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

[ppp]

Christianity adopted pagan concepts of blood sacrifices and atonement. Jesus never taught such a convoluted, backwards concept! Jesus taught of a change of heart for those separated from God, forgiveness by repentance, in turn forgiving others.

The story of creation in Genesis has a lot of issues, the greatest being that the "crafty beast" was already fallen, already evil when he approached Eve. The earth was also already populated and quite old when Adam and Eve appear on the scene. It was Satan that fell from his position who then mislead the world. Sin isn't inherited and death or translation is normal.

I will ask you a version of what I asked @Sand Dancer. If there were no Jesus, and the ideas that he had actually came from some other guy, would it matter?And why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I haven’t. All I’m saying is that the complexity of a single cell points to an intelligent, a Creator from my perspective. This is a valid argument because it supports the positive claim that a Creator exists with empirical evidence. Concerning a living cell, the more one knows, the less likely they appear to be natural in origin. It is not an empty or ignorant argument because it is empirical, falsifiable and it can be proven false. Skeptics need to follow the scientific process to confirm or research the work of synthetic chemists who actually try to replicate abiogenesis within a prebiotic earth environment and show how a living cell can occur naturally. If it cannot be shown that a living cell occurs naturally, this is not proof of a Creator, but it is a reasonable argument for the possibility of a Creator and continues to demonstrate that a living cell does not arise naturally.

Do you not understand that that is an argument from ignorance? It is a logical fallacy. Pointing that flaw in your argument is all that it takes to refute it.

You really need to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences. If you need a link I can provide one, I can also explain to you why this standard is rational and even more important it works.

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Those are testable models that can be tested (possibly refuted) based upon the predictions of those models.

To even have evidence you first need a testable model. What is your model and what reasonable test based upon its predictions could possibly refute it?

 

[robocop (actually)]

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 consider it to be a true description of evolution that works with Christianity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you saying that you have never sinned or know people who are sinless? If not, then the Bible is accurate in pointing out the reality that everyone does sin, therefore credible in that regard.

As others have said, sin is a religious concept that assumes the existence of a god who gives commands. The Bible is inaccurate if such gods don't exist. We may all be guilty of moral failings, but nobody is a sinner in a godless universe.

All I’m saying is that the complexity of a single cell points to an intelligent, a Creator from my perspective. This is a valid argument because it supports the positive claim that a Creator exists with empirical evidence.

No, it's not a valid argument. It's an incredulity fallacy. You just can't see how it's possible, so to you it's not. Also, your evidence doesn't support your conclusion using the academic laws of reason applied to evidence as in law and science. What you call evidence of a god is also evidence for a universe arising de novo or cyclically banging and crunching, and for a multiverse, since it makes all of these possibilities more likely than if there were no universe.

Concerning a living cell, the more one knows, the less likely they appear to be natural in origin. It is not an empty or ignorant argument because it is empirical, falsifiable and it can be proven false

Your argument is also a special pleading fallacy. You're saying that a living cell is too complex to exist undesigned by an intelligent designer. If so, postulating an undesigned god to explain this, which is presumably orders of magnitude more complex than a living cell, doesn't help you. How much complexity is required to contain all of the knowledge of an omniscient god whose knowledge includes how to make these same living cells?

If it cannot be shown that a living cell occurs naturally, this is not proof of a Creator, but it is a reasonable argument for the possibility of a Creator and continues to demonstrate that a living cell does not arise naturally.

Not having solved the problem of naturalistic abiogenesis does not demonstrate that cells didn't arise naturalistically.

 

[InChrist]

Do you not understand that that is an argument from ignorance? It is a logical fallacy. Pointing that flaw in your argument is all that it takes to refute it.

You really need to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences. If you need a link I can provide one, I can also explain to you why this standard is rational and even more important it works.

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Those are testable models that can be tested (possibly refuted) based upon the predictions of those models.

To even have evidence you first need a testable model. What is your model and what reasonable test based upon its predictions could possibly refute it?

