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

[ppp]

Telling the story of the Garden is not a command.

True, false, or partly each, the entire Bible is telling a story. Moses going up the Mount to get the sets of tablets is a story. The line I quoted was a command in that story. There are no commands from your god in the Bible that are not part of the story of the individual book, or the overarching curated narrative of the Bible as a whole.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

True, false, or partly each, the entire Bible is telling a story. Moses going up the Mount to get the sets of tablets is a story. The line I quoted was a command in that story. There are no commands from your god in the Bible that are not part of the story of the individual book, or the overarching curated narrative of the Bible as a whole.

Correct but not everything in the Bible is about God giving a command. Revelations would be a good example, it is a vision of the future, of what is going to happen. There are some commands in that book of course but it's mostly just the tale being told.

 

[ppp]

Correct but not everything in the Bible is about God giving a command. Revelations would be a good example, it is a vision of the future, of what is going to happen. There are some commands in that book of course but it's mostly just the tale being told.

How do you reconcile your position that all commands from God are literal with your subsequent claim that the first command from God is not literal? All commands from God in the Bible are part of a story.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

How do you reconcile your position that all commands from God are literal with your subsequent claim that the first command from God is not literal? All commands from God in the Bible are part of a story.

All commands from God are indeed a part of a story but the entire story isn't a command from God.

 

[ppp]

All commands from God are indeed a part of a story but the entire story isn't a command from God.

If you can't reconcile them then just say so. Or don't respond. Contortions to vagaries are both uninteresting and unproductive.

 

[InChrist]

The Bible contains myriads of what theologian's call "variations". For just one example, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb and what did he/they say?

No two gospels agree. There's many more like this.

BTW, the churches through centuries up until the 1800's, the emergence of the "fundamentalist movement", did teach the Bible is not inerrant for good reasons, because it clearly isn't. Even when the Christian canon was chosen in the 4th century, it was common knowledge that there often were "variations" on the same narrative.

Thus, to claim the Bible is perfect simply is just a form of idolatry. The Bible is not God and God is not the Bible-- the Bible is about God.

True, the Bible contains variations. None of these variations alter the basic tenets or doctrines of the Gospel message or biblical faith. I think these variations actually support the validity and authenticity of the scriptures. Just like the accounts of witnesses in a courtroom may vary as different people notice or highlight different things which they saw, so the human writers of the Bible did, also. Nevertheless, God orchestrated and directed the overall information and message He intended while allowing and including the human element. Those are my thoughts on the subject.

 

[InChrist]

This is a circular argument. You are using s statement in the bible as evidence the bible is error-free. But if the bible is not error-free then the statement you are relying on might not be reliable.

There is huge difference, too, between the bible being divinely inspired and it being free from all error. The writers can easily have been divinely inspired but still express themselves in imperfect ways. Humanity is, as we know, imperfect, after all. Furthermore, it is obvious to anyone reading the bible that it contains both contradictions and a range of figurative expression that is capable of more than one interpretation.

I’ll say the same thing I said to Métis…


The Bible contains variations and grammatical errors. None of these alter the basic tenets or doctrines of the Gospel message or biblical faith, which remains consistent throughout. I think these variations actually support the validity and authenticity of the scriptures. Just like the accounts of witnesses in a courtroom may vary as different people notice or highlight different things which they saw, so the human writers of the Bible did, also. Nevertheless, God orchestrated and directed the overall information and message He intended while allowing and including the human element. Those are my thoughts on the subject.

 

[InChrist]

Would a ten year difference in supposed time of Jesus's birth count as a significant error? To me that is quite significant.

I think I remember reading something about that difference concerning the time of Jesus’ birth, but from what I recall it wasn’t an accurate charge or researchers have reconciled that assumed time difference through further historical information.
I don’t know for sure, though.

 

[Ponder This]

Now, Moses was a murderer so maybe that relates, but what about Job? God admitted that Job was blameless. If God’s going to do whatever He wants, why bother being moral since it is irrelevant?

I'm not sure the relevance to thread, but Job was rewarded by God, if I recall correctly.

Every atheist - most being humanists - rejects what all of the religions claim are commandments from their gods just as every religion rejects the moral precepts of every other religion where they conflict. And yes, I believe that I am a better judge of good and right behavior than any of these gods - or more correctly, people speaking for gods we never see or hear from directly - including yours.

The divine command theory of morality, which state that whatever the deity say, does, or allows is moral by definition - is the most dangerous one possible. All one need do to make an adherent perform a heinous act or vote to enact harmful legislation is to convince them that their god approves.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." - Nobelist Steven Weinberg

Good for you? I guess? You have your belief, right or wrong, as long as you don't perform heinous acts or pass harmful legislation because of your anti-God and anti-religion beliefs - Nobelist Stephen Weinberg's hateful verbal attack against religion not withstanding.

The alternative is to believe that (a) God exists as a real entity and (b) communicates [his] judgments clearly, coherently and completely and (c) will act in reality to enforce [his] judgments (since if [he] does not, the judgments are irrelevant).

