Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

So, to illustrate, somebody who reads a parable as "literal," as if it were talking about real people when they are only metaphors, is less Biblical that somebody who notices that the Bible says, "And Jesus spoke this parable, saying..."

That's an important nuancing of the answer.

Well, obviously! When Jesus or anyone speaks in parables one takes the literal meaning of parable for what it is namely a story that conveys a message external to the main text. People, children and adults love stories! Something which can be meaningful, though somewhat abstract are best rendered in a manner which makes the message clear giving it a poetic ambiance. Such stories well told do that whether in the bible or elsewhere. Importantly as well, such stories are easier to remember.

Parable-like features in the form of small morality plays are themselves encapsulated in fairy tales, meaning that in spite of its deceptive label, fairy tales can be serious business!

They can be. They aren't necessarily so. There are certainly inept and misleading parables and stories. There is a Biblical proverb that says, "Like useless legs to one who cannot walk, so is a proverb in the mouths of fools." (Prov. 26:7)

But there are also meaningful ones. Again, the decisive feature is the relationship between their "message" and reality.

[Dubious]

It's the potential "why nots" which never completely closes the final gap on the truth circle. Forgive my metaphors!

[Immanuel Can]

Can you please be clear as to whether (in your view) The Garden of Eden was or wasn't on planet Earth?

On Earth. Of course. Where else?

I do believe that an original mating pair is how the human race came to be.

I see. How does this square with God's moral proscription against incest?

Is this the old, "Where did Cain get his wife?" question?

...how does this square with God's moral proscription against incest? Does it not apply to animals?

This will astonish you. Like the prohibitions against lying, or breaking Sabbath, or having your neighbour's wife, it does not apply to animals.

[*] Jonah living in the belly of a whale for several days.

If one believes there's a God, why not?

Sure, we might well ask "Why not?" (and I personally would), but I'm actually asking you: do you believe that it literally happened? It's OK to be direct and succinct. A yes/no answer is fine.

That was a direct answer. The answer is "Yes," and "Why would that even be thought to be a problem?"

[Dubious]

So, to illustrate, somebody who reads a parable as "literal," as if it were talking about real people when they are only metaphors, is less Biblical that somebody who notices that the Bible says, "And Jesus spoke this parable, saying..."

That's an important nuancing of the answer.

Well, obviously! When Jesus or anyone speaks in parables one takes the literal meaning of parable for what it is namely a story that conveys a message external to the main text. People, children and adults love stories! Something which can be meaningful, though somewhat abstract are best rendered in a manner which makes the message clear giving it a poetic ambiance. Such stories well told do that whether in the bible or elsewhere. Importantly as well, such stories are easier to remember.

Parable-like features in the form of small morality plays are themselves encapsulated in fairy tales, meaning that in spite of its deceptive label, fairy tales can be serious business!

They can be. They aren't necessarily so. There are certainly inept and misleading parables and stories. There is a Biblical proverb that says, "Like useless legs to one who cannot walk, so is a proverb in the mouths of fools." (Prov. 26:7)

But there are also meaningful ones. Again, the decisive feature is the relationship between their "message" and reality.

I don't deny that there are a lot of good proverbs in the bible and this is definitely one of them.

[attofishpi]

Just watching the news regarding domestic violence here in Australia.

Apparently 1 woman is murdered by their partner every 9 days here. Do we really think these murderers believe there is a God?

Nah, if they do they are certainly fools. But hey, let's get rid of ANY belief! Mankind can then be as barbaric as they wish, so long as man doesn't catch 'em..

[Harry Baird]

Can you please be clear as to whether (in your view) The Garden of Eden was or wasn't on planet Earth?

On Earth. Of course. Where else?

I see. I'm puzzled though because you also wrote this earlier:

Well, the narrative itself tells you that nobody can find that garden again

So, satellites are capturing every inch of the planet, and every man and his dog has access to Google Earth, but... nobody can find the paradisical garden?

Why not?

I do believe that an original mating pair is how the human race came to be.

I see. How does this square with God's moral proscription against incest?

Is this the old, "Where did Cain get his wife?" question?

I have no idea how old it might be nor who else might have anciently asked it. I'm interested in your answer to it. What is it?

...how does this square with God's moral proscription against incest? Does it not apply to animals?

This will astonish you. Like the prohibitions against lying, or breaking Sabbath, or having your neighbour's wife, it does not apply to animals.

Lucky for them... I suppose. The biological dangers of incest are well known. How odd that God would ignore them and grant free rein to them.

If one believes there's a God, why not?

Sure, we might well ask "Why not?" (and I personally would), but I'm actually asking you: do you believe that it literally happened? It's OK to be direct and succinct. A yes/no answer is fine.

That was a direct answer. The answer is "Yes," and "Why would that even be thought to be a problem?"

OK. Thank you.

[Harry Baird]

Am I then to understand that you endorse the historical reality of Noah's Ark, being a vessel containing two of every creature on Earth, from which the planet was solely repopulated?

And just to be crystal, crystal clear, IC, albeit that it might very reasonably be inferred from your response to the question of animal incest, your answer to this question is "Yes" - correct?

[promethean75]

The Bible didn't literally mean two of every species because a whole buncha animals of the same species got on the boat bruh.

https://youtu.be/2kqU-LMw0HE

[Immanuel Can]

Can you please be clear as to whether (in your view) The Garden of Eden was or wasn't on planet Earth?

