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

[dybmh]

I think that "rules" is an overstatement.

You don't know @Trailblazer well enough to make that claim.

 

[F1fan]

Not true. @Trailblazer has evidence.

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.

The manifestations of God, as defined by th Baha'i faith ARE evidence of God.

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.

The standard rules to connect evidence to conclusions requires proper defintions.

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

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

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).

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know @Trailblazer well enough to make that claim.

The opposite appears to be true. I got tired of her tactics. Almost everyone that has debated against her has commented on her lack of evidence, her denial of making claims when she just made some, her claims of evidence and then never posting any.

 

[exchemist]

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?

I see the Genesis story of the Fall of Man as an allegory of Mankind, as his brain evolved, gradually acquiring moral awareness i.e. knowledge of good and evil, and the bittersweet nature of the cares and responsibilities that descend on the shoulders of an adult as he or she reaches that stage of development. We are all familiar with the concept of the innocence of childhood and are inclined to credit the other animals with similar innocence, from a moral point of view. We often yearn to recover that innocence - it makes things so simple. Yet we also know that now we are adults that path is not open and we must face responsibility for our decisions.

From this perspective Original Sin is that intrinsic moral weakness that Mankind has, which leads him to take the wrong path from time to time, in spite of knowing it is wrong.

Regarding the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the Atonement, I have never believed a loving God would literally demand a blood sacrifice, nor that this would somehow be implacably required by some principle of heavenly mechanics. I incline to the Moral Influence view of Abelard: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia

It should be noted that alternative rationales for the redeeming effect of Christ's death have been part of mainstream Christian thinking for a thousand years or more. There is no single "right" answer, contrary to what some of the "exclusivist" sects might have you believe.

 

[ppp]

I see the Fall of Man as an allegory of Mankind, as his brain evolved, gradually acquiring moral awareness i.e. knowledge of good and evil, and the bittersweet nature of the cares and responsibilities that descend on the shoulders of an adult as he or she reaches that stage of development. We are all familiar with the concept of the innocence of childhood and are inclined to credit the other animals with similar innocence, from a moral point of view. We often yearn to recover that innocence - it makes things so simple. Yet we also know that now we are adults that path is not open and we must face repsonsibility for our decisions.

Do you think that it was originally an allegory? If you have an opinion on that at all.

I incline to the Moral Influence view of Abelard: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia

I will check that out.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

One doesn't need to kill it, just let it die.

Death occurs regardless.

I abhor this kind of practice with my entire being for I consider it to be intellectual dishonesty.

That's ok.

How is it intellectual dishonesty? For my practice, I understand mythology and spiritual symbols as something psychologically useful and not necessarily something grounded in literal time and space.

Consider Sisyphus forever rolling a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down at the end of the day. Ever felt like that when doing weekly chores like laundry?

Myths are artifacts that can still be used as viable tools to add inspiration to life. They are like paintings, sculpture, music. They enhance our psychological responses to the challenges that life gives us.

 

[exchemist]

Do you think that it was originally an allegory? If you have an opinion on that at all.


I will check that out.

Interesting question. Do we think the orally transmitted Greek myths that Homer and Hesiod reported were thought of "originally" as real, or as stories to tell round the fireside, to make a point about the human condition?

It's hard to say, perhaps, but my impression of the ancient world is that people were no more stupid then than they are now and there may therefore have been a variety of ways in which they saw these ancient stories.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think that "rules" is an overstatement.

Would you prefer fallacious reasoning? Actually, there's no reasoning provided to connect, 'the writings and life of the messenger' to 'therefore God.'

Your worldview is bigotry.

I don't think you know what that word means. My worldview features a godless, naturalistic metaphysics, a rational, empathetic moral code, and an empirical epistemology. What you call bigotry is a rejection of faith and faith-based claims as well as an opposition to organized, politicized, Abrahamic religion, which is itself a source of bigotry.

Unless you have adopted a proper defintion of a god, then your rules do not apply

No, YOUR rules don't apply including that one.

Not true. The evidence she offers is perfect.

Trailblazer has a good heart, but she is not a logician. Neither are you if you can make a comment like that.

You don't know @Trailblazer well enough to make that claim.

Here you are again trying to disqualify valid judgments without counterargument. We know her reasoning skills. No other knowledge of her is necessary to evaluate her arguments. Or yours. Or mine.

