In the "National Geographic and evolution" thread, CalJust wrote:
Maybe we should start a new thread, but I can give you my argument in a nutshell: It all centres on the deity of Christ. If you accept that Christ was who He said he was (rather than a charlatan, or a madman or even a do-gooder) - and accepting this is my definition of being a Christian! - then it follows that what He said was the Truth. If you can catch Him in a lie, He basically disqualifies Himself, doesn't He?
But Christ spoke openly of Adam and Eve as real people, as well as, of course, Noah. Paul (your namesake, the Apostle) based his teaching of Redemption in Romans on the real Adam and Eve. (Christ = the second Adam: the former lost it, the latter regained it).
The analogy between Jesus and Adam, and its lessons, are drawn throughout the Bible. Make Adam mythological, and you can make Jesus a kind storyteller, but never the Messiah. Take your pick.
This I disagree with. Mind you, we are all aware that *I* am not currently a believer, but I am not going to use any assumptions here that are not those of "serious and active" Christians. I will phrase my points in my own words, but the point I intend to address is not an "atheist vs. Christian" point, it is a question that is clearly an open question within Christianity. This is an open forum, so I am not in a position to make demands on what other people post, but I would appreciate it if we could forego the insults and concentrate on the point at hand.
The point is nothing less than the rather active debate (within Christianity) of how literally the Bible must be taken. I am aware that there are some people for whom it is unthinkable to admit even the slightest hint that there is any doubt about exactly how the Bible is to be read. I am prepared to argue that this is an untenable position. I'll sketch my version of the "argument in a nutshell" and we can go on from there.
The argument runs as follows:
1) The naïve literalist/inerrantist position wherein the Bible contains absolutely no errors or other problematical points cannot be maintained.
2) We must examine any problematical passage in its wider context to determine whether it should be read literally, metaphorically, or even as a scribal error.
3) By hypothesis, God created the world and universe. This creation did not require human intermediaries, as did the transcription, copying or translation of the Bible. That is, the universe is God's own work, direct from His hand and therefore should be admitted into evidence for interpretation of the Bible.
4) We have to take the physical evidence seriously for at least the following reason: Assuming God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc, He would certainly have known how the evidence would look to scientists of the current period. If God knew the effect of the evidence and had the capability to make the evidence otherwise (both of which we must assume by the standard Christian dogma) then He would effectively have been lying to us if He made the evidence misleading. If we were to admit the possiblity that God lies to us, then all of Christianity goes awry, not just the current, rather restricted notion. We have agreed to maintain all the essentials of Christianity for this discussion, so the possibility of a lying God is one we must avoid.
5) The physical evidence from the physical world indicates (and this part certainly requires argument) that God used natural, physical processes for a significant part of the creation.
6) Therefore, we conclude that the "Adam and Eve" story cannot be historical and must be interpreted metaphorically instead.
In fact, even the most literal of literalists will agree that the Bible is full of metaphor and parable. The disagreement, when you get down to brass tacks, is not whether there exist metaphorical passages or even whole stories, but which passages or stories are properly to be taken metaphorically.
The question of whether the "Adam and Eve" story is properly interpreted as parable or history is a serious question. I maintain that the simple fact that Jesus is reported as referring to "Adam and Eve" is not sufficient, by itself, to establish that his reference was historical rather than metaphorical. Similarly, Paul is no more forbidden to make metaphorical reference than Jesus was. The question must be answered on two fronts: a) is there any Biblical evidence that the reference could not have been metaphorical, and b) is there any physical evidence (remembering points 3 and 4 above) that the reference could not have been historical?
The physical evidence that would fill in point 5 above is, of course, required for my argument to go through, but all of the other points are rather sketchy at this stage too. I would be happy to discuss any or all of them, but thought it would be appropriate to start with the outline of my argument and we can determine from that where we are in agreement and where we most need to flesh out the details.
Best Regards,
Paul
We get into all kinds of arguments about creationism vs. evolution in these forums. The metaphorical aspects of the Bible, to me, are some of the most important and even beautiful parts of it. It doesn't take away from "truth" to say that something is metaphorical. The story of Adam and Eve, whether literal or not, is the story of every person's attempt to find their place in the universe and in relationships. It is not necessary to be a Christian to believe this.
I would add one thing to your post. I notice that many on the site get all caught up in rational/logical belief when it comes to religion. Many on the site have been scarred by religion. One aspect of faith that I rarely hear discussed on the site is that of personal experience. Let me give an example. Today I heard a really fascinating interview with James Hetfield of Metallica. Now your average person listening to Metallica would not find this "spiritual or religious" music. However, when I heard this man's story, it had a bigger meaning to me. I think this is the role of personal experience- that is, we find the bigger meaning.
I am currently working on a book by Elaine Pagels entitled "Beyond Belief" about the gnostic gospels. Very interesting stuff. Is not the role of faith to move us "beyond belief" ?
Originally posted by kirksey957Exactly!
The metaphorical aspects of the Bible, to me, are some of the most important and even beautiful parts of it. It doesn't take away from "truth" to say that something is metaphorical. The story of Adam and Eve, whether literal or not, is the story of every person's attempt to find their place in the universe and in relationships.
I would add one thing to your post. I notice that many on the site get all caught up in rational/logical belief when it comes to religion.
