If the Creation myth is wrong then what is left to believe in?

PDN

Panrich wrote: »

Thank you. It's not very intuitive to me. I thought original sin was something that we were all born with due to the failings of Eve in the garden of eden and therefore formed part of why Jesus died on the cross. Was original sin excluded from the atonement?

Original sin is a tendency we are born with to commit sin. The atonement was to pay the penalty for the sins we have committed.

Now I can see where you are coming from with the removal of the central players from the story that created them but it weakens any subsequent calls to them in my opinion. Take Adam and Eve out of creation and you are left with a very dubious tale regarding original sin that doesn't really hold water on it's own merits.

Adam and Eve have not been removed, no more than Hitler was removed from history by our using a metaphor concerning him.

twinQuins

PDN wrote: »

Adam and Eve have not been removed, no more than Hitler was removed from history by our using a metaphor concerning him.

The difference being the mountains of evidence and eye-witness accounts (some from people still alive) of Hitler's existence.

Just because it's allegorical doesn't automatically mean it exists. How could it?
The point isn't that because Adam and Eve are used allegorically they don't exist, it's that they only exist within the confines of the allegory.

If you accept the precepts of evolution (or even basic biology) you can't then say that Adam and Eve actually existed as the first humans. The two are contradictory.

Zombrex

twinQuins wrote: »

The difference being the mountains of evidence and eye-witness accounts (some from people still alive) of Hitler's existence.

Just because it's allegorical doesn't automatically mean it exists. How could it?
The point isn't that because Adam and Eve are used allegorically they don't exist, it's that they only exist within the confines of the allegory.

If you accept the precepts of evolution (or even basic biology) you can't then say that Adam and Eve actually existed as the first humans. The two are contradictory.

That wasn't PDN's point.

If "first humans" is a metaphor then evolution doesn't contradict this. Just like saying aerodynamics doesn't contradict saying Hitler descended on France because Hitler didn't actually descend through the air into France.

A common Christian interpretation is that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls, or the first humans who were in communication with God.

twinQuins

My apologies, so.

Bacon and Cabbage

Stop saying "teh"

the culture of deference

PDN wrote: »

Original sin is a tendency we are born with to commit sin. The atonement was to pay the penalty for the sins we have committed.


Adam and Eve have not been removed, no more than Hitler was removed from history by our using a metaphor concerning him.

Is that because we are primates?

Did we have souls 65 million years ago?

Catholicism supports evolution, is it conceivable to people of faith that God created bacteria, and filled the universe with this material and then had no further part in its development.

Evolution contradicts that he made the world in 7 days, so if we cannot take the 1st book lierally why should we believe any others?

AhSureTisGrand

Bacon and Cabbage wrote: »

Stop saying "teh"

I was tempted to say this but I was afraid I'd be breaking some rules somewhere

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

I get the sense you regard this as a weakness of science but it is of course a strength. What scientists recognize in their 'redefinition' of these words is that you are always on slippery ground when you start proclaiming 'fact' and 'truth' because further information has a nasty way of coming to light and making fools of us all.

There are perfectly good English words for such things without redefining already defined words.

So scientists are happier leaving the door open to further discoveries,

Well, if someone makes a proclamation that something is a fact, then it should be what it is, a FACT. If its not a fact, use an appropriate term instead.

unlike many religious people, who casually bandy around terms like 'truth' on the basis of nothing more than their personal conviction.

Truth is what it is, and when a Christian uses it, he's not talking about half truthes etc, he's saying it as you said with conviction. This is not so when it comes to people using 'fact' when they don't actually believe it IS a fact. Instead, they redefine fact. As I mentioned, using its power as a certainty, but not actually meaning that.

Who is really abusing the language?

The people who use words that have a defined meaning for efect, but when questioned, redefine the word rather than backing down and using the appropriate term.

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

That's a little arrogant.

I think the word you are looking for is CORRECT Jimmy Carr

Is a person not entitled to criticise the flaws in say, a car, if they haven't designed and built one from scratch themselves?
Humans are at the end of it all just a biological machine with components and processes. If they were indeed designed and created, why can flaws in that design not be pointed out and criticised?

Says the creature. Man is limited in knowledge, and what he see's as flaws, could well be due to his arrogance, ignorance and ineptitude of his understanding.

There's a difference between being qualified to make criticism (i.e. having adequate knowledge) and having the experience to make criticisms (i.e. having created the thing yourself).

And when someone is in receipt of the relevant knowledge to truly call certain things flaws in the human design, it can be taken seriously.

PDN

the culture of deference wrote: »

Evolution contradicts that he made the world in 7 days, so if we cannot take the 1st book lierally why should we believe any others?

Well you shouldn't 'believe' the others if you think that believing something means taking everything literally.

Unless of course you think that the trees of the fields literally grow arms and clap their hands, or that Jesus is a literal vine with grapes growing out of His ears, or that the nations of Judah and Samaria are literal women who had sex with men with donkey-proportioned penises.

We are supposed to take literally what was intended to be taken literally, and take as figues of speech or as poetry those passages that were meant to be taken as such.

PDN

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I was tempted to say this but I was afraid I'd be breaking some rules somewhere

You were right to be so afraid. We don't welcome grammar and spelling police.

himnextdoor

Snip.

Less trolling, please.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if someone makes a proclamation that something is a fact, then it should be what it is, a FACT. If its not a fact, use an appropriate term instead.

But we can't win can we? If we say something is a theory then you denigrate it by saying it's 'only' a theory. You can, of course, never prove a scientific theory because by definition you can never know what you don't know (something you religious types might usefully reflect on). Proof is for mathematicians and fools.

The point is that evolution is as close to being a fact as is scientifically demonstrable. But you still won't accept it, despite not being able to come up with any meaningful contradicting evidence.

It should be easy to falsify evolution - you just need to find a genome that is too complex for its place in the archaeological record. If you're right, there ought to be millions of examples, but amazingly no one has ever been able to come up with one. So instead we have to listen to the spurious ravings of AIG.

If you really believe what you say, I should go and stick a tenner on somebody coming up with a DNA-based falsification of evolution in the next ten years. You could get very rich indeed, and ensure your place in eternity by giving all that lovely money away to the poor and needy.

philologos

the culture of deference wrote: »

Evolution contradicts that he made the world in 7 days, so if we cannot take the 1st book lierally why should we believe any others?

On that note should I just take all four Gospels as a beginners guide to Middle Eastern agriculture? Just wondering

himnextdoor

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

If you read what I said you'll find I wasn't trolling. In fact, I was supporting the original text of the Bible by suggesting that we may be reading it incorrectly.

The Bible is not the arbiter of whether or not there is a God, it is a collection of stories said to have been inspired by God and as such there were a few 'ghost-stories' admitted.

This is a matter of common sense, not faith.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

If you read what I said you'll find I wasn't trolling. In fact, I was supporting the original text of the Bible by suggesting that we may be reading it incorrectly.

Thank goodness you're (PDN) not allowed to burn heretics anymore.

The Bible is not the arbiter of whether or not there is a God, it is a collection of stories said to have been inspired by God and as such there were a few 'ghost-stories' admitted.

This is a matter of common sense, not faith.

I really think you would be better off adapting your attitude or posting elsewhere.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Says the creature. Man is limited in knowledge, and what he see's as flaws, could well be due to his arrogance, ignorance and ineptitude of his understanding.

But not when man sees goodness, holiness, perfection, flawlessness, righteousness, justice, the miraculous?

Do you call it arrogance, ignorance or ineptitude when man looks around him and concludes that not only was all this made by some creator but that he has some how figured out the creator is the one described in his religion.

Or only when he looks around and says No actually that doesn't make sense

the culture of deference

PDN wrote: »

Well you shouldn't 'believe' the others if you think that believing something means taking everything literally.


We are supposed to take literally what was intended to be taken literally, and take as figues of speech or as poetry those passages that were meant to be taken as such.

How do you tell what is real then.

Are you telling me that your belief in God is just down to how you interpret certain things you think he meant.

Fanny Cradock

All of us use interpretation in our lives. It isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

I guess one must be willing to work off the axiom that there is a thing called Truth (an ultimate truth) and that by studying the Bible we can determine what that Truth is. In other words, we work of the assumption that the various authors had an intended meaning behind their words (Truth in other words) and that through study, which is under-girded by exegetical and hermetical techniques, prayer and discussion, we can begin to get to the heart of these Truths.

plaasjapie

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm just coming to the end of Dawkins (brilliant) book on evolution. It's a very easy to read and diverting book and it a great primer in the facts of evolution.

Which one? Great reads, but probably better discussed elsewhere. This is the Christian section after all. (EDIT: Just to point out, I know that Chatholics believe in Evolution, and so does the Pope. Please dont PM me regarding this again.)

I used to be a Christian. A firm believer if ever there was one. Then I read "Misquoting Jesus" a book on the history of the bible. After that, I couldnt see any reason to believe a word of what was written in the bible. I still believed in god, and would sit on the bus, thinking about how god was going to strike me down for doubting.

Then I read Dawkin's "The God Delusion", and I stopped believing. I have never been happier.

Where is the wonder in the world now? I find it in Science. I go to the MIT website, and watch a couple of lectures on Chemistry, Biology, or whatever interests me, read Freakonomics, or "the name of the wind". The world is full of wonder, and nobody needs to believe in god.

People often claim that I "believe" that there is no god. I answer that I dont believe in god the same way they dont "believe" in Thor. We are all atheists after all, it's just the gods we dont believe in that vary.

