Originally posted by TacDavey
That's true, but you can't go around saying "maybe they made it up" to the oppositions view. That's not a logical approach.
Meanwhile, you could actually respond to the points Twain raised; gee, what an innovative idea?!
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why can't I? Everything I said was totally true (that the "Explanation" you altered, is not found anywhere in the bible). And your response is to cite unnamed scholars, with no specific quotations, no names named, and no basis in writing. So there is basically no evidence you could have conjured, that would have been less meaningful.Meanwhile, you could actually respond to the points Twain raised; gee, what an innovative idea?!
Why can't you? I offer an explanation for the question you raise and you respond with "Meh, you're just making stuff up." You don't see how that is not a valid refutation?
I gave you two positions that fully account for the apparent contradiction you brought up. Meaning it's only a "contradiction" if it happened in the specific way you mentioned, and I see no reason to think this is the case. While I did not prove that either claim was absolutely true (as I said, I'm still on the fence about it) they are still perfectly valid possibilities, and as long as they are even valid possibilities your "contradiction" holds no weight. In order for it to present any inconsistencies you would have to prove that your interpretation of the passage was the correct one and show that the explanations offered are either untrue, or do not account for the problem. Which you haven't done. You just waved your hand and dismissed it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Why can't you? I offer an explanation for the question you raise and you respond with "Meh, you're just making stuff up." You don't see how that is not a valid refutation?I gave you two positions that fully account for the apparent contradiction you brought up. Meaning it's only a "contradiction" if it happened in the specific way you mentioned, and I see no reason to think this is the case. While I did not prove that either claim was absolutely true (as I said, I'm still on the fence about it) they are still perfectly valid possibilities, and as long as they are even valid possibilities your "contradiction" holds no weight. In order for it to present any inconsistencies you would have to prove that your interpretation of the passage was the correct one and show that the explanations offered are either untrue, or do not account for the problem. Which you haven't done. You just waved your hand and dismissed it.
Literal meaning > apologetics
Originally posted by TacDavey
I've heard it explained that they had to leave the garden not because God was just pissed that they did something wrong, but because once they knew what they did, they simply couldn't stay any more.I've also heard that the garden of Eden is more parable than an absolute dictation of the events exactly as they occurred.
I'm still on the fence about which I believe.
Let me make sure I'm reading you correctly: You're unsure whether the story of Eden was literal fact or metaphor?
Please allay my fears here. I'm happy enough not contesting theists anymore who decide to believe in a God based on their faith. But there's a point at which my face cringes and I can't help but ask "really?!" Usually that point is somewhere around believing implausible Old Testament stories as literal fact. It's like the fundamentalists who have a museum to explain how Noah's Ark worked. It strains any measure of credulity.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI imagine that they did, unless the various animals that were carnivores just... didn't exist, or something. I mean, just an example, Satan didn't create snakes, they were an animal that was already there, along with lions, tigers etc etc. Those animals kill other animals to survive.
Did other things die in Eden?
I always thought that nothing at all died before the fall, and that carnivores didn't eat anything. My reasoning here is, God cursed the serpent to bite man's heal, so evidently it wasn't doing that before.
Evidently, that was the way it was being taught in Twain's time at least. Twain used to be a believer and I think these writings were more or less parodying the ideas he'd heard from preachers.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I follow the interpretation given IN the bible; that they were banished because he didn't want them to become immortal. This isn't some theory I have, this is literally what the book SAYS, and I even gave the quote. Can you explain what that quote is supposed to mean?Literal meaning > apologetics
Jonah and the Whale was presented as literal. But studies of the text have shown that it was actually a parable. It never really happened.
And as I said, God may have not been sending them away as punishment but because it was necessary. He didn't want them becoming immortal.
Originally posted by Digi
Let me make sure I'm reading you correctly: You're unsure whether the story of Eden was literal fact or metaphor?Please allay my fears here. I'm happy enough not contesting theists anymore who decide to believe in a God based on their faith. But there's a point at which my face cringes and I can't help but ask "really?!" Usually that point is somewhere around believing implausible Old Testament stories as literal fact. It's like the fundamentalists who have a museum to explain how Noah's Ark worked. It strains any measure of credulity.
