I’d like to burn some very typical straw men. Hopefully, in the debate over Christianity, these unnecessary issues can be avoided.
Creation - Neither Genesis nor any of the scriptures demands that the earth and universe is only 6- to 10- thousand years old. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom) could mean long periods of time. The words “there was morning and there was evening, the first day” could be translated “there was beginning and ending, the first (yom)”.
(BTW, the narrative moves to the surface of the earth in Genesis 1:2. While stars were certainly already in existence, their light was not visible on the surface of the earth until the opaque early atmosphere cleared).
Adam and Eve – While scripture does indicate they were specially created, there are gaps in the biblical genealogies that could place Adam and Eve back 60- to 90-thousand years. This would also predict increasing discovery of a common DNA originating between east Africa and the Mesopotamia.
(BTW, the word for “rib” means “side”. The story of Eve’s creation could mean God created her from Adam for symbolic purposes. I speculate a biopsy, of sorts, from the side, with a few million variations to the DNA producing a female. )
Talking Snakes - A boa constrictor with vocal cords is not in view here. That image comes largely from medieval art. The “serpent” in the garden was intelligent and used for evil. One can only speculate what sort of being it was (perhaps one no longer extant).
The Flood – The fact that a great flood is found in various cultures indicates that it happened. Two questions emerge: which account is most accurate and whether the flood was global or local.
I’m of the opinion that the flood was regional rather than global for several reasons. First, while the flood was universal in effect, it was only regional in extent due to human’s not having moved much beyond the Mesopotamia at the time. A global flood was unnecessary.
Secondly, language like “under all the heavens”, “all the earth”, etc. are most likely from the perspective of the observer, i.e. a flood from horizon to horizon. “Mountains” could be translated “hills” with rain and water “covering” (or running over) them rather than submerging them.
Thirdly, this would mean there were not polar bears and penguins, etc. on the ark, but only animals indigenous to the region and of special relation to man.
Fourthly, a global flood would have torn the ark to pieces, no matter how well built. And it certainly would not have landed anywhere near its original location.
Fifthly, the scripture itself said a “large wind” was used in the evaporation process. Such a wind would have virtually no effect in a global flood.
Finally, if the flood were only regional why not just have Noah, his family, and whatever animals needed, hike out of the area and be safe? Why a big specifically-built ark? I think because God often operates via symbols teaching important truths or significance, i.e. salvation in Christ or deliverance through troubled waters (trials).
Use of Metaphor – The scriptures use metaphor and other literary devices. One need only utilize common exegetical analysis and context to determine what any author meant as literal or metaphorical (and on a case-by-case basis).
Inerrancy – If there are consequential or factual errors in the Bible that does not mean Christianity is false. However, I find it remarkable how well the Bible holds up to scrutiny and that there are plausible answers to discrepancies. Personally, I hold to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
Hell – is not a place of torture (external) but of torment (internal). There are many descriptions of hell in the scriptures. The “fire” is most likely not the chemical combustion we’re familiar with. It, combined with all the other descriptions, reduces to separation from God and the judgment of God.
This does not make hell more tolerable (that’s not possible). But it does dispel hillbilly theology that has poor souls swatting flames for eternity! Christ depicted conversation taking place “in the flames”. No person could have a conversation while on fire! On our familiar planet, one is in mindless torture if burning.
It is, however, a profound tragedy to be eternally separated from God. It is a “spiritual chaos” one enters when the intact “self” survives the physical body. There are indications that some kind of body could exist in hell.
Heaven – is a remarkably physical place. It is not ethereal or immaterial. It is a combination of a “new heaven and new earth”. We will live on earth in physical bodies that are “spiritual” which nonetheless have access to one another and continued exploration of the universe without many of the limits of current bodies affected by entropy, etc. Christ’s resurrected body could be touched and he ate food, etc. This describes the redeemed, resurrected body.
This is not to be confused with an intermediary state which is not physical. At death, one goes either into the very presence of God to await the resurrection of the body, or in a state of chaos to await final judgment.
