From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:04:50 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

Paul just can't seem to get off the literal interpretation of the Bible,
even when I tell him that I don't hold that view!

>>(Steve Adams) writes:
>>Sounds like a good free-will defense to me!  I disagree that is was a
>>setup, though.  There was the logical possiblity that Adam & Eve, given the
>>conditions in the garden (ie full presence & glory of God, all needs cared
>>for, etc), would not sin.  It was possible that they wouldn't separate
>>themselves from God.  They did.  You can say that it is 'human nature'.
>>I don't see how that is different than saying 'Free Will'.  

>And why do you say that eating the fruit is a sin? If the creator did not
>want us to eat the fruit, he would not have placed it in the center of the
>garden and told man about it, would He? Unless, 1. His intentions were to
>mislead man (setup), or 2. His intentions were that man gain knowledge of good 
>and evil at his own initiative. Isn't this logical? 
There is NO evidence as to why God placed the tree in the Garden.  The only
evidence presented is that the tree was there, and God forbid Adam to eat
from it.  Plain and simple.  Adam disobeyed the direct command of God.  Of
his own volition.

>I'll remind you that Adam
>and Eve were not created with knowledge of good and evil. 
You don't have to remind me of this.

>All of their needs
>may have been cared for just as all of the needs of someone who is brain dead
>can be cared for. If you had the choice of brain death or knowledge of good
>and evil, which would you choose? 
The point is that, if we take the story literally, Adam & Eve had no clue
as to what 'knowledge' was, or what they could gain by it.  They only knew
what the serpent told them.

Look at the story as allegory and metaphor...with poetic license.  The
basic facts presented are that man disobeyed God, chose to do this of his
own free will, and thus were apart from God.  "Banishment from the Garden"
is simply a separation from God.  There doesn't have to be a literal snake,
a literal garden or any of the other stuff.  There only needs to be an
explanation that humans separated themselves from God.  This seems to me to
be more of an explaination of our situation than a literal description of
what happened.

>And just to make it more interesting, no
>one will tell you which is the correct choice. As a matter of fact, your Lord
>says that eating the fruit will bring knowledge of death and forbids it for
>this reason. 
This is eisegesis.  You are reading something into the text that just isn't
there.  God tells Adam (again, taking YOUR literal assumption) that he (Adam)
will die if he (Adam) eats from the tree.  Not gain knowledge of death.
Die.

>>We approach these texts from different directions.  Your approach, given
>>what you've said, is to 'prove' that Christianity is flawed.

>I'm afraid you are wrong. My approach is to prove that Christianity is not
>flawed but is in fact correct. I have not said that Genesis is flawed and
>incorrect, I have said that it makes perfect sense to me.

Interesting style, there.  I'm curious now.  You said above that the Garden 
was either a setup or God intended us to gain knowledge of good and evil
from it.  I don't find evidence of either of these things.

>>I don't think you understand the basic philosophy here.  Remember, I start
>>with the default assumption that God exists and that the Bible is valid.
>>And that clearly influences my opinions, thoughts, actions, etc.

>Of course God exists and all texts are valid. I agree with you there. Must we
>start with such trivial assumptions?

In this group, one never knows...

>>This is just as bad as your continual harping on the verses in Luke about
>>hate.  You seem to think that all Christians have an absolute, inerrant,
>>literal understanding of Scripture.  We don't.  Trying to pin me down on
>>absolute literalism won't work.  I don't subscribe to that theory.  I've
>>said it before and I'll say it again: the message is what's important.
>>Since the Bible presents the message in various literary methods, we need
>>to determine the message and not get caught up in the actual literal words.

>I agree with this moderate Christian view entirely. I only remind people of
>Luke 14:26 as proof that the Bible is not the direct word of God, that one
>must interpret the message as you say. Learn from dogma, but don't be
>dogmatic. Surely you agree with this also? This is fundamental, is it not?

Yes it is.  And your tone here, except for the bit about Genesis and the
garden is much different than you've used in the past.  In fact, when I
denied Luke 14:26 meant what you said, and STATED IN THE ARTICLE that I
wasn't a literalist, you denied any and all explanation I gave telling me
to read the literal words.  What's the scoop?

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc