2024:Accept Genesis as allegorical! Why not?

[Masterblaster]

Hello
This is the footstool of the Bible.
"God made man in his own image and likeness."
What does that even mean?
Let's get all this behind us going forward.
Opinions welcome.

"Allegorical means containing a moral or hidden meaning. Allegorical stories and plays use concrete ideas as symbols for deeper or layered meanings. Folk tales and fables are often allegorical."

[Mae von H]

So Jesus wasn‘t talking about a real man named Adam? Is that your position? Where did sin come from if there was no Adam and no rebellion? If there was no Adam and Eve God created establishing God‘s plan for marriage, I guess there is no real plan in your position, right? A lot of (eventually all) of the teachings of the Bible fall apart if Genesis is not discussing real people making real choices with real consequences it seems.

Exactly. Evolutionary biology apparently explains that Sin is just our nature - traits for survival of our species as a group or individuals.

That makes no sense at all as sin is 100% against survival of the species. Murder, a sin, reduces survival. Hatred, a sin, reduces survival, Stealing, a sin, reduces survival of the victims. The list goes on and on. Moral virtue (righteousness), not sin enhances survival.

Empathy, pack placement, group rivalry for resources, individual gains. All natural and needing no God, Eden or Jesus to save us from it.

Then why don’t all people everywhere and in every decision naturally do this?

Yes, Genesis falls apart as Fact, doctrine and as guide for present living.

No, the opposite. Sin is detrimental to survival. Righteousness supports survival….but righteousness of a community is nevertheless not achievable outside of God’s help.

Marriage was about ownership.

No, there always were men who loved not owned their wives.

Even though smart women could dominate. But always and ever marriages could be dissolved. No matter what the Bible or Church had to say about it. That and the problems it may cause are a result of our nature, not of disobeying a command of a god.

That again makes no sense at all. It is a known and undeniable fact that children thrive best in a loving man and woman married family. It is undeniable that divorce is detrimental to offspring, the foundation of the survival of the species.

Isn't that the point I was making? The stuff we call 'sin' and think it is wrong because God said so is wrong in human evolutionary terms because it is not conducive to survival and well -being of the individual, group, tribe and species.

But sin is a choice and evolutionary theory is supposedly a biological process where no choice whatsoever is possible. People didn’t choose to have two eyes. Evolution cannot explain why people do (frequently) that which works against the survival of the species.

In fact the fantasy of a 'Righteous community' has never been achieved within Christianity or without it.

Yea it has but only in Christianity.

Either God doesn'thelp us to acieve this righteousness or doesn't exist at all.

You are unaware of successes.

I anticipate 'Because we don't follow God's Laws'. But this is the argument of any social system 'If everyone followed the rules, it would be perfect'.

Untrue. Depends upon the rules.

But people don't because we are mischievous and selfish monkeys and we ignore what society has designated fair play in favour of personal benefit.

If we evolved how is this possible?

True religion can inspire us to be the best we can be which is why religion is also a survival instinct, but it can also serve the basest instincts, of sectarianism, holy wars and lying to and scamming the believers.

. That doesn’t fit christianity.

I agree that children survive best in a loving family. which is why we have moved beyond the old concepts of how much in shekels a woman is worth.

Where does this quote come from?

The Bible is no longer a guide to good living and following those laws are less conducive to a fair society than humanist morals.

Ah, contrar Pierre!! The Bible or teachings of Jesus in particular are thee best guide to a fair and good society. Even atheists have admitted this.

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

That’s called a “dowery” and it went both ways whereby in some cultures, the BRIDE’S family paid the “groom-price” so in your view, bought a husband.

Despite a lot of Biblical apologetic denial,. that looks like a bride-price to me. ""I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

I think she got off easy…the man has to eat by the sweat of his brow….every day of his adult life. The woman only suffers a few hours of her entire life. Sounds good to me.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim. 2:11-14

Do you think this is a problem? But I will say that you demonstrate no understanding of cultural differences. Women weren’t educated in those days but neither did they have to go to war, work in the fields, nor carry heavy loads. In any case, Israelie women were much better off in those days than muslim women today.

It doesn't matter if some men have loved their wives - that has nothing to do with Biblical ownership of women as the mans' property.

Since other nations pay the groom-price, I guess those nations consider men the property of their wives, right?

The problem is you deciding a dowry means the receiving party’s offspring is property.

Christian apologists bleat about equality but only when women are used as catspaws and enablers for the religion - which is male -dominated and was until quiet recently and (like slavery and other rights) collapsed under human social pressure.

