Monday, August 21, 2017

Let's Not Take It Literally



Much of New Testament theology is based on ideas drawn from the literal creation and existence of Adam and Eve This common, seldom questioned, oft repeated, historical fallacy of a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden, with a literal talking serpent antagonist, has been the foundational explanation of how mankind arrived on the scene and ultimately fell from grace. However, the story serves as more of a political statement of what Israelite culture was not to be. It is a clear placing of blame for sin, evil and disobedience clearly on women (matriarchy) and a societal shift to correct the damage (Patriarchy). In fact, we have no choice, as this one literal act was supposed to have condemned all future humanity to eternal death without recourse! But did it? If it never really happened in time and space, then perhaps we need another look.

To set the stage, anyone who is familiar with the elements of the higher criticism knows that there are two creation of man stories in Genesis. The first, or Priestly Account, was written in the fifth century B.C. and extends from the beginning of Genesis through verse 3 of chapter 2. The second, or Jehovistic Account, begins with verse 4 of chapter 2 and extends through the third chapter. This version of the story was written in the eighth century B.C. It is interesting to note that the second account is about 300 years older than the first. They are two different accounts and are not compatible with their "facts." Orthodox Christians insist that both stories must be true and compatible, even though they contradict each other on many points, as do the birth, death, and resurrection accounts in the New Testament. Admitting this, however, would hurt faith and faith always comes before facts to literalists. "Faith" sometimes, is what covers the facts so we are not uncomfortable. When all else fails, you will be lashed with "the wisdom of man is foolishness with God". That will pretty much end the discussion.

The simple fact is however, Adam/Eve and Original Sin never LITERALLY happened in space, time and history. The idea that man literally came in an instant just 6000 years ago in the form of an Adam and Eve is simply not based in FACT. It is mythology, and not an original one at that.
The hypothetical first man of the Bible was rightly named Adam, since the first Adam , which means "MAN" was made out of "adamah" which means "earth". Adam was not so much who he was, but what he was. The Romans called men "homo" since he was made out of "humus". And other mythologies have man made of clay and blood mixed and formed. It is a common origin story, not unique to Genesis. Taking a woman from male parts is also not unique to the Bible account.
Now all through the pages of the Bible, of course, it is considered a real event. That is the nature of the Bible. Or at least that is the nature of the Bible when read by literalists, who perhaps are unaware of any deeper, though not literally intended meaning.

A couple of years ago, while teaching an anatomy class for a massage class, I reminded them that they needed to know that humans had twelve pairs of ribs, ten fixed and two floating pairs. Several students brought up the with the Biblical story of human origins being literally true, informed me that "of course, men have one less rib than women " I said no, that women did not literally come from the rib of man , an expendable part, no matter how close to his heart the smooze might have you believe. The Genesis story was not explaining biology and human origins. One girl said she was telling her father and he'd be calling me. He never did... darn!

Paul clearly plays off his belief in the literal truth of Adam and Eve to make a very ignorant point of supposed truth to the early Church. This "truth" is designed just as much to keep women out of the male church as the OT law was designed to keep women out of the male system.

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. FOR (this is the reason why to Paul) Adam was formed first, THEN Eve. And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived, FELL into transgression. Nevertheless (I, Paul, still have a role for her to fulfill), she will be saved in childbearing (though painfully which was part of the punishment in Genesis), IF they continue in faith, love, and holiness with self control. I Timothy 2:11-15


Do you honestly believe this is why women should not speak in a church, or if they have questions, go ask their husbands? So plainly Paul bases his teaching on a mythology that he believed to be literally true.

Perhaps you think I think they were all lying. I don't think they were lying for what they knew or believed, any more than I think Elijah or Jesus knew that remains of Neanderthals lay under their feet in Jerusalem or in Caves of Carmel. (They do). The answer is, of course Jesus believed it was literally true, or at least the writers who put their own reflections on Adam and Eve in Jesus mouth believed it. This was a COMMON practice in the writings of the time Western Christians are most unfamiliar with. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me" is the phrase that indicates a general ignorance as to how many conversations in the Bible are written. It is often written as fact, what the author imagines the character to have said in such an instance. Jesus' alone time in the Garden of comes to mind. Who wrote his prayer down? Did he tell the sleeping disciples what he said in his personal prayer minutes before his arrest. No .  An author made up what he imagined Jesus would say in such a predicament.

It might also help to point out that Paul also believed that marriage was to avoid fornication but the best choice was to remain single like him. Do you believe that is valid thinking? I don't. Ask a Catholic Priest! Paul says a true widow, who lives in pleasure, is dead while she lives. (I Tim. 5:6). Do you believe that is a balanced truth about widows? Paul says younger widows will weaken and grow wanton against Christ and cast off their faith and marry, the marriage being the proof of her wantonness. Do you believe this? I don't.

Paul says weak people marry and single people think only of Jesus, while married people think only of pleasing their mate. Do you believe this? I don't. I know lots of mates who don't. I don't remember a lot of wives telling me ask their husbands to stop paying so much attention to them.

I don't remember any singles so caught up with Jesus and the Church, I had to tell them stop it. Paul was naïve about relationships in the extreme. Perhaps because he seems not to have had any quality ones in his personal life given what we have about him. Paul said he had the power to lead around a wife. I doubt most women were interested in his power to lead them around.

In another place Paul says "for the man comes not from the woman, but the woman from the man" referring back to the Adam myth. Do you believe that biologically? I don't. No one does today, at least no one with an open, functioning mind not clouded by years of superstition, fear and compliance to the expectations of others.

One of the benefits of making mythology literally true is that one can formulate laws to prevent the literal problems from happening again. In the origins stories it is WOMEN who take the biggest hit. It is not possible to make laws against various things, or institute whole religious systems if the origin stories are perceived as mythical. They must to have literally happened to enforce literal laws and control people.

While not literally true, the story of the fall of woman and matriarchy, which it really is, has been used by the men of the Old Testament, predominately the controlling priesthood, to re-institute patriarchy and protect Israelite men from the dangers of surrounding Goddess worship.

Minoan Snake Goddess

It is no coincidence the great counselor to the female Goddesses (Astarte, Ishtar, Isis, and many more) of the nations around Israel, was the wise and benevolent Serpent. In a Goddess oriented society, birth and reproduction was the sole function of the female. This was real mystery to the male who could not connect the events of nine months previous to the birth. Women were mystical. They could produce humans. Remember, the male spermatozoa was not discovered until 1677 by Hamm and Leeuwenhoek and the female ovum by Baer until 1827! It is no coincidence that once the woman was again connected to the how of birth process after 1827, women began to demand equal rights again with men.

In a Goddess oriented society, women get a lot of respect as well. The Goddess could give her property to all her children. It did not matter who the fathers were. Specific paternity with multiple partners could not be proved. If they were hers, and she'd know, they were family! But this would not do in Israelite society. If Israelite men cohabited with "pagan women", property could go to these women when the man died and this was unacceptable. The nation was in danger. Matriarchy had to be prevented in Israel and Patriarchy installed to enforce paternity and the laws of inheritance.
The Goddess concept had to go. God now HAD to be male. And with a male God, only marriage could prove fatherhood and property rights of children. One woman to serve the one man. Any children would be his children and only his children would get the land. It would not be lost to a pagan wife or unmarried woman.

Remember too that women in the Patriarchal Israelite society were basically property. Much like we still see today in the Middle East. "You shall not covet your neighbors house (thing), your neighbors wife (thing), nor his male or female servants (things), or his ox , nor his donkey (things), nor any (thing) that is your neighbors" (Ex 20:17) .

