06-15-2015, 01:34 AM
(06-14-2015, 03:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bringing them up in response to my posts is absolutely irrelevant. Seeing as I referred to them as ignorant and the only ones taking the literalist interpretation in the thread are those arguing in the position against religion, Christians that believe in Bible literalism/inerrancy are not a part of this conversation.
And I've made an argument which doesn't deal with with a literal translation. I don't believe in a God who would create Adam and Eve in innocence, create the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil he told them not to eat from, create the serpent who deceived them, and place them all together in the Garden of Eden fully knowing the Fall of Man would occur because they were innocent and without knowledge of good/evil/right/wrong and then get pissed off because Adam, Eve, and the serpent all did exactly what he knew they would do before Creation itself and punished them for doing what he knew they were going to do. That is a classic example of setting someone up for failure. He knew they were going to fail before Creation and allowed it. That story is so illogical a Creator rational enough to create the human nervous system is too rational to act that irrationally. Therefore, I reject the whole premise as nothing more than a myth no different than any of the other creation myths Christians reject as myth.
It is also said God cannot lie. Yet, he told Eve if she ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil she would die. She didn't die when she ate the Forbidden Fruit. God lied. But, whether a non-believer argues a literal interpretation or an allegorical interpretation, the believer will always argue for the opposite.
If Christians who didn't believe in inerrancy weren't a part of my life and the political landscape of this country then they wouldn't be a part of this conversation. Until then, I'm including them.