Women and men are different. “Equality in all things” is a pipe dream and women, being physically weaker suffer. Look at sports where physically male people compete against women. Who loses? But hey, sports are now EQUAL.

And slavery was ended by Christian men. No atheists cared.

Your point about Murder fails - you don't see the point. If such acts are against survival then instincts to decry and outlaw them (unless in war) - you know this is so - and in the Bible ) would have evolved -

Incorrect. You do not understand that NOTHING in evolution happens by choice. This point you ignore. The other point you miss, is evolution, by definition, does not allow for large differences between the same creatures in one species to be different. There is no such thing as some humans evolving to refuse evil and others evolving to do evil. So in your rubber ruler view, wide differences to the point of opposites all evolved. A man murders, well, he evolved to do so. His son refuses to murder…well he too evolved to be such. Everything that is has to have evolved to be such no matter how absurd the claim is.

No code from a god is needed. Moral virtue and sin is not the point - doing right or wrong in the point and human moral codes are as good or better than Biblical. And whatever you may have heard this or that atheist say (quote one) atheism argues that we can do better. Slavery for instance in the classic secular improvement over the Bible.

You are probably unaware of the fact that the spread of Christianity is the only reason the west developed a free and just culture as compared to others. We are losing this now because we are rejecting theChristian basis for our behaviour. No God means all evil is now thinkable.

Again, look up the history of ending slavery. Wilberforce, a Christian man, fought to end slavery in the British Empire. But if ending slavery evolved, as you claim, why is it still with us today? Christians know why. Evolutionists have no answer. Devolution is not possible.

You miss the point on 'depends on the rules - or maybe not. Any system can claim to be perfect if the rules are followed. Rightly or wrongly.

Wrong. The more a society follows the rules of Islam, the worst it is for those living hinder that tyranny. Iranians are rising up and demonstrating that they are tired of the tyranny of Islam, for example. This is easily understandable.

Depends on the rules. That is why if Christianity claims to be perfect if the rules are followed, it has never happened and never would. Christianity fails.

Please show me where Christianity claimed to be perfect first.

Please show me a Righteous Christian community. You are being denialist about the holy wars, crusades, sectarian strife and denominational infighting, never mind the endless scandals in religion. That may not be what Christianity is supposed to be, but that is why it fails.

Please show me where the Bible clams to generate a Righteous Community. Can you please provide an example of a good community in the atheist run countries. Do you have a community where people always followed good rules?

What you are doing is saying he rules fail because people are imperfect. So I am asking where in the world good rules do not fail because people follow them. The rules fail in your book, never the people, so let us see what you accept as a place where he rules succeed because people follow them and the society is observably a good and just place to live.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1]

We do not accept Genesis as allegorical because it answers non-allegorical questions as to why man is as he is, among other answers. Genesis has explanatory power totally unavailable in allegories.

[TRANSPONDER]

So Jesus wasn‘t talking about a real man named Adam? Is that your position? Where did sin come from if there was no Adam and no rebellion? If there was no Adam and Eve God created establishing God‘s plan for marriage, I guess there is no real plan in your position, right? A lot of (eventually all) of the teachings of the Bible fall apart if Genesis is not discussing real people making real choices with real consequences it seems.

Exactly. Evolutionary biology apparently explains that Sin is just our nature - traits for survival of our species as a group or individuals.

That makes no sense at all as sin is 100% against survival of the species. Murder, a sin, reduces survival. Hatred, a sin, reduces survival, Stealing, a sin, reduces survival of the victims. The list goes on and on. Moral virtue (righteousness), not sin enhances survival.

Empathy, pack placement, group rivalry for resources, individual gains. All natural and needing no God, Eden or Jesus to save us from it.

Then why don’t all people everywhere and in every decision naturally do this?

Yes, Genesis falls apart as Fact, doctrine and as guide for present living.

No, the opposite. Sin is detrimental to survival. Righteousness supports survival….but righteousness of a community is nevertheless not achievable outside of God’s help.

Marriage was about ownership.

No, there always were men who loved not owned their wives.

Even though smart women could dominate. But always and ever marriages could be dissolved. No matter what the Bible or Church had to say about it. That and the problems it may cause are a result of our nature, not of disobeying a command of a god.

That again makes no sense at all. It is a known and undeniable fact that children thrive best in a loving man and woman married family. It is undeniable that divorce is detrimental to offspring, the foundation of the survival of the species.

Isn't that the point I was making? The stuff we call 'sin' and think it is wrong because God said so is wrong in human evolutionary terms because it is not conducive to survival and well -being of the individual, group, tribe and species.

