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

[Subduction Zone]

The universe itself is the source of the laws which apparently govern it? Or is that the other way around?

They may be one and the same. It is a rather odd question.

And if the laws of nature are emergent, from what guiding principle do they emerge?

There does not appear to be a guiding principle. Well maybe there is one. See your next question.

Why is there order in the universe, and form?

Gravity.

Why are there processes seemingly comprehensible to the minds of man?

Science is hard.

Humans seem to need these questions answered, though there are those who prefer not even to hear them asked.

It is a good thing to strive to answer these questions. It is a bad thing to make up answers. The answers to a lot of them are often: We don't know yet".

 

[blü 2]

The universe itself is the source of the laws which apparently govern it?

The alternative points to an infinite regression, no?

Equally, if there is a God, where do the principles that make possible [his] existence have their source?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The alternative points to an infinite regression, no?

Equally, if there is a God, where do the principles that make possible [his] existence have their source?

If time is a property of the universe, infinite regression wouldn't apply. There'd be no 'before'. The standard model of cosmology suggests that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, but somewhat confusingly, that doesn't necessarily imply that it had a beginning. Stephen Hawking kept returning to the idea of a boundaryless universe, which nevertheless has measurable temporal dimensions. But from where do the laws which appear to govern it emerge? From us, the conscious observer, looking out from the only temporal vantage point available to us, the here and now. That, anyway, is what Thomas Hertog, Hawking's last collaborator, argues in the recently published 'On the Origins of Time'. As the universe creates us, so we create the universe, for order, and measurement, and method, are human attributes. This, according to Hertog and Hawking, is the conclusion pointed at by application of quantum principles to cosmology.

"Man, in his search for objective reality, finally finds himself confronted with himself alone."
- Werner Heisenberg

"A phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed."
- john Wheeler

 

[blü 2]

If time is a property of the universe, infinite regression wouldn't apply. There'd be no 'before'. The standard model of cosmology suggests that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, but somewhat confusingly, that doesn't necessarily imply that it had a beginning. Stephen Hawking kept returning to the idea of a boundaryless universe, which nevertheless has measurable temporal dimensions. But from where do the laws which appear to govern it emerge? From us, the conscious observer, looking out from the only temporal vantage point available to us, the here and now. That, anyway, is what Thomas Hertog, Hawking's last collaborator, argues in the recently published 'On the Origins of Time'. As the universe creates us, so we create the universe, for order, and measurement, and method, are human attributes. This, according to Hertog and Hawking, is the conclusion pointed at by application of quantum principles to cosmology.

"Man, in his search for objective reality, finally finds himself confronted with himself alone."
- Werner Heisenberg

"A phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed."
- john Wheeler

In such discussions, it seems to me that if we regard time as a property or effect of mass-energy, instead of thinking of mass-energy as being within time, then time might go backwards or forwards, might do so in several temporal dimensions (analogous to spatial dimensions), might be even less uniform across space than we presently think, and perhaps for different reasons, might stop (though how you measure the duration of the stoppage is a question), and so on.

And of course perhaps there are further kinds of dimensions beyond spatial and temporal that, since they're not part of our universe, we haven't evolved to grok.

Your quote suggests that Prof. Wheeler (a man of great respect) might find such ideas a tad adventurous, of course.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In such discussions, it seems to me that if we regard time as a property or effect of mass-energy, instead of thinking of mass-energy as being within time, then time might go backwards or forwards, might do so in several temporal dimensions (analogous to spatial dimensions), might be even less uniform across space than we presently think, and perhaps for different reasons, might stop (though how you measure the duration of the stoppage is a question), and so on.

And of course perhaps there are further kinds of dimensions beyond spatial and temporal that, since they're not part of our universe, we haven't evolved to grok.

Your quote suggests that Prof. Wheeler (a man of great respect) might find such ideas a tad adventurous, of course.

John Wheeler was, by reputation, a man who was never averse to adventurous ideas. This is a man who said, "In any field, find the strangest thing and explore it."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, and both Santa and God are used to get kids to be good. "Be good little kids and Santa will bring you a present." "Be good little kids and God will reward you when you go to heaven." But then there's God's ultimate punishment for being bad, burning in hell. Is that God real?

It's just too easy for that God to have been invented by people. And once that God gets rejected, it gets harder for religious people to convince people that there is a kind and loving God out there. And most of the time, even that God has a lot strings attached.