In Genesis, Lot was able to barter his things, (daughters), to the town folk so that his guests would not be raped. (The rape of strangers was not sexual, it was to humiliate and warn them to not endanger the clan hometown). Lot was concerned about his image as being a safe and hospitable man to these men. When he fled Sodom he begged not to go Zoar, but rather the mountains, as he knew what his fate would be at the hands of some of the men of Zoar, symbolic humiliation.

In war, it was fine for Israelite soldiers to take the girls who could show signs of their virginity (don't even imagine it), and kill those who could not prove it. You can take your enemies' "things", just not your neighbors.

Most laws against sexuality were enforced, often fatally, to serve as warning to others and insure paternity. A woman was not stoned if raped in the country because she is assumed to have cried out for help and no one could hear. She was stoned for not crying out for help if raped in the city as this might indicate she was enjoying herself, and the paternity of the baby might not be known.

You might notice the pattern through history of first the Goddess alone, fertile and a mystery. Then as suspicion of a male role in birth arose, the Goddess takes a male consort, though always portrayed as smaller and less powerful than her. Then as connection between the male contribution to birth is more suspected, the consort becomes her equal and the shift that she becomes his equal occurs, as we see in Egyptian culture.

Egyptian Menkaura and Queen

Next, the male begins to feel that he alone is the cause of the mystery of birth and the female is a mere incubator. Now we have the death of Matriarchy and the Goddess and the birth of male dominated Old Testament Patriarchy. We now have a God that doesn't even have a consort, needs no company, knows no female and reproduces all by himself.



From this we have the story fall of the goddess in Genesis 2, and her evil (though never alluded to as Satan... that was added later) serpent counselor. The fall, caused by Eve (the goddess) is the reason for every evil thing to come and why humanity is the way it is. Therefore, she now only gets to have babies painfully and be subject to the one man. This is the meaning of Genesis 2 and 3.

Let me be perfectly clear. The story of the fall of man or woman or both never literally happened. It is a mythology written for the purpose of derailing and dethroning goddess worship in ancient Israel. It is to avoid the attendant risks of losing land to pagan wives and men finding more theological satisfaction in Goddess worship and fertility rights than in being controlled body, mind, spirit by a male Priesthood with all it's attendant obligations.

New Testament authors reach back to The Fall as literally true for the same reasons. Modern Christian do the same, some thinking it is literally true, and many other individual pastors KNOWING it is not, but hey, "I'd lose my job".


So why do I bother to write about the mythology of Adam/Eve and Original Sin, and invite the scorn of literalists? Well first of all, I used to believe and teach it faithfully myself as a literal fact. As a pastor, I did not have the guts to publicly question church teaching. And by church, I mean all denominations. I am past that stage now and am seeking the simple truth for me and my life, which I will never again give over to the group, the organization or "the church". Had the information available to me today been available when I was younger, I never would have gone into the ministry. All denominations only teach what supports the view of some founding individual.



I have learned that when science makes a mistake, they generally examine it, admit it, change it and appreciate the information that can still be used. When religions make a mistake, they simply kill the person who pointed it out, and perpetuate the Dark Ages. It is no coincidence they arose shortly after the establishment of literalist Christianity with its torture, forced conversions, state sanctioned edicts of truth and deeply troubled want to be's. I suggest a study on Martin Luther's attitude toward Jewish people to properly curl your toes and give you insight as to how the holocaust could have come about in Germany.

So back to the original premise. Adam and Eve did not literally exist in space and time. There was no Garden of Eden in the salt flats in southern Iraq. There was no talking serpent (a sure sign of a mythology). The events of the Fall have the deeply political and theological intent to dethrone goddess worship and thus all women from any special treatment or adoration save for having babies painfully and serving men. We, meaning every human to come along since, did not fall into sin because of Adam, from which we must be theologically extracted by bloodletting of any sort. If the events did not literally take place, the consequences did not either. Perhaps one can now feel they were born right the first time.

It's a long and painfully negative road to attempt to go from a being whose "heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it" to the absolute requirement to become "perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect". No pressure to perform there!

