"Hard to Believe"

[Scrawly]

A problem I often encounter with the unbelieving world is not so much a sophisticated form of scholarly argumentation but rather the seemingly obvious: Christianity is simply hard to believe. So, why exactly is Christianity hard to believe? Well, let me illustrate the objection in its crudest, simplistic form through this mock evangelistic dialogue:

Skeptic: "Scrawly, I understand all that but I am just being honest here...I mean a talking snake?"

Me: "Well it's not merely a snake that was talking, rather, an evil spirit being was using a good creature that God created as a disguise to communicate his lies."

Skeptic: "Dude that's not helping your case."

Me: "...."

Skeptic: "Look man, the bulk of the Scriptures just read like primitive stories to me - ancient tribal myths with perhaps a kernel of historicity here and there"

Me: "Maybe these narratives seem far-fetched to you because you are presupposing God doesn't exist and therefore miracles do not occur?"

Skeptic: "Miracles? I really don't think we even need to take it there. These stories scream fable - they remind me of my childhood bedtime stories my mother used to read to me! I mean it doesn't even end with the talking snake. We also have a talking donkey, a rib-woman, a dude with magical hair killing a thousand other dudes with a donkey's jaw-bone, another dude situated in a whales belly for three days, resurrected saints, a chick turning into salt, a non-evidenced global flood, exodus, and on and on..."

Me: "But if God exists..."

Skeptic: "Then He clearly prefers to exercise His miraculous feats in an ancient pre-scientific, superstitious, primitive era amongst illiterate peoples/primates; that seems just a tad suspect, no? Look man, if you can believe all that more power to you. For me though, its just hard to believe - too hard to believe.

I really don't know what to say to a person who objects in this manner. What say you?

[KingsGambit]

Though I'm not a fan of everything he puts out, I would suggest such a person listen to a sermon by Greg Boyd. Let me see if I can find it.

And here it is: http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/se...house-of-cards

[seanD]

A problem I often encounter with the unbelieving world is not so much a sophisticated form of scholarly argumentation but rather the seemingly obvious: Christianity is simply hard to believe. So, why exactly is Christianity hard to believe? Well, let me illustrate the objection in its crudest, simplistic form through this mock evangelistic dialogue:

Skeptic: "Scrawly, I understand all that but I am just being honest here...I mean a talking snake?"

Me: "Well it's not merely a snake that was talking, rather, an evil spirit being was using a good creature that God created as a disguise to communicate his lies."

Skeptic: "Dude that's not helping your case."

Me: "...."

Skeptic: "Look man, the bulk of the Scriptures just read like primitive stories to me - ancient tribal myths with perhaps a kernel of historicity here and there"

Me: "Maybe these narratives seem far-fetched to you because you are presupposing God doesn't exist and therefore miracles do not occur?"

Skeptic: "Miracles? I really don't think we even need to take it there. These stories scream fable - they remind me of my childhood bedtime stories my mother used to read to me! I mean it doesn't even end with the talking snake. We also have a talking donkey, a rib-woman, a dude with magical hair killing a thousand other dudes with a donkey's jaw-bone, another dude situated in a whales belly for three days, resurrected saints, a chick turning into salt, a non-evidenced global flood, exodus, and on and on..."

Me: "But if God exists..."

Skeptic: "Then He clearly prefers to exercise His miraculous feats in an ancient pre-scientific, superstitious, primitive era amongst illiterate peoples/primates; that seems just a tad suspect, no? Look man, if you can believe all that more power to you. For me though, its just hard to believe - too hard to believe.

I really don't know what to say to a person who objects in this manner. What say you?

The first mistake you made is in the very first sentence of the dialogue, so I couldn't even get passed the rest. Genesis doesn't say Satan was in the form of a snake. It merely identifies him as "the Serpent." But this looks like it was just an idiom since he's often identified as a serpentine creature throughout scripture. Secondly, "beast of the field" (in the KJV) is the Hebrew word chay, which means "living being," so a better translation would be: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any living being of the land which the LORD God had made." We don't know what form Satan was in, but from a logical point of view, I doubt Satan appeared as a snake. I would imagine he appeared as a glorious being that captivated Eve.

