position.”​

Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 124-125​

In sum, the meaning of the serpent is attachment to the human world. This attachment of the spirit to the human world led the soul and spirit of Adam from the world of freedom to the world of bondage and caused Him to turn from the Kingdom of God to the human world. When the soul and spirit of Adam entered the human world, He came out from the paradise of freedom and fell into the world of bondage. From the height of purity and absolute goodness, He entered into the world of good and evil.

The full explanation of what I believe about the allegory is in this chapter: 30: ADAM AND EVE

 

[Trailblazer]

Because God is all-knowing, he knows they are myths? Whatever. But that is the problem... If the story of Adam and Eve isn't true, then man didn't fall. Sin didn't enter into the world. Making the sacrifice of Jesus for the penalty of sin not necessary.

Man did fall into sin, but not because Adam and Eve ate an apple from a tree. As you know, Baha'is believe that Adam was a Prophet, the first Prophet of the Adamic Cycle of religion. When Adam was born into this world He fell from the world of freedom in the spiritual world to the world of bondage of this material world. We are all descendants of Adam so we all inherited the propensity to sin.

“This attachment of the soul and spirit to the human world, which is sin, was inherited by the descendants of Adam, and is the serpent which is always in the midst of, and at enmity with, the spirits and the descendants of Adam. That enmity continues and endures. For attachment to the world has become the cause of the bondage of spirits, and this bondage is identical with sin, which has been transmitted from Adam to His posterity.”​

Some Answered Questions, p. 124​

​

“The meaning of the serpent is attachment to the human world. This attachment of the spirit to the human world led the soul and spirit of Adam from the world of freedom to the world of bondage and caused Him to turn from the Kingdom of Unity to the human world. When the soul and spirit of Adam entered the human world, He came out from the paradise of freedom and fell into the world of bondage. From the height of purity and absolute goodness, He entered into the world of good and evil.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 123-124​

Now, how is that related to sin and why did we need the sacrifice of Jesus?
Well, those who turn towards Jesus and receive His teachings and follow them, are saved from this attachment and sin, obtain everlasting life, are delivered from the chains of bondage, and attain to the world of liberty. They are freed from the vices of the human world and are blessed by the virtues of the Kingdom of God. This is the meaning of the words of Jesus, John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

That's correct but incomplete if it doesn't include the idea that the writer of the story has a specific set of facts in mind that he is symbolizing through substitution of fictional people and events for specific historical people and events. An allegory is a specific literary form, not just anything that can be interpreted like a verbal Rorschach test. A poem can be interpreted. It's also not an allegory.

the meaning of the serpent is attachment to the human world.

This is you interpreting the words your way, not necessarily the way the writers intended, unless you are asserting that this is what they thought the snake represented. I don't, have no reason to think otherwise, and even if you were correct, you couldn't know that that's what they were thinking.

These myths aren't allegories. They're just myths. They are simply another example of primitive people trying to explain the world they find themselves born into in the light of unfalsifiable religious beliefs, and guessing wrong. Only science isn't guessing, and of course, uses and needs no symbols.

The garden story explains why life is hard and often short in a world supposedly governed by a tri-omni god. That needs explaining if you want people to believe this god exists and loves them. I've long assumed that the flood myth was written because marine fossils can be found on the highest mountain tops. Why? How? The Tower myth explains why a good god has us speaking mutually unintelligible languages. The Sodom and Gomorrah myths likely account for an astronomical event that destroyed a city or two. These aren't allegories. They're early best guesses, and unsurprisingly, wrong.

And this is an area where people are loathe to use the word wrong. The Mesopotamians were wrong about Tiamat and the Vikings were only guessing when they declared Odin and his brothers the creators of the world, because their religions are considered primitive and false as are their gods. But we NEVER say that about the god of Abraham and his scriptures. Only those who hate god would use words like error and wrong guesses here, we are told. Say allegory instead. It sounds nicer than wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just what basis do you use, for thinking they are myths?

Believing that, completely negates the need and value of Jesus’ sacrificial death as a perfect man.