So are you saying I have to prove to you the reality of the complexity of a single living cell? I thought that was something already established by scientific evidence.
If that is the case, then the testable model to see if a living cell can arise naturally should be to follow the scientific process to try to replicate abiogenesis within a prebiotic earth environment and show how a living cell can occur naturally.
If that cannot be demonstrated, then I consider it reasonable to conclude there’s a Creator.

 

[Colt]

I will ask you a version of what I asked @Sand Dancer. If there were no Jesus, and the ideas that he had actually came from some other guy, would it matter?And why?

Salvation by faith as taught by Jesus was already available. Jesus made the way more clear.

The original Gospel of the kingdom was the religion OF Jesus. After he was gone a new religion ABOUT Jesus developed.

The creation story of Genesis was the creation of the Israelites who appropriated existing Mesopotamia lore (during the Babylonian captivity) in the construction of their own story of origins. I believe that Adam and Ever were a Son and daughter of God who came to our previously evolved, populated earth from heaven.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Would it be fair to summarize your position as, Jesus had some good ideas, but Jesus' existence does not matter, because the ideas, whomever came up with them, are still good?

Yes, fair.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are you saying I have to prove to you the reality of the complexity of a single living cell? I thought that was something already established by scientific evidence.
If that is the case, then the testable model to see if a living cell can arise naturally should be to follow the scientific process to try to replicate abiogenesis within a prebiotic earth environment and show how a living cell can occur naturally.
If that cannot be demonstrated, then I consider it reasonable to conclude there’s a Creator.

No. Complexity on its own is not evidence of a creator. There are all sorts of complex systems that we no one thinks requires a creator. It appears that you did not understand the definition of evidence.

And no, your test is improper. Just because we cannot do something now is not a valid test. All that means is that we have an unanswered question. It does not refute your model. But then you did not even make a proper model. Think of it this way, if it could be shown that life arose naturally would that refute God? Just in case, you do not know the answer is "No". That means that your test does not prove anything.

Here are some mistakes that you are making. You are first making the mistake of looking at how complex modern life is. Even the simplest of cells has a over three billion year history of evolution. Even "simple life" can get very complex in three billion years. Creationists often make the error of looking at the simples bacteria and think that life could not be any simpler It would be more correct to say that life cannot be any simpler and compete today. Let's assume that abiogenesis is how life appeared. The very first life would simply only need to have the ability to gain new material and reproduce. There would be no need to defend against any predators since there weren't any. There would be no need for an efficient way of gaining energy since there would have been no competition. The absolute worst system would have been good enough. When on relieves the need for the complex systems that are necessary today to compete all of a sudden life arising on its own appears to be much more likely.

 

[ppp]

Salvation by faith as taught by Jesus was already available. Jesus made the way more clear.

The original Gospel of the kingdom was the religion OF Jesus. After he was gone a new religion ABOUT Jesus developed.

The creation story of Genesis was the creation of the Israelites who appropriated existing Mesopotamia lore (during the Babylonian captivity) in the construction of their own story of origins. I believe that Adam and Ever were a Son and daughter of God who came to our previously evolved, populated earth from heaven.

If there were no Jesus, and the ideas that he had actually came from some other guy, would it matter?

 

[ppp]

Yes, fair.

I tend to agree. I think he would have been a bigger net positive had he been a Socrates rather than a messiah figure.

 

[blü 2]

And I just pointed out why your reasoning was flawed. Irrespective of whether or not your conclusion is true.

The title of your thread is, "How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?"

I pointed out that if you indeed take the the garden story literally, you do NOT get the result that Man is a fallen creature, or anything resembling it.

A datum which significantly colors your question, I'd have thought.

 

[CG Didymus]

That just looks like belief. You may have a strong belief, but it does not appear that you "know" Jesus. Knowledge is demonstrable and I have never met a Christian that could show that they "knew" Jesus.

There something real there... or... at least seems real. Trouble is a Catholic, a JW, a Mormon, a Pentecostal, a Baptist etc. probably all think that what they believe is real and believe they "know" the real Jesus. But their beliefs are different enough that they all can't be true. And I've seen a non-gift believing Christian get "slain" in the spirit and start talking in tongues and they completely changed. They thought they "knew" Jesus before that, but now, after getting baptized in the spirit, they really knew Jesus.