[oxmixmudd]

The first mistake you made is in the very first sentence of the dialogue, so I couldn't even get passed the rest. Genesis doesn't say Satan was in the form of a snake. It merely identifies him as "the Serpent." But this looks like it was just an idiom since he's often identified as a serpentine creature throughout scripture. Secondly, "beast of the field" (in the KJV) is the Hebrew word chay, which means "living being," so a better translation would be: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any living being of the land which the LORD God had made." We don't know what form Satan was in, but from a logical point of view, I doubt Satan appeared as a snake. I would imagine he appeared as a glorious being that captivated Eve.

Well, the problem with this seanD is that God curses the serpent and takes away his legs and tells him he will from that day forth be required to crawl on his belly on the Earth. It basically is explaining why the snake does not have legs (though in some snakes its skeleton does have a vestige of legs). The reference to 'enmity between you and the woman' refers to the deep seated fear of snakes not uncommonly found in women. I think it is clear this is speaking of the snake in a generic form and explaining why they of all the beasts do not have legs.

Jim

[Otter]

Though I'm not a fan of everything he puts out, I would suggest such a person listen to a sermon by Greg Boyd. Let me see if I can find it.

And here it is: http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/se...house-of-cards

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: lilpixieofterror

Christianity 201 is for Orthodox Christian members only. Please remember this in the future, thanks!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[oxmixmudd]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Indeed, part of the problem here is taking an overly literal view of the opening chapters of Genesis, so that instead of defending the rationality of believing in God's power in some event like the parting of the red sea (sea of reeds), one is forced to try to justify a literal reading of that which likely is not.



Jim

[Otter]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Otter]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[seanD]

Well, the problem with this seanD is that God curses the serpent and takes away his legs and tells him he will from that day forth be required to crawl on his belly on the Earth. It basically is explaining why the snake does not have legs (though in some snakes its skeleton does have a vestige of legs). The reference to 'enmity between you and the woman' refers to the deep seated fear of snakes not uncommonly found in women. I think it is clear this is speaking of the snake in a generic form and explaining why they of all the beasts do not have legs.

Jim

I don't agree. Your view is an assumption; and not a very good one, as the verse says nothing about legs, so you're filling that in as a meta-narrative. If Genesis described him slithering about before the fall, then I'd concur that it's describing him as a snake. But the creation of snakes occurred in Gen 1:25 ("creeping things" remes). Snakes were here before the introduction of "the Serpent." The fact he's cursed to move on his belly could have been a literal curse (Isaiah 14:12?), but that doesn't mean Genesis is stating that this is where snakes came from. Last I recall, snakes don't eat dirt, and even a scientifically ignorant Hebrew would have known that. So since snakes were created prior and don't eat dirt, it could either be metaphorical for his lowering status, or a literal curse. The "enmity" was specifically described from the woman's seed (not both her and Adam) because it was a notable spiritual signet of the coming Messiah.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't agree. Your view is an assumption; and not a very good one, as the verse says nothing about legs, so you're filling that in as a meta-narrative. If Genesis described him slithering about before the fall, then I'd concur that it's describing him as a snake. But the creation of snakes occurred in Gen 1:25 ("creeping things" remes). Snakes were here before the introduction of "the Serpent." The fact he's cursed to move on his belly could have been a literal curse (Isaiah 14:12?), but that doesn't mean Genesis is stating that this is where snakes came from. Last I recall, snakes don't eat dirt, and even a scientifically ignorant Hebrew would have known that. So since snakes were created prior and don't eat dirt, it could either be metaphorical for his lowering status, or a literal curse. The "enmity" was specifically described from the woman's seed (not both her and Adam) because it was a notable spiritual signet of the coming Messiah.

There is no doubt that there is 'double entendre' here seanD. And the spiritual implications you mention are absolutely there, and in fact the primary message of the text. But you can't toss out the double because it suits you to do so. As a matter of fact, this is why it is far better to understand these texts as something other than literal history. Here you dodge the obvious literal implications of your interpretive paradigm by creative interpretation (much as one has to do for the entire section of Genesis 1-11 to avoid the obvious metaphors and references to cultural conceptions of the cosmos) rather than simply accept the symbolic and figurative language for what it is. But what do you do with that language at Babel, and the creation of the rainbow at the end of Noah's flood, or worse, with the Son's of God seeing the daughters of men where beautiful and coming down and mating with them, producing the 'great men of renown' (demigods)?

The problem for you is that you can't believe the text is 'true, God given and inspired' if it is not literal history. But that does not mean it is literal history in the sense you wish to take it. And when one does this, one paints onesself into a nasty corner when it comes to the issue in the op by doing so. Much the same as the YEC's do insisting the world is merely 6000 years old based on an woodenly literal reading of Genesis 1.

