PaulS

Thanks Rom, that was an editing omission so I have corrected it in my original summation. And yes, it is clear to me (as it is to you) that the offence committed here was learning to tell the difference between good and evil. What offended God in the story was that it meant Adam and Eve were like gods themselves with this knowledge and the threat was that if they also partook of the tree of life, they would be immortal, whilst holding this knowledge. Genesis makes that very clear, but too many Christians listen to what they have been taught (Churchianty in action I would say) and turn the story into something that it clearly is not. Ancient Jews never saw this story as a disconnection from God and in fact the Hebrew Bible is replete with examples of how God has maintained a connection and even a physical presence with his 'chosen people'. Similarly, they never believed in a negative afterlife, but rather Sheol was (as you point out on another thread) this sort of shady netherworld that 'every’ soul went to. In some extremely rare cases the Hebrew Bible cites a couple of examples where humans were elevated to god-like status and got to join God in a 'heaven' per se (Moses and Elijah who were physically taken up into that realm before they suffered mortality). I don't think it's extreme to be saying that the actual evil that is being committed here is the misrepresentation by Christianity of stories that we know are not what Christianity say they are, simply because this serves the purpose of maintaining a religion.

I'll answer you after you answer my repeated question. Do you consider the stories of the bible where God commands genocide, rape, and killing of babies as God actually wanting these things to happen, or are these writers that God has inspired to write a story, or are they just myths and tribal storytelling?

Well, he might feel like he needs to sit me down and see how my jeans are fairing, and then he might say "Look, you have to go work somewhere else because if you don't you might find my Limo and then I'll really be in trouble because you'll live forever?"

