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

[Aupmanyav]

or so they believe.... Atheists know better, right?

I know only a few things. Muhammad is one of your manifestations of Allah and you are knowledgeable in matters of Torah, Bible and Quran. You tell Jews, Christians and Muslims as to where they are wrong in understanding of their own religious books. That is why I asked you. Your knowledge will certainly better than mine. If you claim something, then you should give reference. What does Quran mention about it?

 

[ppp]

There is no "fall of man" in the Garden of Eden story ─ as you'd know if you'd ever bothered to read it.

Interesting. Go on...

It contains no mention of sin, of a Fall, of death entering the world, of spiritual death, nothing of the kind.

I think you are being a bit disingenous there. The concept exists, even if the word is not used. Sin, in Christianity, is an offense against God. While the word sin is not used, there is certainly an offense against God. As for death - there is the whole thing about returning to the dust from which you came, and a big ol Proginoskes barring the way to the tree of life. So again...concept. I agree that the "spiritual death" thing is completely ad hoc BS.

I am not arguing for the legitimacy of the doctrine. I am asking how progressive Christians reconcile a non literal fall with a need for redeption thru Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

Interesting. Go on...

I think you are being a bit disingenous there. The concept exists, even if the word is not used. Sin, in Christianity, is an offense against God. While the word sin is not used, there is certainly an offense against God. As for death - there is the whole thing about returning to the dust from which you came, and a big ol Proginoskes barring the way to the tree of life. So again...concept. I agree that the "spiritual death" thing is completely ad hoc BS.

I am not arguing for the legitimacy of the doctrine. I am asking how progressive Christians reconcile a non literal fall with a need for redeption thru Jesus.

I didn't bring up the subject of the Fall. I simply pointed out that it was scripturally without any merit whatsoever.

 

[metis]

Of course, God and His word is moral. He’s the Creator and One who defines morality. The Bible is a historical narrative on human sinfulness, immorality, lawlessness or right actions and moral behaviors when in obedience to God.

So, did or didn't God care about morality prior to 2000 years ago?

 

[metis]

Like you, I studied my way out of my belief in God, which eventually led me to renounce my belief.

What about "Spinoza's God" as called by Einstein?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't bring up the subject of the Fall. I simply pointed out that it was scripturally without any merit whatsoever.

I thought Adam went out on a limb to get another apple, and ...

... never mind. True Christian™ hermeneutics is clearly not my bailiwick.

 

[ppp]

I didn't bring up the subject of the Fall. I simply pointed out that it was scripturally without any merit whatsoever.

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

 

[Truthseeker]

Muslim resurrection takes place in heaven and not on earth. Otherwise how would they enjoy their palatial mansions in heaven, the wonderful drinks that will be offered in heaven and the companionship of 72 houris (the maximum reserved the martyrs, others will not get as many). Tell me if that is wrong.

Here's the literal translation of houri: In classical Arabic usage, the word ḥūr (Arabic: حُور) is the plural of both ʾaḥwar (Arabic: أحْوَر) (masculine) and ḥawrāʾ (Arabic: حَوْراء) (feminine)[4] which can be translated as "having eyes with an intense contrast of white and black". In the Qur'an, the number of 72 is never mentioned. It seems to mentioned in hadiths from Muhammad. Baha'is don't understand houris to be women. Regardless of how you or I would see this, Muslims tend to see this resurrection as physical. It's rare for them not to. I couldn't find an estimate online on what percentage believe that it is physical today. Everything I see takes it for granted it is literal.

 

[pearl]

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?

Chalk it up to free will and human nature. As for Jesus do you believe he to have been God's first thought or an afterthought.
According to a rabbi friend to accept the literal only is to 'see only her outer garment', speaking of the Torah.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know only a few things. Muhammad is one of your manifestations of Allah and you are knowledgeable in matters of Torah, Bible and Quran. You tell Jews, Christians and Muslims as to where they are wrong in understanding of their own religious books. That is why I asked you. Your knowledge will certainly better than mine. If you claim something, then you should give reference. What does Quran mention about it?

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

 

[F1fan]

If I did not believe in the reality of the resurrection, I would not be a Christian, but another you.

What is the other you? Any person who doesn’t believe in Christian concepts? That’s the majority of humanity who aren’t Christian.

Ans you do realize that belief in some implausible ideas don’t make them real, yes? If it was that easy just believe you are rich and all of a sudden… no, you’re still broke.

 

[ppp]

Chalk it up to free will and human nature.

What is the "it" in that sentence? Chalk what up to free will and human nature?

As for Jesus do you believe he to have been God's first thought or an afterthought.

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.

According to a rabbi friend to accept the literal only is to 'see only her outer garment', speaking of the Torah.

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.

 

[InChrist]

I am saying that your "which shows" is the bald assertion. You have done nothing at all to demonstrate that complexity requires an an intelligent agent. Not. One. Thing.

You have not articulated any logical through line from your initial statement to the conclusion. You have offered nothing but the bald assertion that X shows Y.

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.

 

[Ella S.]

