Richard Dawkins: Adam and Eve symbolic?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="alexside1"]

Just because the story of adam and eve might be symbolic doesn't disprove the concept of sin. Jesus die for all our sins, not the just the sin of adam and eve. In honesty even Buddhist isn't concern of how and where evil comes from, so why should christianity?

alexside1

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"]

Just because the story of adam and eve might be symbolic doesn't disprove the concept of sin. Jesus die for all our sins, not the just the sin of adam and eve. In honesty even Buddhist isn't concern of how and where evil comes from, so why should christianity?

alexside1

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Because it claims to know where it came from?Ace6301

That really depends on one's interpeation and the assumtion that his/her interpeation is true.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"] I just said the story of adam and eve might be symbolic.... Elaborate?alexside1

That really depends on one's interpeation and the assumtion that his/her interpeation is true.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Talking about your last point. You say Buddhism doesn't concern it's self with where evil comes from so why should Christianity. The problem there is that Christianity does concern it's self where evil came from, it's in fact a pretty large part of it.Ace6301

That really depends on one's interpeation and the assumtion that his/her interpeation is true.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"]

That really depends on one's interpeation and the assumtion that his/her interpeation is true.

alexside1

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"]

That really depends on one's interpeation and the assumtion that his/her interpeation is true.

alexside1

Symbolic or not the Bible does tell you where evil originated from, this isn't debatable.Ace6301

I don't think so tim. http://www.christianforums.com/f85/ (Damn this piece of software.)

[QUOTE=Ace]"Throw yourself off a cliff" can no more be taken symbolically as "work on your grammar" could be. It's just a command.

Dose this mean that I throw myself off the cliff litearly or it does means something else? Ether way your interpeting it, that's my point.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

I don't think so tim. http://www.christianforums.com/f85/ (Damn this piece of software.)

[QUOTE=Ace]"Throw yourself off a cliff" can no more be taken symbolically as "work on your grammar" could be. It's just a command.alexside1

Dose this mean that I throw myself off the cliff litearly or it does means something else? Ether way your interpeting it, that's my point.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

That forum appears to only be arguments about how the bible states that evil was created, they disagree on how and why but they all seem to agree that there is evil and that Christianity has the answer. Again you're not proving any points other than playing a really poorly done game of subjectivity tag.

Which I agree. But the fact remains that it's still depends on their interpation and they're arguing that theirs is the right one. You havn't shown anything to disprove this. You can't read things without interpeting it, that's my point.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]That forum appears to only be arguments about how the bible states that evil was created, they disagree on how and why but they all seem to agree that there is evil and that Christianity has the answer. Again you're not proving any points other than playing a really poorly done game of subjectivity tag.

Which I agree. But the fact remains that it's still depends on their interpation and they're arguing that theirs is the right one. You havn't shown anything to disprove this. You can't read things without interpeting it, that's my point.alexside1

Actually burden of proof is on you. You're saying the Bible doesn't talk about the origins of evil. It's a widely accepted fact (read everyone ever agrees) that the Bible does deal with the origins of evil and sin. Your challenge is to find a way to say the Bible doesn't. This means a fully written essay about how a book that takes a few chapters to explain the origins of sin and evil doesn't explain the origins of sin and evil. I want peer cited evidence to back this up as well. For instance you must argue that the concept of original sin is in fact not the idea that original sin is: 1). not a sin 2). not original 3). not inherently evil That should be one paragraph. The rest should concern it's self with the idea that the Bible neither tells people that there is evil and that it has no suggestions for how to avoid evil. Keep the original argument in mind for this. The original argument was: "Buddhism doesn't concern it's self with evil so I don't see why Christianity has to". This despite the fact that the originals of evil are a very (self evident) part of Christianity. GS y u no have good html code.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"]

That really depends on one's interpeation and the assumtion that his/her interpeation is true.

alexside1

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]That forum appears to only be arguments about how the bible states that evil was created, they disagree on how and why but they all seem to agree that there is evil and that Christianity has the answer. Again you're not proving any points other than playing a really poorly done game of subjectivity tag.