On some other threads here on the forum, the topic of evolution, what it means to believe "in" the bible, and an understanding of exactly what Adam & Eve did on that fateful day, has prompted me to share how I believe Genesis 3 should be understood. I'll warn you now that it is NOT what traditional Christianity, literalists and fundamentalists think, but I think Christianity has stolen the myth of The Fall and misused it to turn it into something that it was never intended for or to be. So I hope you enjoy the read and feel free to discuss my take on it. All references are made using the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (which seems to be regarded as the most accurate translation of the writings that make up the bible that we currently have to work with). Firstly, I think it is clear that whoever is writing this story is using age-old stories, told around the campfires of ancient peoples comprising of the various tribes who inhabited the region we today call the middle east. I think Genesis 1 & 2 are a good example of these stories being told for generations before charcoal was put to papyrus - they are different stories with significantly different timelines about what was created when and why - but both were captured in Genesis because both were told throughout the region. These people lived in more harsh conditions than we in the western world enjoy today - a shorter lifespan, no healthcare, no unemployment benefits, more wars and disputes over precious territory, famines, etc. But like us, they pondered and questioned the meaning of life. They wondered why their family and friends died, why sometimes they went hungry, why animals killed them and their livestock, why crops failed, etc. And so, like all ancient indigenous peoples, they came up with their own myths, legends and stories to explain their situation and circumstances, as they saw it. Here's what these people say in Genesis 3. Firstly they introduce the snake as exactly that, a snake. Verse 1 - "the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that God had made". Not Satan, not the devil, but simply an animal as we know it today. The serpent may have been more crafty, but it was just a wild animal like any other God made. Of course in this myth the wild animal can talk, but you get that with myths. Side note - In Australia we have the world's oldest surviving indigenous culture (some 60-90,000 years old) and many of their ancient stories also include talking animals. Now the crafty serpent convinces Eve to partake of the fruit from tree the in the middle of the garden (the tree has no name in this chapter but in the previous chapter there was reference to God growing a tree of life and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in said garden) because her eyes will be open and she will be like God, or gods, knowing good and evil. Let's forget for a moment that back in Genesis 1:29 God has just said that he had given every tree with seed in its fruit to them for food, because well, that's just a little inconvenient. Maybe God was just generically saying eat what you want, but forgot to single out the tree of good and evil as prohibited. Maybe that tree was a late bloomer. In any event, we read that Eve takes a bite, shares it with Adam and then indeed, they understand good and evil, and woe and behold, the greatest evil that they can realize, is that they are nude! This doesn't sound all that evil to me, but hey, this was an ancient and hard place to live when people were telling these stories and I expected nudity was more a big deal than it is to most these days. So anyway, sometime later God is strolling through this garden and of course Adam and Eve are hiding in shameful nudity. I'm guessing God must have been fully clothed - I wonder what God was wearing? God finally finds them both and Adam quickly throws Eve under the bus and blames her for him eating the fruit of the tree of good an evil. God quizzes Eve and she too confesses but says the snake (not Satan, not the Devil) tricked her into eating the fruit. Funnily enough, the first one that God gets angry with is not Adam and Eve, but the snake, and what does he do, well God curses the snake to do snaky things - slither on the ground, face in the dust, biting at people's heels and getting a crushed head from a stray boot as a result. A pretty normal ancient story that anthropomorphizes animals. You obviously recognize here that there's no mention of the snake growing horns, or getting a barbed tail, or becoming a hideous scary looking creature, no condemnation to a lake of fire, etc etc. It is, a snake. So starting in Verse 16, God punishes his created kids - the woman gets to suffer pain in childbirth, but of course she will still maintain desire for her husband and he will rule over her (yep, that patriarchal society wasn't about to let women off the hook - after all somebody needed to do the crap jobs and men still needed to, ahem, 'meet their needs'). Then it's Adam turn. Firstly the woman gets blamed again when God says "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife..." (hey, it's not really Adam's fault that he didn't do his own thinking...those dastardly women) now life is going to be hard for you. No more easy gardening in Eden - you're gonna have to work for it now. Pretty easy to understand when you're living in a region that has a lot of inhospitable territory and toil is well, hard. One could only dream of having soft, no-weed soil for food to grow and animals to graze on endlessly. But most importantly we see God reminding Adam that as he had said earlier, should he eat from that tree - he will die. Verse 19: ".... to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return". No more immortality, but straight up death. No eternal punishment, no eternal separation from God, no opportunity to live in a Heaven, but just good ol' fashioned dying. Because that's what we do as humans - we die. And people hearing those stories around the campfire then understood and accepted their mortality. Yes, they will lose loved ones, but that's how it is because once upon a time a woman led a man astray. But back to the story - God wasn't all that angry with Adam & Eve at this stage, and he certainly wasn't separated from them because they were 'sinners'. God wasn't distant, unreachable, or unable to be close to them because they were 'sinners'. No, I guess like a loving father he knew his kids had disobeyed, but he was still their father, and so he made them some clothes so they might not feel silly. Read it for yourself - verse 21. Now comes some really interesting stuff. Most Christians have been taught that this story is about sin and separation from God and that the only way to get back together with God again is to believe that Jesus died for their sins. But in Verse 22 we see there is another way to make sure humans don't die - eat from the tree of life that was also in the garden. V22: "“See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever". This is not symbolism - this is the same thing as eating the actual fruit that shows you good and evil - eating this actual fruit will give you eternal life. God doesn't want Adam & Eve, who are now like the gods themselves (Verse 22 - these ancients weren't monotheistic at that time in their history - read about it), to live forever, because they know good and evil. There seems too many Gods in the garden and Adam and Eve are now a threat to the existing gods in the story. So God drives out the man (no mention of Eve but we guess she's included cos she's with Adam in the next story) and at the east of the garden of Eden God places a guard with a flaming sword (do flaming swords inflict more harm than non-flaming swords) to guard the way to the tree of life - the only way to live forever according to Genesis 3. Now I know apologists will interpret and promote all sorts of meanings to this chapter, but they are simply not there. Many will say that when Adam and Eve first ate, they were not simply aware of evil but that they 'experienced' evil, to the extent that they became evil themselves —sinners by nature. But as we can all clearly see, that is never mentioned in Genesis 3. To the contrary, the writer makes it explicitly clear - God has a problem because man now knows good and evil. And if God doesn't keep them out of that garden they will partake in the only thing that can give them eternal life - the fruit from the tree of life. Sitting around the campfire I'm sure the ancients dreamed about the fruit from the tree of life, but alas, they could never get to it because some angel somewhere was guarding it with a big flaming sword! And the would of dreamed of good lands, easy crops, healthy animals - and that's where the stories come into it. There is nothing wrong with understanding that our ancient relatives in the middle east told myths and stories like every other ancient culture on earth (the Australian aborigines, the Incas, the Mesopotamians, ancient Hindus). They were just trying to understand their world and they came up with the best reasoning they could. But there is no excuse now in light of what we know to ignore this and pretend that stories like Chapter 3 in Genesis mean anything other than what they say. My hope is that many Christians who suffer from the misrepresentation of these stories, may be set free and may come to better understand that the bible contains a lot of wisdom and beneficial stories, but that there is not some straight line from man being made from mud to eternal damnation, separation from God or destruction, whilst certain others go on to enjoy eternity without them. We all die, it's part of being human. Life is now - not later.

