Raf

Again, for those who want to treat the Bible as literature and artistic expression: this thread does not address your views. This thread addresses those who think it is history, as in, "it happened." And if you want to change the meanings of "history" and "happened," I WILL mock you. Everyone knows what those words mean. If you want to act as though they are ambiguous, please don't run crying to the GSC rules when it's pointed out that the position you're taking is one of ignorance and stupidity. I am not saying you're ignorant. I am not saying you're stupid. You are. I am merely observing it.

No, it's not. What's absurd is that question. Someone built the pyramids. That really happened. It was aliens. That did not really happen. It was Hebrews. That did not really happen. "This didn't really happen" is in keeping with the evidence. "This really happened," when it comes to the question of whether the builders were Hebrews or aliens (by which I mean space aliens) is absurd. And to suggest an equivalency is moronic.

Not entirely surprised. Finnegan gave up on "Once saved, always saved" abooooooout 17-18 years ago. Not sure when, but it roughly coincided with my leaving NY, which was 1999. So if Gallagher gave up on it, not surprised at all that they would find common ground.

They're really comes a point when people need to recognize that you are not engaging in this conversation for the sake of having a rational discussion. You are trolling this conversation for the sake of throwing it off course. I believe what you are doing here is dishonest. It is not engaging the actual topic of this thread. It is a tactic that has been repeatedly used in various threads that I have started. The goal appears to be to exhaust me rather than to engage me. I have other things to say, but they would violate this website's rules.

Impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you because you don't agree to the meaning of normally used terms. If i say "up" and you say "up," but when you say it, you mean up, down, sideways, or static, then we are not agreeing to the meaning of basic terms. When i say "history" and "happened," and you use the same terms to signify things that never happened in history, it's not a matter of disagreeing with your position. It's a matter of your position being meanongless and therefore impossible to discuss. I know it entertains you to make it appear that i am being closed minded. It is a lot better, from your perspective, than admitting that your position is nonsensical. Adam and Eve are fictional characters. Perhaps they are archetypes of a lesson the Hebrews wanted to teach. That is, however, another way of saying they are fictional characters. Pandora is an archetype of a lesson the Greeks wanted to teach. That doesn't mean she existed in history, unless you want to change the meanings of the words exist and history, which clearly you have no problem doing. However, doing so makes a rational conversation about what happened in history utterly meaningless, because you do not mean the same things that normal people mean when they use those words.

Interesting article. Thank you for sharing.

when you say "happened," you do not mean happened the way normal people mean it. That makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you about this.

CES (Schoenheit Lynn and Graeser) articulated the same argument in their book "Don't Blame God," which basically used "He's not omniscient" to blunt the problem of evil. The argument had more merit than i gave it at the time. i've come to the conclusion that the chatacter of Yahweh evolved over time. He goes from mighty to omnipotent, from wise to omniscient, from merciful to "light and in him is no darkness at all." Moses wouldn't recognize the God of Paul. Marcion was convinced they were different gods entirely. It's not at all difficult to see why. Omniscience is both scripturel, in my opinion, and untenable. But i don't think the Bible has a single answer to the question of What Did God Know and When Did She Know It? Yahweh in Genesis is not all knowing. That's my opinion of what scripture says, offered here as an explanation that i can see where Geer and CES were coming from now that I no longer need to reconcile contradictory scriptures and claim One Consistent Message (tm).

Bible: This happened. Raf: This didn't happen. You guys: define "happened." Just because the event never took 0lace doesn't mean it didn't happen. Raf: oh ffs

To think that the existence of Adam and Eve as historical figures is more certain than the existence of George Washington takes a level of denial of reality, history and scholarship that I am not prepared to contend with. Adam and Eve are fictional characters. George Washington is attested to by multiple independent sources. You are not worthy to participate in this conversation if you don't see the difference.

I think I would concede Paul. It's not reflected in his writings, but it can reasonably be deduced by his education.

Oh for Pete's sake. Like I said, you can't reason with some people.

The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round. There is little to no evidence that they knew it was spherical.