I spent 26 years with these concepts. I met NO perfect people, "like your Father in heaven is perfect"--NONE. None were close. None were much on their way.(Nor were they "mature" as their father in heaven is "mature")

 I met a lot of wonderfully normal people, but also, a lot who never could feel quite good enough to be who they are, and a feeling somehow this is just not achievable.

Being told that it is God and the Holy Spirit that will now do this for us, or maybe to us (whether by unconditional love, which seemed to have lots of conditions, or by grace, which in practical fact had a lot of laws), never really helped. Even Paul, depending on the book he may or may not have literally authored, never quite seems sure where law and grace, faith and works converge, or if they do.

This is what literalist Christianity does to people. Literalist, Patriarchal Christianity thrives on division. If it has no enemy, it has no purpose or motivation. There can be no "we only" without a "not them". There can be no "chosen" without the "unchosen" . There can be no "converted" without "the unconverted". And certainly no "true church" without the "false church".

When it finally discovers (don't worry, it won't) that the inerrant and literally true Book is neither inerrant nor literally true, it will have to face the fact that literalist teachings, Christian or Fundamentalist Islam, have been responsible for more damnable repression and destruction of the body, mind and spirit than a literal Satan could ever dream of.

We're all here to learn. I don't ask you to see the world of religion and theology through my eyes, nor would most. I got here with my own experiences, curiosity and need to know. However, I do encourage you to see it through your own eyes, and not as interpreted for you by Apostles, Ayatollah's, Prophet's, Priests and King's , AKA Gerald Flurry, Dave Pack or Robert Thiel, James Malm and the entire  host of theological midgets and  misfits.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

We must defer to Dr.Tkach on this difficult topic:
He is the one with all those books behind him in his airbrushed denominational portrait.
This is why Dr Tkach is paid a very handsome six-figure-salary by his denominational board, because he has read all those carefully arranged books that decorate his palatial executive suite.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, you have a gift for taking an involved subject, breaking it down and making it simple to understand.

Allen C. Dester

Anonymous said...

i am amazed how we pick and choose what mans writings to believe and subsequently look down upon those what disagree with that choice as being not rooted in fact...

not one of us knows the number of hairs on our head, nor the number of stars in the universe; we know not the moment we were conceived, nor whether that conception was even voluntary, and most have not even lived more than 100 years...

yet we presume to contradict the words of a book that has been around for thousands of years, has predicted everything from the return of judah to palestine, to the english and jews toning down their hostility towards each other in the region, to the germans helping the arabs attempt to wipe out the jews...

we will die today and tomorrow just as the scoffers of the apostle sauls and their respective vain philosophies, sciences and idol gods did, but the Word of God will still be read in churches and synagogues after we are long gone, if history is any indicator...

Anonymous said...

I was thinking the same thing..

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I read all of that....

and I'm convinced that Dennis has lost it...he'll be fitted for a straight jacket soon.

Anonymous said...

The thing is, God is a prayer answering God who sometimes answers a prayer request by putting a certain scripture (with a corresponding unique feeling) into a persons mind. This validates that the bible is Gods inspired word, which includes Adam and Eve.
So no sale here Dennis.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

http://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2015/07/god-adam-eve-and-science.html

Anonymous said...

I just want to be a good person and treat others with respect regardless of their personal religious ideologies or political views. Kindness goes a long way no matter who you are.

Anonymous said...

TKACH: "Are you a young-earth creationist? Come along to GCI"
TKACH: "Are you an old-earth evolutionist? Come along to GCI"
..GCI: "OPEN MINDS; OPEN DOORS; OPEN BORDERS; OPEN WALLETS"

Anonymous said...

I told a friend that I didn't believe in Hell or even the lake of fire and that a merciful God would never even allow a place like hell to exist. He responded that Gods thoughts are not our thoughts and his thinking is so far above ours that we just don't understand the reason he sends people to hell and even allows it to exist. I should have told him that the concept of hell,(or the lake of fire)was the result of twisted "human reasoning" and not the result of any divine reasoning. In a nut shell, the concept of hell or any kind of eternal punishment was invented by men and not by a merciful God.