Which I agree. But the fact remains that it's still depends on their interpation and they're arguing that theirs is the right one. You havn't shown anything to disprove this. You can't read things without interpeting it, that's my point.Ace6301

Actually burden of proof is on you. You're saying the Bible doesn't talk about the origins of evil. It's a widely accepted fact (read everyone ever agrees) that the Bible does deal with the origins of evil and sin. Your challenge is to find a way to say the Bible doesn't. This means a fully written essay about how a book that takes a few chapters to explain the origins of sin and evil doesn't explain the origins of sin and evil. I want peer cited evidence to back this up as well. For instance you must argue that the concept of original sin is in fact not the idea that original sin is: 1). not a sin 2). not original 3). not inherently evil That should be one paragraph. The rest should concern it's self with the idea that the Bible neither tells people that there is evil and that it has no suggestions for how to avoid evil. Keep the original argument in mind for this. The original argument was: "Buddhism doesn't concern it's self with evil so I don't see why Christianity has to". This despite the fact that the originals of evil are a very (self evident) part of Christianity. GS y u no have good html code.

Atheists telling Christians how they can and can't interpret the Bible boggles my mind as much as atheists telling Muslims how they can and can't interpret the Koran. As I see it, the major argument here is simply moot. Whether or not Dawkins was talking to all Christians is beside the point, he was simply addressing a major Christian belief that many Christians hold.

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]That forum appears to only be arguments about how the bible states that evil was created, they disagree on how and why but they all seem to agree that there is evil and that Christianity has the answer. Again you're not proving any points other than playing a really poorly done game of subjectivity tag.

Which I agree. But the fact remains that it's still depends on their interpation and they're arguing that theirs is the right one. You havn't shown anything to disprove this. You can't read things without interpreting it, that's my point.Ace6301

Actually burden of proof is on you. You're saying the Bible doesn't talk about the origins of evil.

No, I did not say this, I said that the concept of sin depends on someones interpetion. I never said anything about the existence of it.

Whatever the fable/myth suggests it didn't accomplish anything theres still plenty of sin in the world. I guess when enough people believe in something it becomes true.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]That forum appears to only be arguments about how the bible states that evil was created, they disagree on how and why but they all seem to agree that there is evil and that Christianity has the answer. Again you're not proving any points other than playing a really poorly done game of subjectivity tag.

Which I agree. But the fact remains that it's still depends on their interpation and they're arguing that theirs is the right one. You havn't shown anything to disprove this. You can't read things without interpreting it, that's my point.alexside1

Actually burden of proof is on you. You're saying the Bible doesn't talk about the origins of evil.

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Actually burden of proof is on you. You're saying the Bible doesn't talk about the origins of evil.Ace6301

I simply said that it depends on someones interpretation (In this case where evil came from). You making this something that is very logical unnecessary difficult.

greatest sin ever for religion in garden of eden days = knowledge.

greatest sin ever for religion in modern days = knowledge.

heh, nothing ever changes does it?

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Many Christian apologists attempting to downplay the absurdity of the stories in the Bible label them symbolic, as in the Bible isn't really saying they happened; they're just a story with another meaning. Yet, these same Christians believe Jesus died for our sins, which is in fact the whole point of the religion. Jesus died to negate original sin (adam and eve), so these Christians are essentially arguing that Jesus died to redeem humanity of the sins committed in what is apparently just a symbolic story.

They are contradicting themselves.

The point is obvious to anyone who isn't a Christian apologist trying to perform mental gymnastics.

alexside1

Just because the story of adam and eve might be symbolic doesn't disprove the concept of sin. Jesus die for all our sins, not the just the sin of adam and eve. In honesty even Buddhist isn't concern of how and where evil comes from, so why should christianity?

How much do you even know about Buddhism?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"]No, I did not say this, I said that the concept of sin depends on someones interpetion. I never said anything about the existence of it.alexside1

I simply said that it depends on someones interpretation (In this case where evil came from). You making this something that is very logical unnecessary difficult.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Many Christian apologists attempting to downplay the absurdity of the stories in the Bible label them symbolic, as in the Bible isn't really saying they happened; they're just a story with another meaning. Yet, these same Christians believe Jesus died for our sins, which is in fact the whole point of the religion. Jesus died to negate original sin (adam and eve), so these Christians are essentially arguing that Jesus died to redeem humanity of the sins committed in what is apparently just a symbolic story.