This is an admission that you're tethering yourself to failed ideas.

As a strict empiricist, I've tethered myself to reality. The faith-based thinker is tethered to nothing, like a helium balloon that has come loose. His beliefs are only limited by his imagination.

And no, critical thinking is not a failed idea. The mother of science and Western liberal democracy, critical thinking has made life longer, safer, more functional, freer, more interesting, and easier and more comfortable.

The failed idea is belief by faith in the Abrahamic god. That may be the worst idea man has ever had. With its bigotries and praise of faith as a virtue, it's still the enemy of empathy and reason. By removing the sacred from nature and displacing it to an unseen god with order on how to live and plans for an apocalyptic destruction of nature, it's a major source of bigotry and an enemy to life and authentic spiritual experience of nature.

Here's some of the legacy of Abrahamism, a terrible burden on humanity:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)
• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

Maybe this is the kind of thing you are calling bigotry. If so, it's not.

 

[exchemist]

Here's some of the legacy of Abrahamism, a terrible burden on humanity:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)
• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

Maybe this is the kind of thing you are calling bigotry. If so, it's not.

Hang on, this last bit is overreach on your part, surely? You cannot seriously, in good conscience, hang climate change denial on "Abrahamism", whatever that is. Climate change denial arises from a combination of small-minded complacency and reluctance to change with a facile cult of individualism which demonises any form of collective action by society. We see this in the attitude of people on this forum who have who have no apparent religious belief. It has nothing to do with religion - though naturally some individuals may try to dress up their lack of action in religious justification, as so many do with all manner of causes.

 

[F1fan]

Do you think that it was originally an allegory? If you have an opinion on that at all.

I don't think ancients understood any difference like we do since science has become that basis of knowledge.

I'm sure they understood lying at the personal level, like a wife asking her husband where's he's been all night, and she wants a true answer. But where it comes to understanding how the universe works, or the grand scheme of things, the embellished stories were the all they had.

 

[Colt]

Their (false) god is denial. They are faithfully devoted to it and serve it. And usually a couple of others jump on the bandwagon for their faithful service as well. Cause once denial settles in, the barn doors are wide open.

 

[F1fan]

Hang on, this last bit is overreach on your part, surely? You cannot seriously, in good conscience, hang climate change denial on "Abrahamism", whatever that is. Climate change denial arises from a combination of small-minded complacency and reluctance to change with a facile cult of individualism which demonises any form of collective action by society. We see this in the attitude of people on this forum who have who have no apparent religious belief. It has nothing to do with religion - though naturally some individuals may try to dress up their lack of action in religious justification, as so many do with all manner of causes.

There are obviously many causes of this far right contempt for science, but I think this is directly tied to creationism, which is a Christian belief. Republicans have tied themselves to evangelicals starting in the 80's and have used the contempt for evolution/biology as a means to exploit contempt for other science, like climate change and vaccines. It may not be a cause and effect, but there is a correlation with those who reject evolution to those who reject climate change and even vaccines, namely the Covid vaccines (with tracking chips). Look at how they attacked Fauci and other public health officials. This belief doesn't come about without there being many who reject evolution for many decades first.

It would be an interesting poll.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you prefer fallacious reasoning? Actually, there's no reasoning provided to connect, 'the writings and life of the messenger' to 'therefore God.'

I don't think you know what that word means. My worldview features a godless, naturalistic metaphysics, a rational, empathetic moral code, and an empirical epistemology. What you call bigotry is a rejection of faith and faith-based claims as well as an opposition to organized, politicized, Abrahamic religion, which is itself a source of bigotry.

No, YOUR rules don't apply including that one.

Trailblazer has a good heart, but she is not a logician. Neither are you if you can make a comment like that.

Here you are again trying to disqualify valid judgments without counterargument. We know her reasoning skills. No other knowledge of her is necessary to evaluate her arguments. Or yours. Or mine.

As a strict empiricist, I've tethered myself to reality. The faith-based thinker is tethered to nothing, like a helium balloon that has come loose. His beliefs are only limited by his imagination.

And no, critical thinking is not a failed idea. The mother of science and Western liberal democracy, critical thinking has made life longer, safer, more functional, freer, more interesting, and easier and more comfortable.