Helen Wheels said...

Several days ago, Ken Ham, the guy behind Answers In Genesis and that ark boondoggle in KY tweeted out the following:

"If you cannot trust god's word in Genesis, then why trust what it says throughout the rest of scripture?"

For a split-second, I thought maybe he was finally coming around!

Questeruk said...

While this may be an interesting point of view, Dennis, the whole article loses credibility because of so many clear factual errors and false innuendo.

For example, you recall your anatomy class, where several students asserted that "men have one less rib than women ". Obviously this is incorrect – in the same way that a man that had an arm amputated doesn’t start producing one armed babies – or someone losing a toe off their left foot doesn’t then father babies that have four toes on one foot, and five on the other.

Losing a rib doesn’t mean that all subsequent male babies have one less rib (if this was the case, why wouldn’t female babies also have one less rib?).

I’m not surprised the girl’s father didn’t call you back – I would hope that he realised the fallacy of the argument, as maybe the others in your class did when they thought it through after the heat of the argument had died down.

The point is that the Bible makes no such claim that a man has one less rib than a woman, and this is therefore just a ‘straw man’ argument.


You talk about Lot, and suggest the men of Sodom wished to humiliate the strangers. You then go on to say that when Lot “fled Sodom he begged not to go Zoar, but rather the mountains, as he knew what his fate would be at the hands of some of the men of Zoar, symbolic humiliation.”

This is Biblically 100% wrong, as I am sure you know, Dennis.

In Genisis 19v17 Lot is told to escape to the mountain. But in verse 19 and 20 it’s Lot that pleads to go to Zoar. He says “I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:”.

He then pleads to be allowed to go to Zoar, as it is near, and it’s only small. God allows this and Lot goes to Zoar, and it was only later that he moved out to the mountains.

So here we have the complete opposite to your assertion. Lot wants to go to Zoar, pleads to go. This is hardly evidence of impending ‘symbolic humiliation’.


Another absurd statement you make is “In a Goddess oriented society, birth and reproduction was the sole function of the female. This was real mystery to the male who could not connect the events of nine months previous to the birth.”

Amazing – you are contending that in Biblical times people didn’t realise that sex was producing babies!!! That they couldn’t make the connection between sex and babies being born.

To confirm your contention you go on to say:- “Women were mystical. They could produce humans. Remember, the male spermatozoa was not discovered until 1677 by Hamm and Leeuwenhoek and the female ovum by Baer until 1827! It is no coincidence that once the woman was again connected to the how of birth process after 1827, women began to demand equal rights again with men.”

Dennis, I can assure you that Biblical writers definitely knew that the sex process produced babies.

There are dozens and dozens of verses which would show that, as you well know. Now they may not have known the complete scientific details of the process, but absolutely they knew that it required a man’s seed to start the reproduction process – to suggest otherwise is just ludicrous.

I don’t have time or space to critic your entire article, but I think these three points give the flavour of it. An interesting idea, but presented with many clear errors.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon 8:49 PM

Please don't twist scripture like the Tkaches by writing things like

not one of us knows the number of hairs on our head

The doctor who examined me did some imaging and told me that I had 87,017 hairs on my head at the time I was looking into a potential hair transplant. Scripture doesn't opine as to whether or not we may know our own hair. What it says is that God DOES know.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anon I understand how most read the Bible emotionally reading into it what seems to fit the times one lives in . Of course it is not actually doing that. Reading the Bible critically with an open mind and eye for it's real origins, history and politic of a cultic people in the OT and the arrival and arguments over the meaning of of yet another dying savior and atonement by execution and blood religion in the New is different than reading it emotionally. Depending on the mood, I can still read the Bible emotionally but the realities of its origins, agenda and religious politics of times past still shines through and show it to be less than the "God Breathed" document it is emotionally made out to be.