But not even one of those is true.

Christians believe in God and believe that he is the ultimate judge of people whether or not they believe his communications are clear, coherent, or complete. Just because you don't believe this doesn't make it not true.

And even if it were true, the individual would still have to take responsibility for his or her own moral decisions, and not just try to ape what he or she understood to be The Instructions, no? According to the bible, God ordains a whole lot of things I find morally repulsive in the extreme, like invasive war, massacre of surrendered populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, murderous religious discrimination, women as property, slavery as normal, and even the entrenched privileges of the priestly caste.

Ideally, yes, people take responsibility for their actions, but Christianity also believes in forgiveness. People can make mistakes and then see the error of their ways. But I'm not sure who it is that thinks repulsive acts shouldn't be avoided when possible. I think it would be incorrect to say that a person has to endorse mass rape in order to be Christian.

Nor have I ever understood what the crucifixion of Jesus accomplished that God couldn't have accomplished without bloodshed, just by one snap of those omnipotent fingers ─ why yet more gratuitous cruelty and bloodshed?

Maybe you think God is Thanos, but I don't think that Christians regard the Marvel Universe character Thanos as worthy of their devotion.

But as you know, there are major differences between the boundaries of contemporary Israel and the boundaries variously described in Numbers 34 (where particular subdivisions among the tribes are prescribed) and Deuteronomy 34.

And God had already promised much more than that in Genesis 15:18-21 ─

18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgash ites and the Jebusites."
Odd to reflect that the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, with just the odd blip here and there, is Arab territory, no?

Indeed there are differences between estimated boundaries of the Promised Land and modern day Israel. I don't think it is accurate to say that they are equivalent.

There are thousands of Gods and Goddesses, not just one; and they have different responsibilities.
Land of Israel will not be able to accommodate billions of believers (past, present and future), and most of it is a desert, a very poor kind of heaven.
You need a whole world up in the sky, as in Hindu heaven.

I am unaware of any Christian who believes that the physical geographic Land of Israel is, in fact, Heaven itself. Such a belief is definitely not essential to being Christian. Although, it may be not so uncommon to attach some special significance to the "Holy Land" as it is the region wherein events important to Christianity occurred.

I am deliberate to avoid lying to myself, which is why I use reasoning and follow facts. Note, I am not a theist since there is no factual basis for religious concepts. I avoid following social beliefs that aren't credible, and that includes religious concepts. You haven't argued for any reason how a person can use reason and come to a valid conclusion that religious concepts are true. So what motivates so many to adopt religious ideas that are not based in truth or fact?

Indeed, I have not argued that Christian beliefs are true or false. Why Christians believe what they believe may or may not be rooted in your notions of truth and fact.

Not if the source isn't valid or reputable, which is quite common these days. A critical thinker doesn't decide to not trust a source, a source is dismissed out of principle if it is not credible. Being able to understand what is reputable is what allows a person a huge advantage in reasoning and understanding truth. To trust a source means examining the source for its reliability and validity. There are many bogus sources out there that the foolish and guilible fall prey to, and they are dismissed by critical minds.

In reality, many people do trust or mistrust sources of information regardless of your personal evaluation of their validity or credibility. And critical minded people ought not to trust or mistrust based solely on your evaluation.

Ironic, perhaps that you don't see how adopting a religious dogma does not come from alaytical thought and careful consideration, but from social pressure and the need to conform and belong. these are subconscious so the self has little awareness they are believing in ideas that a rational thinker would not think true. Those who believe without self-awareness and analytical thought are much like robots who are programmed and operate from what they are told.

It could come from social pressure and a need to conform or from "analytical thought and careful consideration" or come about in some other way. If you are able to articulate its relevance to this thread, we can delve deeper into that here.

You are missing the point, it isn't about agreement. It is Christians who assume hell is real. Hell isn't known to exist. It is just one of many concepts in Christianity and has no basis in reality. That a Christian might think hell is real, and that Christian dogma about hell is true, and believes that the dogma applies to others, illustrates the lack of humility such Christians have. It is not a matte of agreement, it is a matter of Christians not understanding that their beliefs are not fact, and that their judgments don't apply to free people who believe differently. This casual arrogance is a leftover from the time when Christian leaders ruled most of Europe, and held power over anyone within their grasp.

Perhaps I have missed the point. Can you articulate the point? Because it sounds like you are saying that Christians have to not believe the things that they believe... in favor of the things that you believe - which, honestly, makes no sense.

Good for you for figuring this out. It wasn't my point. My point is that some religious people assume their dogma is true, and that it applies to others who don't agree with them. It is the arrogance of theists who believe their religious belief has authority over others that I am talking about.

Can you acknowledge that your religious ideas have no authority or significance to those who don't agree with you? Is it possible that you could be mistaken in what you believe?

It sounds like you are trying to argue that your point of view has authority over what Christians are allowed to believe.
I think that if Christians believe that you are going to Hell, then they are allowed that belief even if you don't like it that they believe you are going to Hell. There doesn't seem to be an authority problem to solve here. You are also free to regard theists as arrogant regardless of whether or not the theists (that you regard as arrogant) agree with you or not.