The basis I use are the Writings of my religion:

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

Wha It is painful for ex-Chrisitian-atheists specifically to consider they were wrong about leaving their faith. They need a god which is null and void. Need it. So they conjure it and invoke it into themself. And, honestly it's fine. Until they go on the hunt looking for Christians and...

www.religiousforums.com

No, not believing the stories are literally true does not negate the need for the cross sacrifice of Jesus.

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

Wha It is painful for ex-Chrisitian-atheists specifically to consider they were wrong about leaving their faith. They need a god which is null and void. Need it. So they conjure it and invoke it into themself. And, honestly it's fine. Until they go on the hunt looking for Christians and...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Audie]

She says when the Bible was written? How many different Gods and marriage laws were there then? No, her God's laws were only for the children of Israel. Baha'is talk as if their God's laws were universal. They never were. And even now, with Baha'is talk of world unity, they still say "God's" laws, the Baha'i laws, will only be for Baha'is.

Prepare for ( un )holy war!

 

[shunyadragon]

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

The Fall of Humans? Well, it in reality never happened. It is a product of the ancient evolution of the mythology of Creation going back to oral traditions before anything is written down, It evolved to blame human Original Sin for the imperfection of an existence Created perfect by God.

Yes, it is a paradox today to resolve ancient mythology that is the foundation of Christian beliefs, but that is a severe problem for both those who believe in a literal Genesis and those who make various gerrymandered interpretations to make something fit that does not remotely fit in the contemporary world.

This is a problem in ALL ancient religions that divide and divide again coming up with interpretations of scriptures to make things fit. Judaism has Resorted to Midrash since the Jewish Reformation. The Reformation in Christian Europe and the US just created more divisions based on disagreements to attempt to resolve ancient mythology as a basis of Christianity.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's correct but incomplete if it doesn't include the idea that the writer of the story has a specific set of facts in mind that he is symbolizing through substitution of fictional people and events for specific historical people and events. An allegory is a specific literary form, not just anything that can be interpreted like a verbal Rorschach test. A poem can be interpreted. It's also not an allegory.

Yes, and where does this supposed allegory stop? It's a connected story from Adam and Eve on through to Noah, Abraham and finally Joseph. Which then leads us right to Moses.

This is you interpreting the words your way, not necessarily the way the writers intended, unless you are asserting that this is what they thought the snake represented. I don't, have no reason to think otherwise, and even if you were correct, you couldn't know that that's what they were thinking.

Well, her way is the Baha'i way. All that is based on the Baha'i interpretation. And they make anything that doesn't fit their beliefs into something symbolic that does fit. But there's another thing the Baha'is do... they take the verse out of Daniel and seal up the "true" meanings of the whole Bible and the NT.

So, what do Baha'is think happened? God told some Scribe, "This is what I want you to write. Now this story isn't true, but don't tell anybody. It's part of my grand plan to have people argue over whether it's true or not for several hundreds of years." And then he doesn't have it "sealed" until the time of Daniel? Oh, Baha'is does that really make sense to you? I know, I know, you prophet said so, therefore it is true.

These myths aren't allegories. They're just myths. They are simply another example of primitive people trying to explain the world they find themselves born into in the light of unfalsifiable religious beliefs, and guessing wrong. Only science isn't guessing, and of course, uses and needs no symbols.

The garden story explains why life is hard and often short in a world supposedly governed by a tri-omni god. That needs explaining if you want people to believe this god exists and loves them. I've long assumed that the flood myth was written because marine fossils can be found on the highest mountain tops. Why? How? The Tower myth explains why a good god has us speaking mutually unintelligible languages. The Sodom and Gomorrah myths likely account for an astronomical event that destroyed a city or two. These aren't allegories. They're early best guesses, and unsurprisingly, wrong.

And this is an area where people are loathe to use the word wrong. The Mesopotamians were wrong about Tiamat and the Vikings were only guessing when they declared Odin and his brothers the creators of the world, because their religions are considered primitive and false as are their gods. But we NEVER say that about the god of Abraham and his scriptures. Only those who hate god would use words like error and wrong guesses here, we are told. Say allegory instead. It sounds nicer than wrong.