But sin is a choice and evolutionary theory is supposedly a biological process where no choice whatsoever is possible. People didn’t choose to have two eyes. Evolution cannot explain why people do (frequently) that which works against the survival of the species.

In fact the fantasy of a 'Righteous community' has never been achieved within Christianity or without it.

Yea it has but only in Christianity.

Either God doesn'thelp us to acieve this righteousness or doesn't exist at all.

You are unaware of successes.

I anticipate 'Because we don't follow God's Laws'. But this is the argument of any social system 'If everyone followed the rules, it would be perfect'.

Untrue. Depends upon the rules.

But people don't because we are mischievous and selfish monkeys and we ignore what society has designated fair play in favour of personal benefit.

If we evolved how is this possible?

True religion can inspire us to be the best we can be which is why religion is also a survival instinct, but it can also serve the basest instincts, of sectarianism, holy wars and lying to and scamming the believers.

. That doesn’t fit christianity.

I agree that children survive best in a loving family. which is why we have moved beyond the old concepts of how much in shekels a woman is worth.

Where does this quote come from?

The Bible is no longer a guide to good living and following those laws are less conducive to a fair society than humanist morals.

Ah, contrar Pierre!! The Bible or teachings of Jesus in particular are thee best guide to a fair and good society. Even atheists have admitted this.

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

That’s called a “dowery” and it went both ways whereby in some cultures, the BRIDE’S family paid the “groom-price” so in your view, bought a husband.

Despite a lot of Biblical apologetic denial,. that looks like a bride-price to me. ""I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

I think she got off easy…the man has to eat by the sweat of his brow….every day of his adult life. The woman only suffers a few hours of her entire life. Sounds good to me.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim. 2:11-14

Do you think this is a problem? But I will say that you demonstrate no understanding of cultural differences. Women weren’t educated in those days but neither did they have to go to war, work in the fields, nor carry heavy loads. In any case, Israelie women were much better off in those days than muslim women today.

It doesn't matter if some men have loved their wives - that has nothing to do with Biblical ownership of women as the mans' property.

Since other nations pay the groom-price, I guess those nations consider men the property of their wives, right?

The problem is you deciding a dowry means the receiving party’s offspring is property.

Christian apologists bleat about equality but only when women are used as catspaws and enablers for the religion - which is male -dominated and was until quiet recently and (like slavery and other rights) collapsed under human social pressure.

Women and men are different. “Equality in all things” is a pipe dream and women, being physically weaker suffer. Look at sports where physically male people compete against women. Who loses? But hey, sports are now EQUAL.

And slavery was ended by Christian men. No atheists cared.

Your point about Murder fails - you don't see the point. If such acts are against survival then instincts to decry and outlaw them (unless in war) - you know this is so - and in the Bible ) would have evolved -

Incorrect. You do not understand that NOTHING in evolution happens by choice. This point you ignore. The other point you miss, is evolution, by definition, does not allow for large differences between the same creatures in one species to be different. There is no such thing as some humans evolving to refuse evil and others evolving to do evil. So in your rubber ruler view, wide differences to the point of opposites all evolved. A man murders, well, he evolved to do so. His son refuses to murder…well he too evolved to be such. Everything that is has to have evolved to be such no matter how absurd the claim is.

No code from a god is needed. Moral virtue and sin is not the point - doing right or wrong in the point and human moral codes are as good or better than Biblical. And whatever you may have heard this or that atheist say (quote one) atheism argues that we can do better. Slavery for instance in the classic secular improvement over the Bible.

You are probably unaware of the fact that the spread of Christianity is the only reason the west developed a free and just culture as compared to others. We are losing this now because we are rejecting theChristian basis for our behaviour. No God means all evil is now thinkable.

Again, look up the history of ending slavery. Wilberforce, a Christian man, fought to end slavery in the British Empire. But if ending slavery evolved, as you claim, why is it still with us today? Christians know why. Evolutionists have no answer. Devolution is not possible.

You miss the point on 'depends on the rules - or maybe not. Any system can claim to be perfect if the rules are followed. Rightly or wrongly.

Wrong. The more a society follows the rules of Islam, the worst it is for those living hinder that tyranny. Iranians are rising up and demonstrating that they are tired of the tyranny of Islam, for example. This is easily understandable.

Depends on the rules. That is why if Christianity claims to be perfect if the rules are followed, it has never happened and never would. Christianity fails.

Please show me where Christianity claimed to be perfect first.

Please show me a Righteous Christian community. You are being denialist about the holy wars, crusades, sectarian strife and denominational infighting, never mind the endless scandals in religion. That may not be what Christianity is supposed to be, but that is why it fails.