Or financially supporting legislation that imposes the death penalty for gay people.

That is different, yes.

That is quite the error. You are assuming that the Bible represents God's opinion. One way of refuting that are the bad morals of that version of God.

Actually, I'm not assuming that at all. In fact, I said that a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't necessary for someone to be a "True Christian".

And modern archaeologists have shown that there is no evidence for the Exodus when there should be endless evidence for it. In other words it does not appear to have happened. And your weak excuse is not good enough. If you want to claim that the Bible points towards God and that God is moral you need to justify both of those claims.

I don't think it's in question that Christians generally believe that the Bible points towards God, is it? - an article claiming that there is no evidence for the Exodus not withstanding.

 

[F1fan]

Correct but not everything in the Bible is about God giving a command. Revelations would be a good example, it is a vision of the future, of what is going to happen. There are some commands in that book of course but it's mostly just the tale being told.

Have you ever read about how Revelations mad eit into the final version of the Bible? Interesting story. It almost didn't get included. One bishop really wanted it included and he worked the other bishops and traded votes to get the final list of books what they wanted. God's truth.

But as far as what Revelations means it is generally believed it was about the current times it was written. not the future. Of course many evangelicals use Revelations as a basis for the End Times beliefs. The writer Hal Lindsey wrote a book in the 1970's called The Late Great planet Earth, and it was about how the Rapture was coming, especially by nuclear war. He used the Bible to prove his case that the end was near. It was a big seller. It scared people. And none of it came true. Oh well, Hal wrote a follow up with more predictions and why his previous ones were wrongly interpreted. Evangelicals need a hobby to keep them from thinking too much about the Bible.

 

[ppp]

Good for you? I guess? You have your belief, right or wrong, as long as you don't perform heinous acts or pass harmful legislation because of your anti-God and anti-religion beliefs - Nobelist Stephen Weinberg's hateful verbal attack against religion not withstanding.

Weinberg performed a hateful act? Or passed harmful legislation?

 

[ppp]

That is different, yes

The point being that Christianity has a 2 millenia long history of active and unequivocal support and commands to perform hateful acts and harmful legislation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I remember reading something about that difference concerning the time of Jesus’ birth, but from what I recall it wasn’t an accurate charge or researchers have reconciled that assumed time difference through further historical information.
I don’t know for sure, though.

That has never happened. Christian scholars are very much in agreement that the two cannot be reconciled. Please do not conflate Christian apologists with Christian scholars. They make very very weak excuses for those differences. The odds are that in reality that Jesus was born where his name indicates that he was born. In Nazareth. The authors of both Luke and Matthew looked for a way to get him born there just because one of the clear messianic prophecies has him born in Bethlehem. We know when Herod died, And Matthews was based upon Herod. We know when the Census of Quirinius was, and we know why it could not have happened while Herod was alive. That was ten years later.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Have you ever read about how Revelations mad eit into the final version of the Bible? Interesting story. It almost didn't get included. One bishop really wanted it included and he worked the other bishops and traded votes to get the final list of books what they wanted. God's truth.

But as far as what Revelations means it is generally believed it was about the current times it was written. not the future. Of course many evangelicals use Revelations as a basis for the End Times beliefs. The writer Hal Lindsey wrote a book in the 1970's called The Late Great planet Earth, and it was about how the Rapture was coming, especially by nuclear war. He used the Bible to prove his case that the end was near. It was a big seller. It scared people. And none of it came true. Oh well, Hal wrote a follow up with more predictions and why his previous ones were wrongly interpreted. Evangelicals need a hobby to keep them from thinking too much about the Bible.

The Bible specifically says that nobody will no when the end times are coming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible specifically says that nobody will no when the end times are coming.

That is true, but Christians tend to pick and choose which part of the Bible that they want to believe.

For example: When do you think that Jesus was born?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

That is true, but Christians tend to pick and choose which part of the Bible that they want to believe.

For example: When do you think that Jesus was born?

It doesn't matter, all that matters is that He existed.

 

[ppp]

It doesn't matter, all that matters is that He existed.

That's all that matters? Doesn't it also matter if he was a god? And I should think it would matter a lot if the Bible got anything about him right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't matter, all that matters is that He existed.

That is actually the best answer that you could give. But that means that you do not take either account to seriously. Perhaps the same applies to those that ignore the verses that tell people that no one will know when the end of the world is coming. I would never say that when a Christian makes that prediction that he is no longer a Christian. I simply say that he is extremely likely to be wrong. And that if he lives that long he will regret making that prediction.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

For example: When do you think that Jesus was born?

As I explained earlier in this thread (see here), if the name Jesus is replaced with Attis (the Phrygian-Greek god of vegetation), the narrative is strikingly similar to Jesus' savior story. In other words, his story isn't the first of its kind, and it isn't any more credible than the others that predate it, in my opinion.

 

[F1fan]

The Bible specifically says that nobody will no when the end times are coming.

We will all celebrate the end of Christianity.