Anonymous said...

This is a very well thought out article Dennis. The blatant contradictions in the creation accounts are some of the things that started me down the path to freedom from religious enslavement. I always like to tell people who insist that Genesis is factual and literal, that if Eve truly was made from Adams rib, that it would mean that Adam married his transgendered clone. They would share the exact same DNA. It is also pretty easy to point out that in the creation account, it was the serpent telling the truth, and God was at best being deceitful. They have to point to obscure verses written hundreds of years later to try to explain that away. I always enjoy what you write.

Thomas Munson

Dennis said...

Ques....I think you totally missed the point of the rib anatomy story. I don't believe it. The Baptist students did. The girls father taught her men have one less rib due to genesis story

Dennis said...

You have to lose your mind sometimes to come to your senses

Dennis said...

Gen 30:19. Lot begged an angel not have to flee far so he cut an angelic deal. While the short distance from and no stranger in Soar he evidently got afraid quickly and headed to the mountains. The implication of theologians is that as the guy causing all the trouble it might seem..he was noe in the same position as the visitors in Sodom and fled to mind. It's a tall tale

Dennis said...

Having lived in Jesusland SC I can't tell you how many times the ignorant "but men have one less rib right?" literalist question got asked.

I did not state the Zoar tale clearly and agree lot begged to go to not far away Zoar first and then left fearing it

Anonymous said...

“I met a lot of wonderfully normal people, but also, a lot who never could feel quite good enough to be who they are, and a feeling somehow this is just not achievable.”

Dennis, this is also a sore point with me. It’s like, God created mankind knowing he would fail and suffer greatly from his flawed nature. Mankind, Israel and his churches have never pleased the Creator in any meaningful way. It’s hard not to be discouraged.

When Christ was call good master He said “no man is good, but the Father in heaven.”
Paul writes about this in Romans 7: 22

For in my inner being I delight in God’s Law, but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

The Biblical answer obviously is Christ sacrifice and we need enough faith that we can be forgiven and someday be transformed into a perfected spirit.

The “be ye perfect” part must mean we strive to be like God, knowing we can’t make it in this life. With all this theology it’s like looking through a glass darkly.
As Christians we have to hope and trust that God’s plan of transforming wretched humans into a “perfect” spirit beings was the best way God was going to accomplish His goal of adding to His Family.

Dennis said...

On all things, motives, perceptions in the day of the female principle and goddess worship, fertility and birth a good read of When God was a Woman by Merlin Stone would be historically enlightening. (Sorry for multiple posts. Small one letter at time phone respond waiting on clients)

Anonymous said...

There is an interpretation that reconciles the Genesis account of Adam and Eve with human evolution. If is not a difficult scenario to construct. It takes the Adam and Eve account out of the realm of mythology and into the realm of scientific reality.

It is, however, an interpretation. One that I happen to believe. But I recognize that it is different from what the OT states. The writers of Genesis clearly made no direct statements regarding evolution. Hominid evolution is an addendum of Theistic Evolution to the original text.

If we accept Genesis without interpretation, some of the events look similar to other ancient Semitic creation accounts. These accounts were written by people with the knowledge of that day not the knowledge of our day.

I believe that historical context is something we have to recognize as a shaping influence on the detail of the Bible. But science has been transformative. What was written down as fact in ancient times has become allegory to us now. Both the orignal writing and the present allegory convey principle. The medium has changed but the message runs true.

Michael said...

Maybe I mentioned this sometime before but it bears repeating given the context of this post.

Contrary to what the Genesis writers believed, the female body plan is the "main" body plan, and the male is the derivative of that body plan.
Modern biology makes this so clear that the mythological view is so much more ridiculous.

First, females have what can only be considered the normal "plan": 23 sets of equal chromosomes. Everyone has two of each (for all intents and purposes identical in function).
Then you've got the male, where one of the perfectly matched pairs isn't matched but one chromosome is a little runt of strand of DNA with all the renegade genes that make us male.
In development, most of those renegade genes found only on the odd-man-out Y-chromosome are what makes an embryo veer off from what normally would be the female body plan, to the optional plan which is a male.