That's true, but partly it's true because this is a debate forum and "rational/logical" is about the only way to debate. So that ought to be not only how we talk about religion here, but about everything. (Of course, 'ought' doesn't always mean 'is'. 😉 ) But it's certainly true that religion is not about rationality or logicality. Religion is about addressing other of our needs.
Personal experience is valid, but my personal experience is often of little use to you and vice-versa. One's personal experience is generally of little use in convincing someone else.
I am currently working on a book by Elaine Pagels entitled "Beyond Belief" about the gnostic gospels. Very interesting stuff. Is not the role of faith to move us "beyond belief" ?
The Pagels book will certainly be controversial, at least. 😀 Interesting, though. I haven't read it, but i have heard some interviews with her.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by prnPaul, your experience can be invaluable to me if I listen with the right attitude. If I listen in a defensive way (Oh, here he goes again trying to convert/convince me of.....) then I will likely not appreciate the full depth of who you are or how the "sacred" might enter into our lives.
Exactly!
[b]I would add one thing to your post. I notice that many on the site get all caught up in rational/logical belief when it comes to religion.
That's true, but partly it's true because this is a debate forum and "rational/logical" is about the only way to debate. So that ought to be not only how we talk about religion here, but about ever ...[text shortened]... though. I haven't read it, but i have heard some interviews with her.
Best Regards,
Paul
[/b]
Originally posted by silver fernthe point i was attempting to make, quite subtly i felt was that you have a tendancy to make statements and comments that offer nothing to the debates going on.
whats so hard to debate dickhead? if Adam & Eve had kids how else would mankind have procreated? only via incest ....ah right
if you accept the story of Adam and Eve as fact then yes we are all descended from an incestous relationship at some point in time.
if you believe the bible story to be parable and only to be used as a teaching device then you can dismiss any thought of incest.
i apologise if i caused offence i was simply attempting to ask you to think before posting in order that people might think better of you.
Due to time constraints I have only scanned you initial post so I apologise for any errors I make in this comment.
I also apologise for being a late starter I would like to participate in the debate without having to read through pages of previous postings on other threads.
So correct me if I am wrong but....
The debate appears be whether the bible should be regarded as literal or allegorical/metaphorical. You seem to indicate that the bible has errors, contradictions etc and thus it can not really be taken as truly literal thus it is a matter of determining which parts are literal and which ones metaphorical.
You also focus on the Adam and Eve story and state that this story must be one of the metaphorical aspects of the bible.
Presumably this is linked to the creationist argument? Your position is that as it is metaphorical passage, evolution could still have occurred and it would not be in conflict with the bible?
If creation occurred at all it was not in the way that Genesis outlined i.e. ribs and 7 days etc but effectively God kicked the whole process off and then evolution took over?
So you are effectively building an argument against the story of Adam and Eve as the literal truth?
To save time I will assume this and for fun I will argue against it.
Metaphor in the bible, where it does occur is generally restricted to a few verses or at most a page. It is usually presented as a parable or story within the text and is generally easily identifiable as such by the reader.
The creation story is the best part of a whole book and it is presented as fact in the same way as the rest of the Pentateuch. In order to prove that the whole creation story is a metaphor I feel you would have to present evidence that this occurs elsewhere in the bible at the same level of text coverage (e.g. a whole book).
Interpreting the bible is difficult but to be able to selectively erase whole sections by the tool of metaphor without any rules how it can be applied effectively negates the entire manuscript. It would be possible to state that the gospels are metaphor etc..
On what basis do you think this can be said about the creation story and not about any other book of the bible, or have you other books which you would similarly brand or do you think the whole bible is really suspect?
I hope I have hit the nail on the head if not feel free to redirect me accordingly.
Thanks.
Originally posted by kcamsI saw it as a slightly irritating attempt at humour.
the point i was attempting to make, quite subtly i felt was that you have a tendancy to make statements and comments that offer nothing to the debates going on.
if you accept the story of Adam and Eve as fact then yes we are all descended from an incestous relationship at some point in time.
if you believe the bible story to be parable and only to be use ...[text shortened]... ly attempting to ask you to think before posting in order that people might think better of you.
But notwithstanding so we all decended from an incestous relationship who cares it all worked out ok in the end.... or did it...
In actual fact .... and this is not a debate diversion that I am interested in following up.... there are indications in the bible of others that 'appear' convientently and are not from the coupling of Adam and Eve.
It seems that there were always outsiders whoes origins are not explained in great detail.
Originally posted by Deepfaulthave you met bbarr yet ... i will enjoy this 😲
Due to time constraints I have only scanned you initial post so I apologise for any errors I make in this comment.
I also apologise for being a late starter I would like to participate in the debate without having to read through pages of previous postings on other threads.
So correct me if I am wrong but....
The debate appears be whether the bibl ...[text shortened]... I hope I have hit the nail on the head if not feel free to redirect me accordingly.
Thanks.
Originally posted by silver fernNo I think we can be assured that he did, at least from a biblical viewpoint.
so God didnt get Mary up the duff either? just another parable....
Though I feel the act of sexual intercourse was not the medium of fertilisation, sadly the 'up the duff' phrase probably applies.🙂
Originally posted by DeepfaultPregnancy without intercourse is well within the possibilities for those who use public baths.
No I think we can be assured that he did, at least from a biblical viewpoint.
Though I feel the act of sexual intercourse was not the medium of fertilisation, sadly the 'up the duff' phrase probably applies.🙂
(I'll engage the more serious aspects of this thread when I have the time--sorry I missed it until now.)