Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Curve Ball #7 - Symbolic?




Symbolic?




It's either, one extreme or the other.
[or abandoning the faith]

The literal story of Genesis [Im sure we all know it] is important for two key reasons:
1. It explains how god created everything.
2. It gives us a recount of "The Original Sin"

Both of which are crucial, but one is more important than the other, and that is "The Original Sin."

Why?
Well, without it.. There is no need for jesus & hell.


Now, when i hear people dismiss the old testament, saying that "jesus made up for it" - my train of thought immediately rolls to:
"Why is jesus divine, and why is he needed, if not for the old testament?"

Consider this.. 
People who agree with our current scientific understandings of the diversity of life, and the age of the Earth, as well as the Universe - Discard the genesis stories as merely "Allegorical", "Metaphorical" and "Symbolic" literature. This happens as a result of the sheer scientific evidence that contradicts with a literalistic biblical view. Some of the more basic scientific and mathematical concepts are proven to be demonstrably wrong [ID, Pi, Flat Earth.. etc] when faced with the reality of our current understanding.

If one is to discard such stories in a way, are they not fundamentally dismissing the need for jesus?

If the creation story was allegorical, and the garden of eden was symbolic, then how can one assume that the story of the "Forbidden Fruit" be reliable - 
If it is completely dismissed?

If this is indeed the case, people must accept that without original sin - there is no need for Jesus, Death, Sin, Hell and many of the other daughter consequences of this parent action at the start.

In saying this, there can be two reactions:

Become a Literal Creationist
By becoming a creationist, you drift further from reality - In that your beliefs are founded on Dogmatic understandings from 2,000 - 3,000 years ago.

Or the alternative

Accept that jesus died for a sin that was "allegorical"
You realise how you've just dismissed the need for jesus. As the original sin was symbolic.


So, you can either:

  • Deny Reality. [Creationist]
  • Accept a falsity. [Continue believing in jesus, regardless]
  • Do the rational thing. [Give up the nonsense]



I know which i'd rather, because i care about my beliefs, and whether they reflect both reality & the truth based on reality.
Do you?


[I Have another tangent i am going to go on in the next few weeks, will take some time to work out all the dates and stuff..]


Addendum:
A Reddit User Commented:

I think this is a very strong argument. You could argue that there are actually 3 creation stories. The first two in Genesis and the third in John. But they all point to the creation of original sin. The whole premise of the bible is that there is original sin. Because of this sin, god floods the earth, creates a kingdom, creates a line of kings, and from this line of kings, his son is born to become a sacrifice the way that Abraham's son was going to be a sacrifice.

If there is no original sin, there is no bible. And therefore no need for a savior, the creation of Israel, or the sacrifice of god's son. Therefore since there is a need for savior, there was original sin, therefore the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple is true. Essentially it's an A=B, B=C, therefore C=A argument that does hold up as well as any argument can holdup when based on something as fictional as the bible.
Jenniferwillow - Reddit
More Christian Curve Ball
Posted By Bradyns