The [ignorant] writers of the Bible just got it so very, precisely wrong, saying that the man was the main design and the woman was the optional design.

NO2HWA said...

I can guarantee that the average COG member knows nothing about the J, E, P accounts in Genesis.

RSK said...

I read about them while a COG attender, but I was a young teenager and certainly not a baptized member or a convert. I doubt that counts. I do remember asking one of my parents about it and receiving the expected about "theyre just trying to convince people that its not Gods Weeeeeerd" or something like that. Its too bad, as it really is interesting to note the regional biases in the various accounts.

Gerald Bronkar said...

Again Dennis, another excellent post based on logic, research and sound reasoning! You make so many undeniable points, especially the damage done by fundamentalists.

Looks like nothing much will change in our generation. Evolution is a slow process. How many centuries will pass before Christians stop looking for the return of a Savior they really don't need, because there was really never a fall?

Hopefully posts like this one will help a few to start asking basic questions about their long-held beliefs. I am curious as to the percentage of participants on this site who ever question the validity of their Bibles? So many are just stuck and believe that certain questions are off limits...sinful. Too bad.

Anonymous said...

So, if you are a atheist, you are open minded, logical, a sound reasoner. But if you believe in God and the bible, you are emotional and non of the above.
I use to hear this same line of reasoning and similar expressions from 1960s and 1970s left wingers. Now that the left has become the establishment, all the open minded and lets be logical thingy has gone out the window. Instead they have become intolerant, chasing away conservative speakers from college campuses.

Meaning, the 'lets be open minded and logical' is only a mask that people wear when they are the under dog.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anon 226. I"d call that "all or nothing thinking" on your part. The comment made by 849 in response to the article, well it didn't actually respond to anything, but the content about the Bible was from an emotional connection to the book not addressing any of the critical thinking aspects of the story. being literally true etc. I have no comment on left wingish politics. I merely am addressing the fact that there is emotional Biblical thinking...'God wants us to..". "God intends...". "Here is how God is doing this .....". etc as opposed to examination of the content of the Book, it's fallacies, bad history and errancy and origin issues. I don't question sincerety but pious conviction with marginal information is a weak position .

Questeruk said...

Dennis said...
“Ques....I think you totally missed the point of the rib anatomy story. I don't believe it. The Baptist students did. The girls father taught her men have one less rib due to genesis story”

No, I didn’t miss the point on that story - I fully understand that you don’t believe it. I also understand that the students DID believe it.

But the way you were writing this story implied that the students believed something that was in the Bible. They were not – their thinking was in error.

What is relevant to your argument is what the Bible is claiming on this subject. And the Bible is NOT saying that a man has one less rib that a woman.

What the students believed was not relevant to your argument, which is why it is a ‘straw man’ argument.



Anonymous said...

If we're speaking of the categorization of fallacies, thats probably closer to Red Herring than Straw Man. But anyway...

DennisCDiehl said...

Gotcha Questeruk. Of course , the Bible and the account would not imply that. The literary reason for using a rib, in my view, is that men had lots of ribs and losing one , as opposed to an eye or testicle was no baggy. Women weren't created in the story "to show they are close to a man's heart." They were created from the rib because no one would miss one. I suppose it could have been a hair but that didn't cross the author's mind. :)

Byker Bob said...

This little anecdote will fit into the discussion if you squint slightly while looking sideways. The late, great Bo Diddley once said, "When my record came out in 1955, it changed music forever. All the young Caucasian kids suddenly threw Beethoven into the garbage!"

I, of course, had never heard of classical music until the parental units came into the church. There, participation in all of HWA's personal preferences and tastes became mandatory if you wanted to be considered converted. So did belief in literal interpretations and all of the legalism that that spawns.


BB