“God will not allow anything to happen in your life that you can’t handle” – False! Scripturally, there are plenty of things that happen that one cannot handle! Devastating things! The accurate teaching is that nothing will happen that God’s grace will not get one through.
“You must become like children” - Christ said to “humble yourself like a little child”. It does not mean to be naïve, ignorant, gullible, or irrational.
Pascal’s Wager – This is not an argument for God nor necessarily addressed to atheists. Pascal used a popular gambling motif to shake the French laity out of spiritual complacency and to at least move them in the direction of God.
Further, the Wager, as it is commonly used, is not allowed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. He said if Christ was not risen, then the jig is up! Christianity is false! He did not say believe it anyway “just in case” or because it provides a positive way of life.
I hope these internal considerations provide food for thought.
@The Wholey TV Set
After reading your postings for a while, I realized what you are doing. You are using Brion Gyson's "cut-up technique" whereby well-constructed sentences are cut up randomly and then rearranged into new sentences:
If true, that seems like a great deal of effort for such a tiny payoff, but I did sense some kind of underlying pattern, however obscure.
Ahh, the price of attention --
Unseen: You are understanding something interesting and when understood complete the process is called Repositioning of both misconducted and misconnected nervous system information and the separated understanding life integrating with it.
I am not allowed to understand something with Brion Gyson right now, however, that can be uplighted.
If the nervous system communication of the area of Gyson is that there is a "cut up" of united knowing which is what you are trying to write about with the phrase "well constructed", then that is incorrect. What is repositioned are the pieces of information that is housed across divided activity places not being seen or able to be understood together within what is a seamless flow. Non united communication is life that is tying to think or say while having what relates to the hiccups. Where knowledge is being had, it flows according to continuable interest and there is no interruption. Where knowledge is being had it is understood to the same meaning across people who know complete about what they see and experience.
Listen to someone speaking that is understanding in division and see how they pause again and again with their eyes doing something different to refer to what is "behind" that is not being seen now in front of them. Right at the pause and with the eye shift is where they are not understanding complete and the consciousness life (which is your understanding life) is being moved out and another replaced. When you are knowing and doing and saying what is complete there is not an experience of interruption or hesitation or a change to the position of the eyes. It is interesting and you can look into it at the places you understand to go. It is also true that you can be a "Forward View" to someone else when you can understand a non temporal conduction to go over and do something interesting that life at unity is caused to see. You will know complete about what you are doing and about the life that is positively interested with you instantaneously.
At the close of an era and the ushering in of a new one the information that has not been being had together is rearranged to unity and unacceptable parts of it are moved to what relates to a trash bowl or divided land fill. It is appreciated not to be at an activity place that is existing in a doing different bowl, however, some activity life (this means all that you can see, human and non human), will be understood as being composed that way forever.
Human beings in the upcoming era will look back and say, "Did people really not know they were understanding to them both pressure, dilapidation and incarceration from the non audible to ears (this means internal thought, wiki-like written thought both conducted with lower unconscious impulses) communicating information in the non interesting activity environment? Wow, it is good that we now know the purpose of technology which is to change the environment (our external picture scene) and to do so from inside a locked seclusion zone that is never allowed to change us. We are doing what we can continue to do."
Yada yada yada.
Yada Yada Yada: Is "Find out about something". It is how you are existing now as non aware life purposeful for the infusion of information up to the area where changes are caused to divided understandings. There is nothing else to be said to you.
@Unseen - RE: "There is nothing else to be said to you."
Hear that Unseen? He's through addressing you! Talk about a lucky break --!
@Wholely-in-the-Head - RE: "Yada Yada Yada: Is 'Find out about something'."
Actually, "Yada, yada, yada" is a phrase coined by the Seinfeld TV show, and loosely translated, means, "ect., ect., ect.," which has nothing to do with, "Find out about something." Maybe if you had watched more Seinfeld and less 700 Club, you'd know that.
"ect."? I think you mean "etc."! After all, it's an irregular contraction of "et cetera" not "ec tetera."
I've GOT your contraction!
You live alone, right? Certainly understandable --
I want my contraction back.