I agree with you about the biblical God. In fact, I think even less of him, assuming that he exists. The whole "God is love!" theme is the crux of Christianity and the essential message of Christian evangelism. It is an integral part of the evangelical strategy Christians typically use to persuade non-Christians into converting to Christianity. Of course, they are more likely to attract potential converts with feel-good messages like "God is love!" or "God loves you!" than with a message like this: "The Bible says that God is love, but it also says that God hates and is a jealous God, and there are repeated threats in the Bible about his wrath and sending the people who didn't ask for his forgiveness to hell for their sins against him. Oh, and that's not to mention the verses about God ordering the execution of witches, ordering the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and infant from another nation, and killing every living person on earth, with the exception of one family, in a global flood. But just ignore all of that and focus solely on our 'God is love' message." I'm sure that a gospel message like that one would undoubtedly put a significant damper on their evangelism efforts. I was an evangelical Christian for 30 years, as well as a street preacher and the leader of an evangelism team, so I understand that Christians prefer to depict God and Christianity in the best possible light. I know that Christians who evangelize want the non-Christians they've targeted to focus on the positive scriptures about God's alleged loving and merciful behavior toward humanity and not pay attention to the negative scriptures depicting him with sadistic and psychopathic behavior, as well as demonstrating barbaric and genocidal behavior by killing humans with impunity. When I was an evangelism team leader, I was advised not to mention scriptures that negatively depicted God.

 

[Audie]

The universe itself is the source of the laws which apparently govern it? Or is that the other way around? And if the laws of nature are emergent, from what guiding principle do they emerge? Why is there order in the universe, and form? Why are there processes seemingly comprehensible to the minds of man? Humans seem to need these questions answered, though there are those who prefer not even to hear them asked.

The religionists pretend to have the answer.

 

[pearl]

I don't know exactly what you are asking there. But in Christian theology, God is generally considered to be some form of omniscient. Which would mean that everything that could happen in such a world would necessarilly be planned and intended in detail.

One theology has it that Jesus was with God from creation and was the reason for the incarnation.
Another has it that Jesus was an afterthought because of man's sin, for which Jesus became a scapegoat to
avenge God.

My question is directed to Christians who don't take the Genesis stories literally. I would not insult Jews by trying to saddle them with the assoreted Christian re-interpretations of the Torah.

In this case the rabbi was referring to a literal reading of the Torah, nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This got me to thinking about the penalty in the Mosaic Law for Israel that Jehovah set for breaking the Sabbath… it was death. And the Bible records that an Israelite man, began picking up sticks on the Sabbath! Jehovah God told Moses to execute him! Seems extreme, until we grasp what death is: it’s simply “resting in peace”

That was a response to, "I assume that you would give a good reason why a god is not morally liable for the same actions that we would call immoral from a human being if you had one, but you don't. You simply want to excuse the deity. I understand, but I have no reason to do that. Your argument so far is unconvincing."

Hello to you.

Aren't you doing the same here - also giving the deity a pass - by whitewashing a commandment to stone to death for working on the Sabbath? Stoning is obviously meant as a punishment, not a restful vacation from life.

Intervening in human affairs, other than protecting His people, would not only defeat His side of the issues, but would also prolong man’s suffering more than is necessary to settle those issues.

I see more rationalization here. Intervening in human affairs in a constructive way would be an act of love and would promote his side if his side is that he is a loving god with great knowledge and power. And that would mitigate man's suffering in at least that one area.

I've known a lot of Christians (defined as those who believe Jesus died for their sins and rose from the grave) who do not take Gen 2-3 literally. They seem to do just fine. By "doing just fine" I mean that they do not experience any sort of internal conflict over it. Your thread rather assumes that there is a basic conflict between being a good Christian and accepting that Genesis 2-3 is a myth. It's just not an accurate presumption.

The question was how does one reconcile the need for Jesus to redeem man from original sin if there was no literal Adam and Eve. You seem to be suggesting that this is not an issue for many, and I agree. It's not an issue if one doesn't require a rational narrative. There's a similar problem for Abrahamic theists who accept the theory of evolution. The doctrine that man was made in God's image (supernaturalism) is incompatible with the theory (naturalistic). But nobody requires anybody to have a coherent narrative, and it's just not an issue for many. There are more examples of this, but you get the gist.

if the laws of nature are emergent, from what guiding principle do they emerge? Why is there order in the universe, and form? Why are there processes seemingly comprehensible to the minds of man? Humans seem to need these questions answered

We can't answer those questions now, and maybe never. By answer, I mean a demonstrably correct statement, not an unfalsifiable one. Yes, the universe is mysterious, but the trick is to not jump to conclusions about intelligent oversight accounting for it. That's just one logical possibility.