And this is not conducive to discussion. You either want to participate in a discussion, or you shouldn't post. Please don't waste member's time here with glib, brief statements, unless you are prepared to at least discuss the points. Please show some courtesy to the individual starting the thread and to those participating, and talk to the thread content. The original post was "Do you believe Christian teaching that Hell is a reality is an essential doctrine that is fundamental to Christian theology — that it is, indeed, a place of eternal suffering and punishment? Or, could the existence of Hell be a reality that has a purpose other than punitive?" If you care to discuss that, then terrific. If you aren't prepared to, please don't post in this thread. It's that easy really.

This is where you seem to run into difficulty - which bits of the bible should people believe are symbolism and which are historical fact or accurate portrayals of a message? Who decides for you what is symbolism and what isn't? What do you mean by the bible being 'inspired' by God - are you saying every word was like dictated by God to the writer, or is God inspiring the writer to write a myth or story, or is God inspiring the writer like dictating actual events? A good example for me, and one which you seem unprepared or unable to address, are some of the atrocities attributed to God in the Bible. Acts such as genocide, abortion, rape, and killing babies - do you consider these stories actually God wanting these things to happen, or are they writers God has inspired to write a pretend story, or are they just myths and tribal storytelling? 'Bible believers' is just a catchphrase to me - most Christian denominations use it yet yet every denomination has a different take on it. So I'm am trying to understand yours.

Treason? Rebelling? Is that how any parent views a child who disobeys - as a treasonous rebel? Seems a bit harsh to me. The Adam and Eve story to me is a simple myth, talked about for eons by tribes of people who had no better answers to the beginning and development of life. Like all of us, they were mulling on things like why do people die, why is life so hard, why do we sometimes run out of food or get killed by an animal. They came to the conclusion that God or the Gods weren't entirely happy with them (ancient Israel wasn't always monotheistic and wasn't so when the Adam and Eve story was penned either). And when they did experience the good times (crops were bountiful, people were having babies, sickness wasn't happening much, etc) they believed they were aligned with God/the Gods and so were getting rewarded. This reinforced their understanding that when the chips were down, it was because they weren't right with God/the Gods. We don't have to think the same as them some 3000 years later.

MadJW, I doubt there is a person here who doesn't believe in the bible. We all know it exists, we see it for sale in bookshops, we read it, we talk about it. We know it comprises of little books and letters and writings. We believe it was written by people. We believe it was formulated into a single book eventually and called the bible. We believe in it as opposed to thinking it doesn't exist (like some people refuse to acknowledge the science of evolution for instance). So I'm asking a question that goes much deeper than those basics - What does 'believing the bible' mean for you? How do you describe one who is a bible believer? For instance - Do you believe every word literally? Do you think every story that's reported in the bible is actual history? For instance, as I have asked once already, do you believe that God wanted Israel's army to dash the heads of babies against rocks? Is that what belief 'in' the bible is to you, or do you consider belief 'in' the bible to be summarized another way. Please - give defining what you call 'bible believers' a go.