Please show me where the Bible clams to generate a Righteous Community. Can you please provide an example of a good community in the atheist run countries. Do you have a community where people always followed good rules?

What you are doing is saying he rules fail because people are imperfect. So I am asking where in the world good rules do not fail because people follow them. The rules fail in your book, never the people, so let us see what you accept as a place where he rules succeed because people follow them and the society is observably a good and just place to live.

I'll give you best on the buying and selling of women - happened to men, too. But I can't give it to you on women being 2nd class. You say they were uneducated. Why? Because they weren't given an education. As you say on some men loving their wives some got an education, but brainy and influential women weren't liked, not for a long time. And Christianity has not fallen over itself to correct that.

Women have the right to be equal where they can be. Brainwork, the arts. Physical - yes it is not doing women any favors to compete with men physically, but that is just an excuse for backseating them as equals in other things. The claim about Christians ending slavery is false. While those who argued against it may have been Christians or had to pretend they were, it was justified by reasoning that it was wrong, and the meme 'Am I not a man and an a brother?' is more to do with species than the Bible. On the other hand, the Bible was used by slave-owners to justify slavery. Just as it is to justify many reactionary and divisive arguments. The Bible is no longer a guide to morals and lifestyle, if it ever was.

Aren't you shifting position on Christianity leading to righteous communities? You claimed that some were. I asked you to show me some. Now you seem to be backing out on the grounds that the Bible never claimed to make for righteous communities.

So where do you back up your argument that the Bible produced moral groups, societies or communities? If you don't, the case for the Bible through morals fails.

Don't get me wrong, you argue well and I welcome you here. But these are old arguments that have failed in the past.

The point is not which side - religious or secular - can produce a perfect society; nobody can. But whether Christianity produces better. It can inspire people, true, but it can also be misused for control, exploitation and a cover for evildoing. It is not a superior guide to life or morals. What can be shown is that people are (though we moan a lot) better off than they were 100 years ago, never mind three or four hundred, in lifestyle, heath, education and even moral structure.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1]

We do not accept Genesis as allegorical because it answers non-allegorical questions as to why man is as he is, among other answers. Genesis has explanatory power totally unavailable in allegories.

We do not accept Genesis as giving good answers to why man is as he is; evolutionary biology gives better ones. It fails even symbolically, even if is is accepted that it is not true as historical fact.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1]

We do not accept Genesis as allegorical because it answers non-allegorical questions as to why man is as he is, among other answers. Genesis has explanatory power totally unavailable in allegories.

We do not accept Genesis as giving good answers to why man is as he is; evolutionary biology gives better ones. It fails even symbolically, even if is is accepted that it is not true as historical fact.

Evolution gives no answers as to why some people do great moral wrong to others and others do right. None at all.

But I’m curious, can you give a description of something that is true in history but is not a fact? I mean, it really happened but it is not a fact that it happened.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1]

We do not accept Genesis as allegorical because it answers non-allegorical questions as to why man is as he is, among other answers. Genesis has explanatory power totally unavailable in allegories.

We do not accept Genesis as giving good answers to why man is as he is; evolutionary biology gives better ones. It fails even symbolically, even if is is accepted that it is not true as historical fact.

Evolution gives no answers as to why some people do great moral wrong to others and others do right. None at all.

But I’m curious, can you give a description of something that is true in history but is not a fact? I mean, it really happened but it is not a fact that it happened.

Evolution does - as i think I said- instincts evolved for survival, personal, family and tribal. There is an instinct for personal survival. We know of instances where individuals will eliminate siblings to get more themselves. Fortunately we don't have that instinct but vying for attention is a thing. I have seen it. Family feuds are a thing too and must be evolutionary but do not seem to be in the interests of anybody, but 'eliminate your enemy' is the instinct that leads there. Humans have had to step in and eliminate feuds. Same with gang wars, and political wars of which the religious element is not absent.

Bottom line is, evolution is not always nice (especially in todays' society) but it is true - on all evidence.

As to finding an example of what is true in history but not a fact., why would i do that? A fact is what is true (no matter what we think about it). There are skewed records of historical facts - the battle of Kadesh is true, bank on it. But the Egyptian account is heavily spun, though military historians still try to work out the battle-plan. In the same way, the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem is true - depend on it. The Assyrians confirm it. But the Fact of whether it succeeded is not sure. The Bible says that God struck the Assyrians and saved the city. The Assyrians say the king of Judea surrendered and paid tribute. Who is right? Well the Bible agrees that the king paid tribute right away, but the Assyrians still attacked without any credible reason. I think the Assyrians are telling the truth, here, even without rejecting a miracle.