The failed idea is belief by faith in the Abrahamic god. That may be the worst idea man has ever had. With its bigotries and praise of faith as a virtue, it's still the enemy of empathy and reason. By removing the sacred from nature and displacing it to an unseen god with order on how to live and plans for an apocalyptic destruction of nature, it's a major source of bigotry and an enemy to life and authentic spiritual experience of nature.

Here's some of the legacy of Abrahamism, a terrible burden on humanity:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)
• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

Maybe this is the kind of thing you are calling bigotry. If so, it's not.

To be fair it is the opinion of some Abrahamists. I do not think that is the opinion of most. And those people tend to be almost exclusively some of the more extreme Christian sects or even cults. So yes, a general condemnation of Abrahamists is not quite justified. Some rather strong clarifications should have been used.

 

[F1fan]

View attachment 79554

Ah yes, the clssic switching the burden of proof.

Why assume anything was created? Follow Occam's Razor. No faith required, except believers whose gods are obsolete in the 21st century, and all they have is 20th century memes that still don't work as a trick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 79554

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.

 

[exchemist]

View attachment 79554

The funny thing about that is that at least the last three out of the four are believed by just about any scientifically literate Christian. So the speaker is straight-away revealed as something of an ignoramus.

 

[exchemist]

There are obviously many causes of this far right contempt for science, but I think this is directly tied to creationism, which is a Christian belief. Republicans have tied themselves to evangelicals starting in the 80's and have used the contempt for evolution/biology as a means to exploit contempt for other science, like climate change and vaccines. It may not be a cause and effect, but there is a correlation with those who reject evolution to those who reject climate change and even vaccines, namely the Covid vaccines (with tracking chips). Look at how they attacked Fauci and other public health officials. This belief doesn't come about without there being many who reject evolution for many decades first.

It would be an interesting poll.

What we were talking about is attitudes to climate change. I do not think religious beliefs inform the views of people like @Twilight Hue - or Myron Ebell.

You may well have a point in accounting for the broader suspicion of science in society. But what the response to both climate change and covid call for is (i) collective action, and (ii) to do some personally uncomfortable things. That, in my submission, is where the Right can use its creed of individualism (a.k.a selfishness) to try to stymie any progress. That creed has been preached for years in the USA. It's astonishing how many people have read - and actually admire - the books of Ayn Rand, for instance. A cult of selfishness has been made intellectually respectable. This is the polar opposite of the teaching of Christ.

 

[F1fan]

What we were talking about is attitudes to climate change. I do not think religious beliefs inform the views of people like @Twilight Hue - or Myron Ebell.

Conservatives have certainly become unified in certain aspects of their overall framework. They don’t seem to have any problem rebelling against whatever they want.

My point is that climate change denial got so much traction quickly due to the existing prevalence of denying evolution. So TH might not be religious or deny evolution, but he has been willing to go with the flow of “owning libs” over climate change denial.

 

[exchemist]

Conservatives have certainly become unified in certain aspects of their overall framework. They don’t seem to have any problem rebelling against whatever they want.

My point is that climate change denial got so much traction quickly due to the existing prevalence of denying evolution. So TH might not be religious or deny evolution, but he has been willing to go with the flow of “owning libs” over climate change denial.

So you mean creationism is responsible for a sort of pick-n-mix attitude to science in general, which has provided fertile ground for disbelieving any personally inconvenient scientific finding? Yes, I can see that could play a role.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you think that it was originally an allegory? If you have an opinion on that at all.

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.

Hang on, this last bit is overreach on your part, surely? You cannot seriously, in good conscience, hang climate change denial on "Abrahamism", whatever that is. Climate change denial arises from a combination of small-minded complacency and reluctance to change with a facile cult of individualism which demonises any form of collective action by society. We see this in the attitude of people on this forum who have who have no apparent religious belief. It has nothing to do with religion - though naturally some individuals may try to dress up their lack of action in religious justification, as so many do with all manner of causes.

To be fair it is the opinion of some Abrahamists. I do not think that is the opinion of most. And those people tend to be almost exclusively some of the more extreme Christian sects or even cults. So yes, a general condemnation of Abrahamists is not quite justified. Some rather strong clarifications should have been used.

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.

View attachment 79554

• 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)

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).