I can assure you MadJW that opinions, expressed in good faith, don't get people banned here. Rude behaviour, insults, and a lack of goodwill in discussions may do. The forum is a two-way street - if you want to discuss topics it is a reasonable expectation that you will both ask and answer questions.

I'm not the one playing games here, MadJW. If you're going to ask the question if there are any 'bible believers' here, you should should at least be able to define what you mean by the term 'bible believer'. Can more accurately define or explain what you consider a 'bible believer'.

Yes, but how do you define a 'bible believer'? Do they have to believe every word of the bible literally? For example, does a bible believer believe God wanted babies to have their heads dashed on rocks and acts of genocide committed in said God's name? Or do you think a bible believer has room to interpret the bible based on their own understanding and learning? Or do you believe other things about bible believers? I'm asking if you can more accurately define or explain what you consider a 'bible believer'.

Not really any questions. I pretty much answered the original poster's question - would you like to put forward your idea's in response to their initial post perhaps?

So you say you can prove these things, but you're not going to? I'm not sure that helps the discussion much. I'm not sure why your are posting these claims but then not prepared to properly discuss them. Do you just want to come here and tell people how right you are, or do you want to actually discuss things?

Well, you haven't actually been real big on discussing 'Churchianity' in this thread that you started on the topic, and it was you that raised the issue about dinosaurs and birds here, and it was you that was telling me that I thought there was no truth in the bible, ....so maybe you could try and communicate a little about your subject?

I believe the story exists. I also believe the story is a myth, a way ancient people tried to understand life and what to make of it. This is a pretty common situation across all ancient cultures. So in that sense I don't believe the only way to understand the Adam and Eve story is to interpret it as a literal, historical event.

I'm sure you are convinced you 'test' your beliefs, but having experienced fundamental Christianity myself, I now understand such tests are usually not held to the standard of what most would regard as empirical evidence. That's fine if it's just for you, and I wish you all the best, but it is my observation and real life experience (with myself and other Christians) that such 'testing' is usually really opinion and belief. So you can prove what the Bible says? What, every single sentence? Can you prove God created man from mud? Can you prove that Noah's Ark existed? How can you prove the things Jesus is attributed as saying? Can you prove the name of a single eye witness to Jesus' life? Obviously the list could go on and on. And this is way before we even look at the trickier aspects concerning what's true about any messages or meaning. I think that we have a different understanding when it comes to 'proving' things.

Firstly I should point out that I never said there is NO truth in the Bible - in fact I think there is truth in some of the stories and myths and recollections that are shared by the various authors in the Bible. Personally, for instance, I think there is truth to the concept that we should treat one another as we would like to be treated - that seems generally a good model to aspire to, in my opinion. But do I think that homsexuals are an abomination, that women should be subject to men, that it is okay to beat one's slave, that humans were 'created' in their current form from mud - No, I don't, but I know many Christians who think this is 'the' truth that the Bible upholds (you may not, I don't know). So for me, there are things in the bible that I don't consider to be 'truths'. To me it all comes down to interpretation, understanding, and often, what influences our thinking. Tell me MadJW, do you pay attention to science when it determines that jet propulsion, combined a certain way with what science has taught us about aerodynamics, works well when it comes to flying across a continent? It shouldn't be science versus religion, it should be that science can empirically demonstrate certain things, whereas religion 'believes' certain things. I doubt there are many (if any) non-religious scientists that disagree with evolution. Clearly, with something like +45,000 different denominations, there are a wide variety of interpretations of the Bible and what it means to be a 'true' Christian and how to interpret all of the Bible.