And to conclude, I try not to be too adversarial when I talk to believers regarding my non belief. As an athiest, I dont need to be a missionary. I let others believe what they like as long as it doesnt affect me adversely. in the words of Penn & Teller: Everybody's got a juju...

Fanny Cradock

Misquoting Jesus and The God Delusion ended your faith just like that

I assume you engaged with the various rebuttals and critiques of each work? Or where you convinced after turning the last page?

PDN

the culture of deference wrote: »

How do you tell what is real then.

Are you telling me that your belief in God is just down to how you interpret certain things you think he meant.

No, my belief in God is down to a relationship i have with Him.

How do you tell when anyone is using a figure of speech? You use your brains.

"The Government has been asked to intervene because mortgage payers are being crucified by the banks."

Now, are you just going to throw your hands in the air and say, "I don't know whether that's literal or not"? Or are you going to use your common sense and assume that the Bank of ireland aren't literally nailing people to crosses on College green?

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Misquoting Jesus and The God Delusion ended your faith just like that

I assume you engaged with the various rebuttals and critiques of each work? Or where you convinced after turning the last page?

A "firm believer if ever there was one" :pac:

plaasjapie

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Misquoting Jesus and The God Delusion ended your faith just like that

I assume you engaged with the various rebuttals and critiques of each work? Or where you convinced after turning the last page?

Have you read them? I can recommend them highly.

Fanny Cradock

You didn't answer my question.

plaasjapie

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You didn't answer my question.

I know.

I dont want to get into this discussion unless you've actually read them.

I dont see the point otherwise.

PDN

plaasjapie wrote: »

I know.

I dont want to get into this discussion unless you've actually read them.

I dont see the point otherwise.

I've read them.

Ehrman's work was rather disappointing. He was a protegee of Bruce Metzger, and is pretty well qualified, so I would have expected fewer errors in his book. Dawkins' book was pretty much what I would have expected from a biologist expressing his opinions on philosophy and theology.

antiskeptic

plaasjapie wrote: »

Have you read them? I can recommend them highly.

Have you read Terry Eagletons dismantling of The God Delusion. I can recommend it highly. I particularily like where he describes Dawkins as 'theologically illiterate'. True - but something his fans don't quite seem to appreciate.

Personally I only managed to get 5 or so chapters into TGD before laying it aside in frustration. Eagleton makes the point that Dawkins fails to tackle his opponants on their strongest tuft - choosing instead to dismantle strawmen.

That said, I did like the bit somewhere in the middle (surfing through it as I was) where Dawkins cites scientific findings which concludes man the world over as sharing a common morality. Evidence for the Christian faith indeed

zoomtard

plaasjapie wrote: »

I know.

I dont want to get into this discussion unless you've actually read them.

I dont see the point otherwise.

I've read them both too and plenty of other works by Ehrman and all of Dawkins' books. So please do share your reading of less ideologically slanted New Testament scholarship (or even a little more of the same ideological bent!) and the many response to Dawkins by brilliant theologians like Bentley Hart, McGrath and Robinson...

himnextdoor

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But all of those assume a "fuse lighter" whereas there seems to be any number of solid scientific theories that better explain the process, backed up by experiments and biological discoveries.

I suppose I'm struggling to see the distinction between denying evolution and denying abiogenisis. If you are persuaded by the science of one then why not the science of teh other? And if you are then where is god?

The thing is though, you can't rule out the possibility that a theory will be developed in the future that can reconcile both views.

If I'm allowed to make a metaphor: suppose the whole universe could be likened to a field that has been covered with concrete paving slabs and that in the beginning, God was stood at the centre with a great bag of seed that He would like to grow into His favorite fruit. And dancing with joy at the centre He cast great handfuls of seed so that it would evenly cover the ground.

Only the seed that falls between the stones can grow and the vast majority dry to dust which over time is blown into the space between the stones to be consumed by the living. And so all the seed ends up in between the stones; the living, the dead are all vital to produce the fruit that is desired by God.

It doesn't end there though. The seed that grows becomes a small plant but cannot bear the fruit. They must go to seed and cast their seed about themselves and again, some seed falls into the cracks but most of it doesn't. And the plants themselves return to dust. Because of their proximity to their parent, some of the next generation will grow stronger and bigger than their siblings but still not strong enough and again they go to seed in a cycle that is repeated over and over. As the plants become bigger and stronger, they also become fewer and fewer and when there is but one tree in the garden, it is then that God will collect the fruit He desires for that is when the fruit will be right and ready. It cannot be before. And at the end of days God will enjoy that for which He has so patiently waited. The fruit is the goodness and its harvest is salvation. Oh! To be picked by God but what of the rest of creation that is not the fruit? It takes the whole of creation to make the fruit; the seed, the ground, the wind and God but it is the fruit that is good and it is for the fruit that the rest exists.

It is then that we know that God is the one tree. Stood at the centre casting out His seed.

There! Everyone's happy.:)

I think there are many cycles to go yet.