They are contradicting themselves.

The point is obvious to anyone who isn't a Christian apologist trying to perform mental gymnastics.

worlock77

Just because the story of adam and eve might be symbolic doesn't disprove the concept of sin. Jesus die for all our sins, not the just the sin of adam and eve. In honesty even Buddhist isn't concern of how and where evil comes from, so why should christianity?

How much do you even know about Buddhism?

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] "In honesty even Buddhist isn't concern of how and where evil comes from, so why should christianity?" I said because Christianity DOES concern it's self with where evil came from. You argued that point. By arguing it you are disagreeing that it talks about the origin of sin and evil.Ace6301

I simply said that it depends on someones interpretation (In this case where evil came from). You making this something that is very logical unnecessary difficult.

If there wasn't any room for interpreting than the link that I post wouldn't exist. It is a fact that when you are reading something you are interpeating it. The bible is no exception. No amount of excuses will change that.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

Just because the story of adam and eve might be symbolic doesn't disprove the concept of sin. Jesus die for all our sins, not the just the sin of adam and eve. In honesty even Buddhist isn't concern of how and where evil comes from, so why should christianity?

alexside1

How much do you even know about Buddhism?

To say that Buddhism doesn't concern itself with how and where evil comes from isn't really true however. Granted it doesn't really make a big hollar about evil like some other religions do, but evil itself is wrapped up in (duh) suffering, which Buddhism is all about (well the cessation of suffering that is). Evil very much exists. But it's not because of some maladjusted demon, or because a couple of people a long ass time ago ate some fruit or anything like that. Evil, like suffering, is rooted in our own egos and delusions. We see the world as we wish it to be, not as it is. We want to take and take from the world so that it might fit our idea of what it should be. But no matter how hard we try, no matter what we do, the world will never be as we wish it. Thus suffering. And thus evil because we act out in harmful (both to ourselves and to others) ways trying to shape the world into the world we want.

It does have symbolic meaning if you don't take it literally.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

greatest sin ever for religion in garden of eden days = knowledge.

greatest sin ever for religion in modern days = knowledge.

heh, nothing ever changes does it?

gaming25

The Greeks were Christian?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"]

I simply said that it depends on someones interpretation (In this case where evil came from). You making this something that is very logical unnecessary difficult.

alexside1

If there wasn't any room for interpreting than the link that I post wouldn't exist. It is a fact that when you are reading something you are interpeating it. The bible is no exception. No amount of excuses will change that.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] No. Where evil came from is self evident in the Christian mythos. It's not a debatable thing and there's not any room for interpretation. Either you agree with what the bible says about how evil and sin came about in man or you aren't a Christian. Ace6301

If there wasn't any room for interpreting than the link that I post wouldn't exist. It is a fact that when you are reading something you are interpeating it. The bible is no exception. No amount of excuses will change that.

Did you not see that I address the part that I bold for you? You keep shifting your position as if you haven't said that but you actually really did. First you said that evil came from is self evident and it's not debatable. I post this link prove this wrong. Now your saying that christainity is concern with how evil came about when you yourself said in your own words "It's not a debatable thing and there's not any room for interpretation". If what you said is true then christianity doesn't concern itself with how evil came about, because it's undisputed.

Now then, are you going to debate me without slightly shifting your postion?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="alexside1"]

If there wasn't any room for interpreting than the link that I post wouldn't exist. It is a fact that when you are reading something you are interpeating it. The bible is no exception. No amount of excuses will change that.

alexside1

Did you not see that I address the part that I bold for you? You keep shifting your position as if you haven't said that but you actually really did. First you said that evil came from is self evident and it's not debatable. I post this link prove this wrong. Now your saying that christainity is concern with how evil came about when you yourself said in your own words "It's not a debatable thing and there's not any room for interpretation". If what you said is true then christianity doesn't concern itself with how evil came about, because it's undisputed.

Now then, are you going to debate me without slightly shifting your postion?