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.
What kind of low-tech god stores something like that in the fruit of trees?!
Sadly there were no books at the time, or atleast the bible does not say so, or atleast no theists have mentioned it..;p)
Eating other plants might get you stoned, dead, terrible allergic reactions, or pissing off some other god that sublets. If it was a neighborhood garden maybe some special mushrooms might yield a whole new level of enlightenment, but does the bible mention 'mushrooms' anywhere or even poppies? Did the garden have other fruit trees? Given the horticulural history of some plants, where there any worthwhile eating apples (or other fruit) anywhere in the garden?
It just seems like it was a rather dull place to forage in.
Don't mistake it as some kind of physical substance found in the fruit. Moral facts are not physical.
RE: "Moral facts are not physical."
Could you please give us an example of a moral fact?
Murder is wrong.
Murder is defined as an unjust killing of one human by another - so it is, by definition, unjust (wrong). Without us defining 'murder' as being an unjust killing, however, no such definition exists. We have literally thousands of justifications for killing another person and even when our best prosecutors feel someone has committed 'murder' there are a lot of find legal points to be considered before that allegation is considered founded.
In other words, you have not stated a moral fact but, rather, a fact of very arbitrarily defined moral imperative.
Well that isn't a fact as it happens. Its a subjective opinion that murder is wrong. Just to clarify I share this subjective opinion. As a matter of fact it is my subjective opinion that any sort of killing of any human being for whatever reason is wrong. Not a fact though.
How long do we have to keep rehearsing the falsity of moral relativism?
Until you prove it fallacy.
Do you have evidence of that claim? Prove me wrong Kevin
not long ago i lived with a man who suffered organic brain syndrome. in this situation, it meant he would repeat himself a lot. one of the things he would say was that he wanted to be like when he was a kid; before he got all messed up. kind of reminded me of the uncle in napoleon dynamite.
this got me thinking about what the difference is between childhood and adulthood other than the responsibility. one of the differences i thought about the most was how when i was a child i appreciated everything SO MUCH MORE than i do now, e.g., i wanted to keep used smoke balls on the fourth.
this is what "you must become like little children" means to me.