That is as much as saying that if God has an impact on our world we would be able to detect God.

Yes. What does impact mean to you? It means a detectable change to me. To impact a situation is to modify it.

That is absurd because there is no reason to think anyone would be able to 'detect God' unless God wanted to be detected.

There is no reason to believe that a god that was causally connected to nature could not be detected.

But just because God is not part of nature, that doesn't mean that God doesn't have an effect on nature.

Disagree. Anything that interacts with any part of nature is also a part of nature.

One way I know that Baha'u'llah detected a God is by reading what He wrote about God. The was the clincher for me. I knew that had to be from God. Nobody could ever make anything like that up

I disagree. I've made up similar flowery, exhortative language for you to illustrate how easy that is. Nothing I've read from Baha'u'llah isn't human sounding. Nothing he did wasn't human, either.

Only the one true God deserves exemption, and the Writings of Baha'u'llah explain why that is the case better than I ever could.

You didn't try. Though you suggest he offers some, it seems you can't paraphrase Baha'u'llah's reasons. Why is that? Why are you claiming that a god is exempt from critical scrutiny for reasons you can't summarize?

Which theists claim that something came from nothing?

Where I see it most often is in strawman arguments from creationists implying that that's what atheists are claiming.

I just saw it yesterday on another thread in a meme:

One thing I never do is evade questions.

I asked you to justify why you think God is exempt from moral judgment and know that you will never say more than that it's because he's a god and it would be irrational ("false equivalence") to do that. That's not an answer. I've asked you to provide that passages in the message from the messenger that are not human sounding, and you've never done that, yet you keep claiming that it was your evidence that the messenger was channeling a god and not just being a man speaking or writing with no divine oversight. What verb would you use for that if not evading?

since your ignorant,

*you're*

there is no such thing a s a fake jew. also, the only people whom I might care about, saying something like would be other jews. as soon as one of them says that, it makes me wonder if they themselves are jewish, maybe they are the one's pretending.

These two sentences contradict one another.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

These two sentences contradict one another.

"there is no such thing a s a fake jew. also, the only people whom I might care about, saying something like would be other jews. as soon as one of them says that, it makes me wonder if they themselves are jewish, maybe they are the one's pretending."

I noticed that too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I noticed that too.

Yeah, I didn't want to get into all of the logical inconsistencies in that post. I was trying to be nice. Obviously, contrary to his claims, if I did name call in that fashion he would have been very upset.

 

[F1fan]

The universe itself is the source of the laws which apparently govern it? Or is that the other way around? And if the laws of nature are emergent, from what guiding principle do they emerge? Why is there order in the universe, and form? Why are there processes seemingly comprehensible to the minds of man? Humans seem to need these questions answered, though there are those who prefer not even to hear them asked.

Just defer to what experts report. You having opinions that differ from experts means you are incorrect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. What does impact mean to you? It means a detectable change to me. To impact a situation is to modify it.

The impact would be detectable, but we could not detect the God who made the impact.

There is no reason to believe that a god that was causally connected to nature could not be detected.

There is no reason to believe that a God that was causally connected to nature could be detected.
If God does not want to be detected, then God will not be detectable. Logic 101.

Disagree. Anything that interacts with any part of nature is also a part of nature.

Disagree. You are referring to pantheism. I am not a pantheist. I believe that God is separate from His creation. God is not part of nature, but God has an effect on nature.

I disagree. I've made up similar flowery, exhortative language for you to illustrate how easy that is. Nothing I've read from Baha'u'llah isn't human sounding. Nothing he did wasn't human, either.

In your opinion. In my opinion it is not human-sounding, it sounds like the Voice of God. See how easy that was?

You didn't try. Though you suggest he offers some, it seems you can't paraphrase Baha'u'llah's reasons. Why is that? Why are you claiming that a god is exempt from critical scrutiny for reasons you can't summarize?

As a believer, I am exhorted not to scrutinize God because that is not beneficial for me, but you are not a believer.
As a believer I am exhorted to praise God, not subject God to scrutiny.