I am banning this forum out of my time during one month.
Get over it.
Bye

Definitely take a break for awhile. It's healthy to take frequent social media breaks. I've taken some breaks from RF, too.

If/when you return, try not to take the disagreements here so personally. At the end of the day, we're all mere arrangements of atoms, and we'll all be gone when those atoms are reconfigured in a century from now. A century is a blip in the history of the cosmos.

People's opinions and worldviews don't matter. They're meaningless. People behave only in the way their genetic predispositions were conditioned by their environment. You can't force people to change. You might as well try to argue rain away.

That doesn't mean their perspectives are right. It doesn't mean your perspective or my perspective is right, either. It just means that the verbal abuse, condescension, insults, and personal attacks you receive don't really mean anything. They tell you the opinion of the specific person talking to you, not what's true.

You just need to build up some of your discernment. Stop trying to bluster your way through arguments and, instead, think them through. Don't stoop to others' levels unless you've taken a step back to calculate the consequences of doing so and weigh them against other actions you could take, which are normally going to me more productive in the long-term. Find your argumentation style and build off of it.

It's understandable to become frustrated, but you can rise above that frustration and start using the sandpaper of this site's abrasive discourse to polish your rhetorical tools. It's a good opportunity to learn and I hope you return to take it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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 story is what they made up with the information they had at the time. It's not literal. Jesus was a great teacher and wayshower, no matter what happened in Eden.

 

[Colt]

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?

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Eden story is a metaphor for loss of innocence, engendered by knowledge of good and evil.

I disagree. I consider it very likely that the story originated as an explanation for why the Chosen People's lives were so hard if a tri-omni God ruled the world. Shouldn't good and loving god that knows and can do all have created a paradise for them? The garden myth was likely written to explain this. Why would a good God do that to them? They must have deserved it. Let that be a lesson to obey the Hebrew priests when they tell you what God wants you to do.

Many of the myths can be understood this way - the ones that have God punishing man for some behavior. The Tower myth is easy to explain why people speak mutually unintelligible languages. Can't you just hear the ancient Hebrews wondering why God allowed that? Man reached too high and needed punishment. Sodom and Gomorrah were likely destroyed by a meteor, and obviously that was a punishment from God for something. The flood myth likely originates with the discovery of marine fossils on the highest mountain tops. Imagine the ancients scratching their heads trying to figure out how they got there. Only one answer was possible: the mountains were submerged - all of them - and only God could do that, so why? Man must have needed more punishment.

Why do you suppose the Hebrews added a timeline to their creation story? It depicts the deity as needing most of a week to create and then a rest. Odin and Tiamat didn't need a week or a vacation after creating their worlds. Why do that?

I'm guessing that that was added later, after the nomadic Hebrews became civilized. Who benefits from the advent of the work week with a weekend free from labor? Suggested answer: the priesthood and the collection plate, a consequence of settling in large communities with a central synagogue that people need to travel to rather than wandering as nomads, to pay rather than just feed, and to build and maintain the synagogue, none of which would be relevant to nomadic peoples.

As for metaphor (and allegory), these are literary forms with criteria just like a haiku or a limerick. Metaphor and allegory involve substitution of a symbol for something known. When he calls her the apple of his eye, the apple is her and he knows that. Likewise with allegory. It is fiction with a substitution of invented characters and events for known historical characters and events. Gulliver's Travels is a political allegory in which fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent historical figures like Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era, symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap. We know what these things stand for as did their author, and they are specific, not place-holders for what is not known. That's not what these myths are. They are erroneous attempts to explain the reality the mythologists found around them.

I think that the reason that such language is eschewed by believers (and even many unbelievers who esteem myths) is because the word allegory implies that the authors had knowledge of the actual historical event as Swift did when he wrote Gulliver's Travels, and really don't want to use language like wrong guesses, but that's what these myths are - wrong guesses taught literally explaining observed reality. Many are reluctant to use the word error with scripture.

 

[ppp]

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.

Hanging "from my perspective" onto the end adds nothing of value. The question is not whether it is true from your perspective, but is it true in reality.

This is a valid argument because it supports the positive claim that a Creator exists with empirical evidence.

The intricacy and complexity of a single living cell which shows it could not have arisen from non-living matter by chance, but points to an intelligent Creator.

It is not a valid or invalid argument. It is not a formal or informal argument. It is not a sound or unsound argument. It is not a deductive argument. It is not an argument at all. It is just a bald assertion.

Let's break down why:

1. Lack of Premises: In a valid argument, there should be clear premises that logically lead to a conclusion. This statement only includes a conclusion (the existence of an intelligent Creator), without offering explicit premises that justify it.
2. Unsubstantiated Assumption: The assertion relies on an unstated assumption that complexity cannot arise without an intelligent designer. This is a substantial claim that requires evidence or argumentation to support it, but none is provided. There are already well-established scientific theories that explain how complexity can arise through natural processes.
3. False Dichotomy: The statement implies that either life arose by chance or it was designed by an intelligent Creator. This is a false dichotomy, as it overlooks other possible explanations, such as evolution by natural selection, which is neither purely chance-based nor design-driven.
4. Begging the Question: The assertion "it could not have arisen from non-living matter by chance" begs the question because it presumes without providing any proof that an intelligent Creator is the only possible explanation for the complexity of a living cell.
5. Argument from Ignorance: This is when one argues that a claim must be true simply because it has not been proven false. Saying that a cell's complexity must be due to an intelligent designer because we don't fully understand abiogenesis (the process of life arising from non-living matter) would fall into this logical fallacy.