Then the next step, whether it's getting saved or getting baptized in the spirit, they now read the NT and Bible in a way that compliments those beliefs.

But I just remembered another problem with the Christians that say they take the Bible literally... And that's Isaiah chapter seven. Verse 14 says all that stuff about a virgin (or young maiden) will give birth to a son, but what about the verses that come after that? The verses that tell us some more information about the boy. Things about him eating curds and by the time he gets old enough to know right from wrong the two enemy Kings of Judah will be dead.

If they want to take Isaiah literally, those verses need to apply to Jesus also. If not, then how is only verse 14 about Jesus and the rest of the verses aren't? But of course, that's not a problem. All a person has to do is ignore those kinds of details.

 

[ppp]

I pointed out that if you indeed take the the garden story literally, you do NOT get the result that Man is a fallen creature, or anything resembling it.

And I pointed out the flaws in your reasoning, which you ignored and simply went on to restate yourself with no further consideration. Not much in this exchange for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There something real there... or... at least seems real. Trouble is a Catholic, a JW, a Mormon, a Pentecostal, a Baptist etc. probably all think that waht they believe is real and believe they "know" the real Jesus. But their beliefs are different enough that they all can't be true. And I've seen a non-gift believing Christian get "slain" in the spirit and start talking in tongues and they completely changed. They thought they "knew" Jesus before that, but now, after getting baptized in the spirit, they really knew Jesus.

Then the next step, whether it getting saved or getting baptized in the spirit, they now read the NT and Bible in a way that compliments those beliefs.

But I just remembered another problem with the Christians that say they take the Bible literally... And that's Isaiah chapter seven. Verse 14 says all that stuff about a virgin (or young maiden) will give birth to a son, but what about the verses that come after that? The verses that tell us some more information about the boy. Things about him eating curds and by the time he gets old enough to know right from wrong the two enemy Kings of Judah will be dead.

If they want to take Isaiah literally, those verses need to apply to Jesus also. If not, then how is only verse 14 about Jesus and the rest of the verses aren't? But of course, that's not a problem. All a person has to do is ignore those kinds of details.

There are some very good lessons to be learned from Christianity, but it seems to me, and I am sure that it is not always the case, that the more sure that a Christian claims that he is that they do not seem to follow those lessons as closely as those that are not so sure.

 

[CG Didymus]

There are Muslims in this country and they believe in a literal resurrection. Perhaps some Jews do too. I seem to recall in a Gospel the Sadducees among the Jews believed in resurrection.

And if the Baha'i Faith is correct and true, then people should not only take the Eden story as not being literal but also the resurrection. The problem I have is that I do believe the gospels teach that the resurrection is true. So, if it's not, then I think the NT and gospels have to be rejected as being false, made-up stories. Which, for some of us, isn't that hard to do considering it has dead people coming back to life and people walking on water and then Jesus floating off into the sky.

 

[Truthseeker]

Since @Truthseeker started this I think he should answer that. I am not very knowledgeable on religions other than the Baha'i Faith.

Look at #168 in this thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Omniscient means All-Knowing, so everything would be known by an omniscient God, but that does not mean it was planned or intended, since what happens in this world is caused by humans. Omniscience means that God's knowledge surrounds the realities of all things, so God knows everything humans have done, are doing, or will do in the future, but God's knowledge does not 'cause' humans to do anything.

 

[ppp]

Omniscience means that God's knowledge surrounds the realities of all things, so God knows everything humans have done, are doing, or will do in the future, but God's knowledge does not 'cause' humans to do anything.

I disagree. But it doesn't matter. Because even if what you said were true, everything would still be both planned and intended.

 

[Trailblazer]

even if what you said were true, everything would still be both planned and intended.

Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Omniscient means All-Knowing, so everything would be known by an omniscient God, but that does not mean it was planned or intended, since what happens in this world is caused by humans. Omniscience means that God's knowledge surrounds the realities of all things, so God knows everything humans have done, are doing, or will do in the future, but God's knowledge does not 'cause' humans to do anything.

Omnipotent combine with omniscience would mean that he would be the root cause of everything.