TLC, "It's spiritual history" WTF does that mean? Did it actually happen or not? This weaseling of words is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some people. It "spiriitually" happened. Wha? "History presented from a spiritual perspective." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN REAL LIFE? "Evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality." Do you realize that NOTHING is untrue if you look at it this way? Nothing! Yertle the Turtle is now a true story. Green Eggs and Ham is a true story. Because you're erased the meaning of "true" by adding so many qualifiers as to render the original word meaningless. There's a word for that: Obfuscation. For some reason, you find the prospect that Adam and Eve never existed and Genesis 1-3 is a work of total fiction SO THREATENING that the only way you can address it is by hiding the word fiction behind a meaningless "spiritual history." You're free to do that all you'd like, but it does not address the topic of this thread, which addresses a literal interpretation of Genesis, as you well know by now.

Luke traced it back to Adam. I have no idea what "data" he used, except that some of it can be deduced from Kings and Chronicles. Whether those are reliable is a matter for another time/thread. I don't recall Jesus speaking of his genealogy.

1. Most people in Columbus' day knew the world was not flat. 2. Yertle the Turtle actually says "fiction" on the binding. In the copy of Insomnia, by Stephen King, on my desk right now, there's a page that has a lot of teeny tiny type on it. Copyright date. Publisher's address. Credits for other people's work cited in the novel. And this gem of a paragraph: "Publisher's note: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales is entirely coincidental." 3. You see the same disclaimer in most works of fiction and in most fictional movies. 4. Nonetheless, it was never taken literally by anyone and if it were, then an analysis showing why it could not possibly be literally true would be warranted. Arguing against such an analysis by saying it wasn't MEANT to be taken literally when it was written does not change the fact that it was taken literally by others at a later time. I don't think one can reasonably argue that Paul and the writer of the gospel of Luke didn't believe that Adam was a real person in history. They clearly did. A significant piece of Paul's theology hinges on it. How Augustine handles that complication is something I have yet to explore, to be honest (thank you for the EXCELLENT link). I do know that Catholics in general have been comfortable for decades at least with "Adam and Eve never happened" AND "Jesus' death was a sacrifice that atones for original sin." I suppose their reconciliation of those two ideas, which contradict each other on the surface, can be found in the writings of their most prestigious philosophers. Or, maybe not. WIll be interesting to explore.

WordWolf: Let us assume I was mistaken about the fate of GSC and, assuming you are back in action: it's your move!

No longer certain about the fate of GSC, I will continue on the assumption GSC will continue: I don't see where there's room for "Genesis 1-3 is a misunderstood section of scripture." The only misunderstanding is that it presents itself as history, was accepted for the longest time as history, is still presented as history in certain circles (see The Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter), and is bullsh#t, from the standpoint of what actually happened in history. This thread is looking at assertions as though they are assertions of fact and history. It is not looking at assertions as allegories to teach lessons. And honestly, i think we've far passed the point where arguments about the nature of Genesis are becoming disingenuous.You can excuse any historical inaccuracy in the Bible if you are willing to adopt some kind of expansive "but does the Bible actually say this happened" interpretation. Everyone was perfectly happy assuming it happened until it was challenged. Paul speaks of Adam as though Adam were a historical figure of tremendous consequence. To come along 2,000 years later and say Paul didn't mean that, Genesis didn't mean that literally, strikes me as desperate ret-conning of It Is Written. Show me in the Bible where they say this is just a story and not history, and you may have a point. But when the writer of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, I don't think he's shoving a "figuratively speaking" in there.

The button is still up. That's the best I can answer at this time. Still waiting to hear again from Paw.

Bart Ehrman, the famed agnostic, agrees with your interpretation. So you're in good company as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the original Christians believed in a fiery hell of eternal torment.

I'm gratified that you are very proud of you. I would be too.

If you do say so yourself.

This is more a suspicion than an observation, so take it with a grain of salt. I think part of the problem in discussions about "critical thinking" is a lack of agreement on what "critical" means. It sounds to me like one person is using it to mean "searching for and finding fault," while another is using it to mean "examining the argument and determining whether its logical bases are flawed. Someone who is engaged in critical thinking is NOT looking to find flaws or fault. He's not being cynical. If you're not engaged in critical thinking, you can be suckered into anything. If you are engaged in cynical thinking, you won't believe the truth even when is is staring you in the face. Anyway, just a thought.

if anyone has a cheaper, better way to do this, by all means secure a domain name and start it up. Maybe Paw will sell this domain to you. I ran, for a very short time, a parallel site. it was a nightmare, with only a tiny fraction of GSC's membership. But hey all means, if you can do it better, cheaper and are willing to deal with the hassles, go for it!

The correct answer is Seinfeld.. Grease Spot Cafe will cease operations at the end of November. This is my last post on this thread. It's been a pleasure.