On Earth. Of course. Where else?

I see. I'm puzzled though because you also wrote this earlier:

Well, the narrative itself tells you that nobody can find that garden again

So, satellites are capturing every inch of the planet, and every man and his dog has access to Google Earth, but... nobody can find the paradisical garden?

Why not?

If you read Genesis, it tells you. After mankind was expelled, the way back into the garden was barred by supernatural means...man could never go back. And while the text does not say this, we may well surmise that a general flood would eliminate it entirely. So if we don't find it today, it's utterly unsurprising that we don't.

Is this the old, "Where did Cain get his wife?" question?

I have no idea how old it might be nor who else might have anciently asked it. I'm interested in your answer to it. What is it?

Well, there was no law given at that time, and no prohibition on incest. And while the text doesn't say it was one of his sisters who became his wife, that's the reasonable supposition. Still, since we are not told explicitly, that's a deduction rather than a certainty.

The biological dangers of incest are well known. How odd that God would ignore them and grant free rein to them.

They're not so dangerous as you might think. A lot of people have the expectation that every incident of close inbreeding produces offspring with two heads. In point of fact, that's still relatively rare, even in cases of close consanguinity. And when we get to cousins and second cousins, the risk is minimizing fast. The more the early gene pool spread, the lower the chances of close consanguinity.

But we don't know what genetic possibilities were latent in the first animals. And if there is a God, that would be no problem to Him. He who made the animals in the first place could surely make them also capable of stable reproduction.

[Nick_A]

Yep, so, basically, what Dubious said at the start.

Not at all. Just because somebody "offers something AS truth" doesn't mean it IS truth. Those are separate questions.

Dube thinks truth can depend on consensus. It never does.

...then how did Christianity come about...based on conditions that Jesus died for our sins since Adam, was crucified like any other number of blokes at the time and finally resurrected.

How did Christianity arise if not by consensus forged in a continuous refinement of dogma?

Again, care to explain?

No. Christianity always was. The question is why it was forgotten and now only appears in society as a devolved form

The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones

[Harry Baird]

Well, the narrative itself tells you that nobody can find that garden again

So, satellites are capturing every inch of the planet, and every man and his dog has access to Google Earth, but... nobody can find the paradisical garden?

Why not?

If you read Genesis, it tells you. After mankind was expelled, the way back into the garden was barred by supernatural means...man could never go back. And while the text does not say this, we may well surmise that a general flood would eliminate it entirely. So if we don't find it today, it's utterly unsurprising that we don't.

I see. But we can presumably still see the (flooded-out) Garden by satellite, right? I mean, maybe not the supernatural bits, but the (flooded-out) Garden itself. Can you give me a Google Earth link to the ruins?

Also: after the flood, are we still supernaturally barred from the (flooded-out) Garden? If so, can you point me to the news reports of people being impeded by unknown means from walking, jogging, driving, swimming, or flying into some specific location (that being, presumably, The - flooded-out - Garden)?

Well, there was no law given at that time, and no prohibition on incest. And while the text doesn't say it was one of his sisters who became his wife, that's the reasonable supposition. Still, since we are not told explicitly, that's a deduction rather than a certainty.

I see. So, back in the day, God was all like, "Hey, fellas, go f**k your sisters. It's cool with me, bros!", but later on he furrowed his brow a little and meditated on the whole brothers-and-sisters-f**king deal, and shortly thereafter pronounced, "Hey, fellas, I've reassessed this. F**king your sisters is DEFINITELY NOT COOL. Going forward, DO NOT F**K YOUR SISTERS."

Something like that, right?

[Harry Baird]

Am I then to understand that you endorse the historical reality of Noah's Ark, being a vessel containing two of every creature on Earth, from which the planet was solely repopulated?

And just to be crystal, crystal clear, IC, albeit that it might very reasonably be inferred from your response to the question of animal incest, your answer to this question is "Yes" - correct?

Still hoping for an answer here for crystal clarity, IC.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm waiting for you to explain how the Supreme Being would be "supreme," and still be unable to keep a human being alive. It was your question: I just want to know what you were thinking when you asked it.

You’ll have to wait a long time. I regard all these premises as absurd. I have no interest in such a conversation.

[Immanuel Can]

I see. But we can presumably still see the (flooded-out) Garden by satellite, right?

I wouldn't suppose so. It's been an awfully long time, by any reckoning. I'd expect a couple of feet of silt or sand over top of it, if it were there at all. And gardens are biological things, not like architectural structures. It's not like we have any technology that can tell us whether or not a plot of woodlands was ever a garden.

Also: after the flood, are we still supernaturally barred from the (flooded-out) Garden?

That's an impossible question. If the garden's gone, there's nothing left for us to be "barred" from.

I see. So, back in the day, God was all like, "Hey, fellas, go f**k your sisters.

So, not a serious question, just an opportunity to mock any answer?

Well, if anybody has time for that, it's not me. Got a serious question? Or do you just want to go on your way?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm waiting for you to explain how the Supreme Being would be "supreme," and still be unable to keep a human being alive. It was your question: I just want to know what you were thinking when you asked it.

You’ll have to wait a long time. I regard all these premises as absurd. I have no interest in such a conversation.

I wonder that you started it, then. But okay.

Have a nice day.