I did not say that God is exempt from critical scrutiny. You can scrutinize God all you want. You cannot hurt God, nobody can.

I asked you to justify why you think God is exempt from moral judgment and know that you will never say more than that it's because he's a god and it would be irrational ("false equivalence") to do that. That's not an answer.

That was an answer. In addition to that, God judges humans, humans don't judge God.
But go ahead and judge God, nobody can stop you, and it won't hurt God since a transcendent God cannot be hurt.

I've asked you to provide that passages in the message from the messenger that are not human sounding, and you've never done that,

The Messenger is both human and divine since He has a twofold station, so it will sound like that. To you it sounds only human since you don't see the divine. One has to have spiritual perception to see it.

yet you keep claiming that it was your evidence that the messenger was channeling a god and not just being a man speaking or writing with no divine oversight. What verb would you use for that if not evading?

The verb I would use is believe.

believe
verb (used without object),be·lieved, be·liev·ing.

to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

I am not evading anything because I answer all questions that are asked of me.
Just because you do not 'like' my answer and would like a different answer that does not mean I am evading.

What does the word evade mean?

to avoid

verb (used without object),e·vad·ed, e·vad·ing. to avoid doing or fulfilling something. to elude or get away from someone or something by craft or slyness; escape.

Evade Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com​

 

[dybmh]

*you're*

Oh dear. Obsessing over the irrelevant. Ignoring the message and focusing on a mispelling. You're acting like my dog on its birthday. Loves the wrapping paper, but needs a reminder that there's something inside that's even better. "here girl, here girl... look there's something else besides the wrapping."

More evidence of the shallow lack of perception, ignorant avoidance of content, which is produced when you are serving and preaching about your god.

Faux-atheism, ladies and gentlemen. Right here. Right now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oh dear. Obsessing over the irrelevant. Ignoring the message and focusing on a mispelling. You're acting like my dog on its birthday. Loves the wrapping paper, but needs a reminder that there's something inside that's even better. "here girl, here girl... look there's something else besides the wrapping."

More evidence of the shallow lack of perception, ignorant avoidance of content, which is produced when you are serving and preaching about your god. Faux-atheism, ladies and gentlemen. Right here. Right now.

I've told you that this is humanist school for me. The opinions of other humanists comprise the lecture section. The reactions of the faithful compared to them is the lab section. I thought to myself, "He made a spelling error while calling others ignorant. How will he respond to this being pointed out?" We have an answer. You're agitated. The best you could have done was something humble that reflected a degree of ability that you made and embarrassing misstep, something a little humble and self-deprecating like "Oops. LOL. OK, that was a bad time for a mistake" You chose the Trumpian reaction to being cornered or embarrassed - attack, insult, deflect. He's a very insecure man with a very limited intellect.

The impact would be detectable, but we could not detect the God who made the impact.

You just did. Did you mean that you could not identify the cause of the detected impact?

There is no reason to believe that a God that was causally connected to nature could be detected.

Yes, there is. I don't think you have a clear idea what causally connected means.

If God does not want to be detected, then God will not be detectable. Logic 101.

No, that's religion 101, where one makes unfalsifiable declarations.

In your opinion. In my opinion it is not human-sounding, it sounds like the Voice of God. See how easy that was?

You say that certain words are not human-sounding, but steadfastly resist providing examples. That's about as easy as it gets, but ineffectual. It seems like you understand that nothing you can quote from the messenger won't seem mundane. So why keep insisting otherwise?

As a believer, I am exhorted not to scrutinize God because that is not beneficial for me

It's not beneficial to your religion, which is why you are thusly exhorted. In Christianity, they'd say that it was Satan trying to steal my soul.

As a believer I am exhorted to praise God, not subject God to scrutiny.

Yes, I know. Can you guess why they do that?

I did not say that God is exempt from critical scrutiny.

You call it absurd to do so. You call it a logical fallacy (false equivalence).

God judges humans, humans don't judge God.

This is how you try to exempt your deity from scrutiny.

But go ahead and judge God, nobody can stop you

Yes, I know, but many try. They try to disqualify the opinions of skeptics with a surprisingly varied assortment of approaches. I think I've shown you some of my list of some of those efforts to disqualify skeptical criticism of the Bible. I'd be happy to reproduce it here again if you like

The Messenger is both human and divine since He has a twofold station, so it will sound like that. To you it sounds only human since you don't see the divine. One has to have spiritual perception to see it.