I am sure there are more issues, but those are the ones that jump out at me.


Philosophers and apologists (not ncessarily the same thing) have done a lot of work on the Argument from Design over the centuries. You should read what they have had to say. This is an actual argument. A far cry from what you presented.

Premise 1: The universe, including living organisms, exhibits a great deal of complexity, order, and purposeful design. From the intricate workings of a single cell to the precise laws of physics that allow galaxies to form, we see elements of design everywhere.​

​

Premise 2: Complex, ordered, and purposeful design we observe in other contexts (like a watch, a car, or a computer) always implies the existence of an intelligent designer.​

​

Premise 3: Naturalistic explanations (such as evolution by natural selection or the physical laws of the universe) may explain some, but not all, of the complexity and order we observe. For instance, they don't explain why the universe's physical laws are precisely what they need to be to allow for the existence of life (the Fine-Tuning Argument), nor do they provide a fully satisfactory account of how life originated from non-life.​

​

Conclusion: Therefore, by analogy, it is reasonable to conclude that the complex, ordered, and purposeful design observed in the universe implies the existence of an intelligent designer.​

Some Criticisms of that argument:
False Analogy: Critics argue that the comparison between human artifacts (like a watch) and natural phenomena (like a cell or a universe) may not be valid.

Begging the Question: The argument assumes, without justification, that complexity and order can't arise naturally but instead require a designer. This is the thing you are trying to prove.

Argument from Ignorance: It arrogantly presumes that because we do not know the cause of X that the cause must be an intelligent designer.

Infinite Regress: If complexity implies an intelligent designer then that designer would necessarily be more complex than the thing it designed. This inevitably leads to Special Pleading

I would also point out that complexity is not evidence of design. Simplicity is.

 

[ppp]

The story is what they made up with the information they had at the time. It's not literal. Jesus was a great teacher and wayshower, no matter what happened in Eden.

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?

 

[Orbit]

I disagree. I consider it very likely that the story originated as an explanation for why the Chosen People's lives were so hard if a tri-omni God ruled the world. Shouldn't good and loving god that knows and can do all have created a paradise for them? The garden myth was likely written to explain this. Why would a good God do that to them? They must have deserved it. Let that be a lesson to obey the Hebrew priests when they tell you what God wants you to do.

Many of the myths can be understood this way - the ones that have God punishing man for some behavior. The Tower myth is easy to explain why people speak mutually unintelligible languages. Can't you just hear the ancient Hebrews wondering why God allowed that? Man reached too high and needed punishment. Sodom and Gomorrah were likely destroyed by a meteor, and obviously that was a punishment from God for something. The flood myth likely originates with the discovery of marine fossils on the highest mountain tops. Imagine the ancients scratching their heads trying to figure out how they got there. Only one answer was possible: the mountains were submerged - all of them - and only God could do that, so why? Man must have needed more punishment.

Why do you suppose the Hebrews added a timeline to their creation story? It depicts the deity as needing most of a week to create and then a rest. Odin and Tiamat didn't need a week or a vacation after creating their worlds. Why do that?

I'm guessing that that was added later, after the nomadic Hebrews became civilized. Who benefits from the advent of the work week with a weekend free from labor? Suggested answer: the priesthood and the collection plate, a consequence of settling in large communities with a central synagogue that people need to travel to rather than wandering as nomads, to pay rather than just feed, and to build and maintain the synagogue, none of which would be relevant to nomadic peoples.

As for metaphor (and allegory), these are literary forms with criteria just like a haiku or a limerick. Metaphor and allegory involve substitution of a symbol for something known. When he calls her the apple of his eye, the apple is her and he knows that. Likewise with allegory. It is fiction with a substitution of invented characters and events for known historical characters and events. Gulliver's Travels is a political allegory in which fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent historical figures like Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era, symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap. We know what these things stand for as did their author, and they are specific, not place-holders for what is not known. That's not what these myths are. They are erroneous attempts to explain the reality the mythologists found around them.

I think that the reason that such language is eschewed by believers (and even many unbelievers who esteem myths) is because the word allegory implies that the authors had knowledge of the actual historical event as Swift did when he wrote Gulliver's Travels, and really don't want to use language like wrong guesses, but that's what these myths are - wrong guesses taught literally explaining observed reality. Many are reluctant to use the word error with scripture.

This is just an aside, really, but I always took the Eden myth to be a cultural story explaining the transition from hunter-gatherer (garden life) to pastoral (Cain) and agricultural (Abel) society. Not that I'd particularly defend that as the only interpretation, but I always found that view interesting. I arrived at that view independently--I don't think I've seen others mention it. It occurred to me probably as a result of one of my degrees being in Anthropology, so that was my interpretive lens.