Not everything in the old Testament is taken to be metaphor. As I said, there are those on both sides. And I haven't done all that much research into it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Not everything in the old Testament is taken to be metaphor. As I said, there are those on both sides. And I haven't done all that much research into it.
Just try to rationally work that out for yourself, if stories like Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden are literally true or not. Research, tbh, shouldn't be needed. Just some common sense.
Originally posted by Digi
Just try to rationally work that out for yourself, if stories like Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden are literally true or not. Research, tbh, shouldn't be needed. Just some common sense.
I don't know if that's true. We are talking about supernatural events here. It sounds unrealistic until you consider that an all powerful being is involved. I don't know why creating a garden or flooding the world is more farfetched than creating the universe and all life in it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know if that's true. We are talking about supernatural events here. It sounds unrealistic until you consider that an all powerful being is involved. I don't know why creating a garden or flooding the world is more farfetched than creating the universe and all life in it.
Then you're not scientifically informed. We know the process by which the universe's bodies formed, and we also know enough to say that a worldwide flood is impossible and zero evidence exists for it.
And the Garden of Eden reads more like Aesop's Fables than anything legitimately possible. Aesop's Fables can have value without being literally true. Why can't the same be said of a biblical story?
Really, the vast majority of Christians accept those stories as metaphor. Don't be one of the ones that doesn't. Those are the easiest arguments to poke holes in, and are also the ones that lead you down the path of, say, the Young Earth Creationists.
OK, lets get this back on topic. This thread is about Twain's arguments not just another topic to argue about creationism. Almost everything he said ran with the notion of creationism so it should really be a moot point here. I think Twain makes a very good point, when he looks at how the very notion of moral law that is supposed to be "absolute" is rationalized away in the case of God.
Where is the discussion supposed to go after that, though? Every christian I've ever talked to on the subject has basically said to me, "yes God does things that would be morally wrong if we did them, but he's the almighty creator who created everything so he has his reasons for doing what he does, most of which we can't understand, and he has the right to do whatever he wants, being that we are all his creations".
Originally posted by Digi
Let me make sure I'm reading you correctly: You're unsure whether the story of Eden was literal fact or metaphor?Please allay my fears here. I'm happy enough not contesting theists anymore who decide to believe in a God based on their faith. But there's a point at which my face cringes and I can't help but ask "really?!" Usually that point is somewhere around believing implausible Old Testament stories as literal fact. It's like the fundamentalists who have a museum to explain how Noah's Ark worked. It strains any measure of credulity.
Whenever theists try to explain a God-figure, it takes away all credibility. Does not the bible say that you should trust by faith alone? Okay, if you have faith, why should you need to explain it?
Originally posted by Digi
Then you're not scientifically informed. We know the process by which the universe's bodies formed, and we also know enough to say that a worldwide flood is impossible and zero evidence exists for it.And the Garden of Eden reads more like Aesop's Fables than anything legitimately possible. Aesop's Fables can have value without being literally true. Why can't the same be said of a biblical story?
Really, the vast majority of Christians accept those stories as metaphor. Don't be one of the ones that doesn't. Those are the easiest arguments to poke holes in, and are also the ones that lead you down the path of, say, the Young Earth Creationists.
I don't know if it's true to say the majority of Christians believe it to be metaphor, but like I said, I'm completely open to the option. I haven't really looked into it fully. To me it doesn't really matter.
Originally posted by siriuswriter
Whenever theists try to explain a God-figure, it takes away all credibility. Does not the bible say that you should trust by faith alone? Okay, if you have faith, why should you need to explain it?
The Bible never says you should just have blind faith. In fact, it says you should be able to defend your beliefs if challenged.
Originally posted by siriuswriter
Whenever theists try to explain a God-figure, it takes away all credibility. Does not the bible say that you should trust by faith alone? Okay, if you have faith, why should you need to explain it?