Yeah, it seems lots of different Christian denominations will make that assumption about me when they have zero knowledge of what I have researched (Progressive Christianity much less so of course). They clearly do so simply because I have a different view and understanding. Of course I could say the same about you, but I'm guessing you have a pretty certain mindset that you already understand everything in the Bible impeccably, so where would that get us? What would be the value? I would simply say, enjoy your certainty. Can you please define what you consider a Bible "believer"? Can we clarify the rule set?

What is this 'in' concerning the Bible that you think I don't have belief of?

Which corporations are you referring to that fund 'science'? Are you suggesting that any funding of science is part of a giant conspiracy or something when it comes to misleading people? I know Christian and Churches who fund science and research - are you grouping them in there too? What 'theories' can you demonstrate are 'masquerading' as fact?

Of course that is your prerogative, but I don't see it as so flippant. Faith or belief gives much comfort to many, but that doesn't necessarily make it accurate. Whereas science is not 'faith' at all, but rather it is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Scientific practices such as observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life. And of course, evolution. As I said before, it is an incontrovertible fact that humans have evolved during the history of life on Earth. The only people that refuse to acknowledge this are religious people who, I would argue, are putting faith before evidence. They are following religious dogma, not evidence based on facts. I used to do this when I was a practicing fundamental Christian - it was comforting 'knowing' that my beliefs were right. Acknowledging the science of evolution can be the most threatening thing to a Christian's faith - if there was no original sin, no Adam & Eve story, then what do we make of Jesus & atonement! They are good questions and perhaps a good place for Progressive Christianity to start. The people who wrote things that made it to today's bible, were just trying to understand the earth. Creation stories made sense because they didn't have the science available to them to better understand things. That's why they used to think the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that rain came down through shutters in the sky, that God made man out of mud. Science and modernity has helped us better understand the origins of our, and other, species. To ignore this is choosing to put belief before evidence, but I know how hard it is to 'choose' to question one's faith.

That's great. I hope you enjoy participating here.

I am sure you are convinced that people should believe the bible as you do - most Christians are. But noticeably of course, many Christians disagree on what that 'belief' entails. It seems 'Churchianity' to you is just that other Christians don't believe the same as you - You're right and they're wrong. That's a pretty common position amongst Christians from what I can see. There is a lot of information throughout our archives and previous threads here about biblical research and what biblical scholarship can show us. I hope you enjoy your research. I personally find, still to this day, it amazing about how much I 'knew' to be true about Jesus/God/Christianity is actually up for debate. My only recommendation for you would be to relax your certainty when researching. If you are open to understanding biblical scholarship, you may find out many different things that you are presently convinced you know. Whatever the case, enjoy the ride.

Yeah, nah. Believing 'the' bible is like 'believing' a recipe book. It is a conglomeration of a number of writings that somebody (or a group of somebodies) decided at some point would comprise of the single volume we now call the Holy Bible. There were lots of different writings and ideas that didn't make the grade for one reason or another. Even the OT references writings that we can't read today because they no longer exist, but they were important to believers at that time. There is no shortage of people to tell me how I 'should' believe the bible, funnily enough, how they all believe the bible is different between themselves. Yet no doubt they are all convinced that they have the correct understanding.

My experience is everybody, JW's included, will have a belief that the way 'they' read the text is correct. Clearly there are wide and diverse opinions and beliefs about what texts actually mean (and I'm not even touching here on whether the writings are accurate copies of what was actually said or even in fact if words were said, if the speaker's own 2000 year old understanding is actually correct). Discussing different views can be interesting, but I don't think anybody's view is ever formed without some sort of conditioning or influence from other factors. So you might call it 'dogma' whereas I would call it 'influence'. When I think of the word 'hell' I think of all the different understandings and interpretations that people will tell you Hell means. I also think that Hell as mentioned in the NT is never mentioned in the OT. I also recognize how Hell as it is sometimes thought of in the NT was never a thought bubble inn ancient Israel's mind until a hundred or so years before Jesus existed and was only introduced as a Greek influence. So yeah, when it comes to hearing the word 'hell', I think a lot of different things.