This is a common approach to that disqualification attempt. Here are a couple from my list:

[22] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.
[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.
[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

 

[dybmh]

I've told you that this is humanist school for me.

"I've told you....for me"

But you've demonstrated dishonesty about your actions and the actions of others. So, what you tell me is not credible. And correcting you is meaningless. It all goes into a void. And whatever you say is more about sustaining this void, a shield protecting a rigid god-like self-identity. That means I especially shouldn't trust what you claim about yourself.

"I've told you....for me" Yes. You are telling ... for the purpose of you. Not for others.

Whenever you're ready we can talk about the paradox of "needing to help" and "needing to please" and how it is supremely dominant. But the individual will never realize it. It can destroy marriages.

 

[Trailblazer]

You just did. Did you mean that you could not identify the cause of the detected impact?

If God caused the detected impact then the cause cannot be identified since God can never be detected as the cause.

Yes, there is. I don't think you have a clear idea what causally connected means.

God can never be detected as a cause of anything.
That is why even if God that was causally connected to nature it could be detected that God was the cause.

No, that's religion 101, where one makes unfalsifiable declarations.

No, that is logic 101, for anyone who knows anything about the real God.
Only your imaginary god could ever be detected by humans.

You say that certain words are not human-sounding, but steadfastly resist providing examples. That's about as easy as it gets, but ineffectual. It seems like you understand that nothing you can quote from the messenger won't seem mundane. So why keep insisting otherwise?

You can read Gleanings for yourself.
I know that anything I quote from Baha'u'llah will sound mundane to you so why would I provide any more examples?
I said that 'in my opinion' the words are not human-sounding. In your opinion they sound mundane.
I am not insisting that you change your opinion. Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

It's not beneficial to your religion, which is why you are thusly exhorted. In Christianity, they'd say that it was Satan trying to steal my soul.

Baha'is do not believe there is any such entity as Satan so Satan cannot steal anything.

Yes, I know. Can you guess why they do that?

For our benefit.

You call it absurd to do so. You call it a logical fallacy (false equivalence).

From my viewpoint as a believer, it is absurd to judge God. That is backwards since God is the judge of humans.
To set moral standards for God is a logical fallacy (false equivalence) since God is not a human.

This is how you try to exempt your deity from scrutiny.

I already told you that you can scrutinize God and that it won't hurt God since God cannot be hurt.
You only hurt yourself by scrutinizing God. I know because I used to do it.

Yes, I know, but many try. They try to disqualify the opinions of skeptics with a surprisingly varied assortment of approaches. I think I've shown you some of my list of some of those efforts to disqualify skeptical criticism of the Bible. I'd be happy to reproduce it here again if you like.

This is a common approach to that disqualification attempt. Here are a couple from my list:

[22] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.
[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.
[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

I have no such list. The reason I would disqualify the opinions of skeptics is because the God they are scrutinizing is not the real God. It is a God of their imaginations. You cannot know what the real God is like since you reject scriptures or read the Old Testament that anthropomorphizes God. If you knew who the real God was you could still have an opinion, but at least you'd be scrutinizing the real God.

 

[ppp]

logical fallacy (false equivalence)

 

[F1fan]

If God caused the detected impact then the cause cannot be identified since God can never be detected as the cause.

So the more we see effects by known causes the less likely God becomes. That's science.

God can never be detected as a cause of anything.

Just as if no gods exist. So no one should assume any gods exist given the lack of evidence. Everyone should be an atheist, according to your proclamations.

That is why even if God that was causally connected to nature it could be detected that God was the cause.

So since we know the causes of many, many things God becomes irrelevant.

No, that is logic 101, for anyone who knows anything about the real God.

Which isn't you. No one can know anything about a real God according to you and your 101 logic. So atheism is your only rational default, not any religious belief.

Only your imaginary god could ever be detected by humans.

How can imaginary anythings cause effects? More 101 logic?

 

[CG Didymus]

The religionists pretend to have the answer.

I think that lots of those Christians that do take the Bible literally are honestly trying to believe. And when one of them has some doubts, they are told that Satan is trying to deceive them. For those Christians Jesus, the Bible and the NT are the answer. And we all know, they are absolutely convinced that is the truth.

Or... they are pretending to be convinced, and that they have no doubts. And when they are at Church, they are pretending all is well, and they are good Christians.