Faith is a powerful meme. It not only allows but rewards belief without evidence, and gains support from collective belief. To me it's the primary reason religion maintains such a strong foothold in society...even more so than biological predisposition toward belief and general scientific illiteracy (though obviously all contribute).
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know if it's true to say the majority of Christians believe it to be metaphor, but like I said, I'm completely open to the option. I haven't really looked into it fully. To me it doesn't really matter.
It should. If you believe in something and base your life on it, how is it defensible that there are large aspects of it that you "haven't really looked into fully"? If you were just sort of an agnostic that didn't care about Christianity, ambiguity over Bible stories is understandable. But I don't get the agnostic vibe from you.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The Bible never says you should just have blind faith. In fact, it says you should be able to defend your beliefs if challenged.
Then how would you defend a physically impossible story like Noah's Ark? Metaphor, dude. Or, ya know, just not true, but I'm not trying to reach too much with my goals in this debate.
I too am baffled by Christians who don't actually read the bible. I mean, if I actually believed I had the word of God in my hands, I can't imagine anything more important than learning all that it has to tell me. So it is inconceivable, that someone could literally have a guidebook to the most important questions in life, and not even study it. I think this portrays a definite lack of intellectual curiosity.
Originally posted by Digi
It should. If you believe in something and base your life on it, how is it defensible that there are large aspects of it that you "haven't really looked into fully"? If you were just sort of an agnostic that didn't care about Christianity, ambiguity over Bible stories is understandable. But I don't get the agnostic vibe from you.
I'm not saying I don't care about any part of the Bible. I'm saying this particular story isn't as important. Like Jonah and the Whale. Whether that story is true or not really has no bearing on my belief in Christianity.
Originally posted by Digi
Then how would you defend a physically impossible story like Noah's Ark? Metaphor, dude. Or, ya know, just not true, but I'm not trying to reach too much with my goals in this debate.
Physically impossible? For God? An all powerful being?
Originally posted by King Kandy
I too am baffled by Christians who don't actually read the bible. I mean, if I actually believed I had the word of God in my hands, I can't imagine anything more important than learning all that it has to tell me. So it is inconceivable, that someone could literally have a guidebook to the most important questions in life, and not even study it. I think this portrays a definite lack of intellectual curiosity.
Why? Why is the question of "was there really a Garden of Eden" important to every Christian?
I do study it. But the question of metaphor verses reality in these particular stories seems ultimately unimportant to me.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Physically impossible? For God? An all powerful being?
Physically impossible given the mountains of evidence we have against it and the physical laws of our universe. How do you justify it literally happening? I'm genuinely curious.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Why? Why is the question of "was there really a Garden of Eden" important to every Christian?I do study it. But the question of metaphor verses reality in these particular stories seems ultimately unimportant to me.
I would imagine the literal veracity of many such stories would have quite a large bearing on your view of the universe and God's role in it. To me, saying it doesn't matter is just a lack of imagination. Let's say, to return to the earlier analogy, that I wasn't sure if Aesop's Fables were real or not. If they are, holy shit, animals can talk and have highly developed senses of morality. It would utterly change the way I view the world. So too with the Ark. We're in a vastly different universe if the Ark happened, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, than we are if the universe follows logical rules and the Ark story is just metaphor.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I too am baffled by Christians who don't actually read the bible. I mean, if I actually believed I had the word of God in my hands, I can't imagine anything more important than learning all that it has to tell me. So it is inconceivable, that someone could literally have a guidebook to the most important questions in life, and not even study it. I think this portrays a definite lack of intellectual curiosity.
It actually makes some sense if you go back to the idea that religion was (and to some extent probably still is) evolutionarily advantageous because it eliminates cognitive dissonance in people so that they can focus on the more immediate concerns of survival. Once the item is "resolved," even if it isn't fully explored intellectually, the evolutionary ideal is achieved. A further curiosity wouldn't continue to be advantageous at that point. So, simply put, the species probably isn't programmed for continued intellectual inquiry. Once we come to a conclusion that satisfies us in philosophical or intellectual matters, there's no evolutionary advantage to going further because at that point it's distracting us from (historically) more important matters like hunting and gathering.