Religious, fictional myth... embellished stories of their God helping them and punishing them. What's the point of the story? I think it worked, in a way, to get people to follow a bunch of rules. Rules supposedly sent by some invisible spirit-being that can and will punish them for disobeying and reward them when they do as they are told.

 

[CG Didymus]

Prepare for ( un )holy war!

The unholy war is a war with words. Baha'is talk about peace and unity, and then tell some of us how wrong we are... especially for criticizing their religious belief. But they do believe it will take all sorts of disasters and even wars to get all the people the world over to realize that the, the Baha'is are right, and we need their God and his rules to be able to bring peace and unity to the world.

 

[Audie]

The unholy war is a war with words. Baha'is talk about peace and unity, and then tell some of us how wrong we are... especially for criticizing their religious belief. But they do believe it will take all sorts of disasters and even wars to get all the people the world over to realize that the, the Baha'is are right, and we need their God and his rules to be able to bring peace and unity to the world.

Well I think their "prophet" is too ridiculous for
enough followers to do other than embarrass
themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's correct but incomplete if it doesn't include the idea that the writer of the story has a specific set of facts in mind that he is symbolizing through substitution of fictional people and events for specific historical people and events. An allegory is a specific literary form, not just anything that can be interpreted like a verbal Rorschach test. A poem can be interpreted. It's also not an allegory.

I am not claiming that the story of Adam and Eve was 'intended' to be an allegory when it was written. I am only saying that it can be interpreted as an allegory now.

This is you interpreting the words your way, not necessarily the way the writers intended, unless you are asserting that this is what they thought the snake represented. I don't, have no reason to think otherwise, and even if you were correct, you couldn't know that that's what they were thinking.

No, it was not 'me' who interpreted the Adam and Eve story, it was Abdu'l-Baha: 30: ADAM AND EVE

I have no idea what the original author intended, as nobody can ever know that. Perhaps he intended for it to be understood as a true story. As I said I do not think that people living at the time the Bible was recorded could have known what those symbols meant, since the Book was intended to be 'closed up and sealed' till the time of the end.

These myths aren't allegories. They're just myths. They are simply another example of primitive people trying to explain the world they find themselves born into in the light of unfalsifiable religious beliefs, and guessing wrong. Only science isn't guessing, and of course, uses and needs no symbols.

The stories can be 'both' mythical and allegorical, and that is what I believe they are.

The garden story explains why life is hard and often short in a world supposedly governed by a tri-omni god. That needs explaining if you want people to believe this god exists and loves them.

Why wouldn't life be hard if there was a tri-omni God, just because 'some people' don't like hard?
I don't care if people believe that God exists or loves them, that is fully their own decision and responsibility. If people want to believe that God doesn't exist or love them that is their choice. The irony is that believers believe God exists and loves them in spite of life being hard, it is the nonbelievers who do not believe that.

I've long assumed that the flood myth was written because marine fossils can be found on the highest mountain tops. Why? How? The Tower myth explains why a good god has us speaking mutually unintelligible languages. The Sodom and Gomorrah myths likely account for an astronomical event that destroyed a city or two. These aren't allegories. They're early best guesses, and unsurprisingly, wrong.

Nobody knows what the writers were thinking or why they wrote what they did. All we can do is guess. I don't think the stories were intended to be allegories when written, but we can interpret them allegorically now, since we now know they are not actual events that took place.

And this is an area where people are loathe to use the word wrong. The Mesopotamians were wrong about Tiamat and the Vikings were only guessing when they declared Odin and his brothers the creators of the world, because their religions are considered primitive and false as are their gods. But we NEVER say that about the god of Abraham and his scriptures. Only those who hate god would use words like error and wrong guesses here, we are told. Say allegory instead. It sounds nicer than wrong.

You want the Bible to be wrong so you say they cannot be allegorical, but the Bible stories can be right as allegories, which was what God probably had in mind. However, God did not expect the people living thousands of years ago to understand them as allegories, but God expects us to understand them as allegories now, in the modern age of science. Most liberal Christians understand them as allegories, it is not only the Baha'is who understand them as such.

I believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was fictional, although it was written to sound like a true story. I don't blame God for that since the humans who wrote the stories had free will. Again, why they wrote falsehoods we can never know since we cannot go back and interview the writers.