To be sure, there ARE fantastic, miraculous things mentioned in scripture that must be accepted in faith. The issue here is that there is a good bit of evidence these opening chapters are not literal history. And to demand we stretch faith in the miraculous to include them as literal history in spite of this fact is more or less an abuse of faith.


Jim

[Adrift]

A problem I often encounter with the unbelieving world is not so much a sophisticated form of scholarly argumentation but rather the seemingly obvious: Christianity is simply hard to believe. So, why exactly is Christianity hard to believe? Well, let me illustrate the objection in its crudest, simplistic form through this mock evangelistic dialogue:

Skeptic: "Scrawly, I understand all that but I am just being honest here...I mean a talking snake?"

Me: "Well it's not merely a snake that was talking, rather, an evil spirit being was using a good creature that God created as a disguise to communicate his lies."

Skeptic: "Dude that's not helping your case."

Me: "...."

Skeptic: "Look man, the bulk of the Scriptures just read like primitive stories to me - ancient tribal myths with perhaps a kernel of historicity here and there"

Me: "Maybe these narratives seem far-fetched to you because you are presupposing God doesn't exist and therefore miracles do not occur?"

Skeptic: "Miracles? I really don't think we even need to take it there. These stories scream fable - they remind me of my childhood bedtime stories my mother used to read to me! I mean it doesn't even end with the talking snake. We also have a talking donkey, a rib-woman, a dude with magical hair killing a thousand other dudes with a donkey's jaw-bone, another dude situated in a whales belly for three days, resurrected saints, a chick turning into salt, a non-evidenced global flood, exodus, and on and on..."

Me: "But if God exists..."

Skeptic: "Then He clearly prefers to exercise His miraculous feats in an ancient pre-scientific, superstitious, primitive era amongst illiterate peoples/primates; that seems just a tad suspect, no? Look man, if you can believe all that more power to you. For me though, its just hard to believe - too hard to believe.

I really don't know what to say to a person who objects in this manner. What say you?

An argument from incredulity is not much of an argument. There are plenty of things that are hard to believe, that are, in fact, true.

Also you're right to bring up presuppositions. I may find it equally bewildering that anyone can seriously believe that this universe just popped into existence by chance, and that life has no objective or intrinsic value. So, of course, these things go both ways.

[seanD]

There is no doubt that there is 'double entendre' here seanD. And the spiritual implications you mention are absolutely there, and in fact the primary message of the text. But you can't toss out the double because it suits you to do so. As a matter of fact, this is why it is far better to understand these texts as something other than literal history. Here you dodge the obvious literal implications of your interpretive paradigm by creative interpretation (much as one has to do for the entire section of Genesis 1-11 to avoid the obvious metaphors and references to cultural conceptions of the cosmos) rather than simply accept the symbolic and figurative language for what it is. But what do you do with that language at Babel, and the creation of the rainbow at the end of Noah's flood, or worse, with the Son's of God seeing the daughters of men where beautiful and coming down and mating with them, producing the 'great men of renown' (demigods)?

The problem for you is that you can't believe the text is 'true, God given and inspired' if it is not literal history. But that does not mean it is literal history in the sense you wish to take it. And when one does this, one paints onesself into a nasty corner when it comes to the issue in the op by doing so. Much the same as the YEC's do insisting the world is merely 6000 years old based on an woodenly literal reading of Genesis 1.

To be sure, there ARE fantastic, miraculous things mentioned in scripture that must be accepted in faith. The issue here is that there is a good bit of evidence these opening chapters are not literal history. And to demand we stretch faith in the miraculous to include them as literal history in spite of this fact is more or less an abuse of faith.


Jim

Wow, that’s quite a bit of presumption you’re leveling at me. I do believe that the text is true, but it’s important to get the nuances and the details about the account right. However, I'm not denying that it's literal history. I'm not denying that Satan physically appeared in the Garden; I just don't know what form he was in because the bible doesn't describe it to us. If he was a literally a snake, so be it. I mean the bible describes talking assess and staffs that morph into snakes, which I accept because the text is perfectly clear in that instance, so it's not like I'm trying avoid embarrassment about scripture or deny something that defies natural science theory. I accept that the first homo sapien was created from the dust of the earth, instead evolving from lower primates. I got no problem with that because the text is perfectly clear and concise there. If you want to accept that Hebrews thought snakes eat dirt, that’s your prerogative. But there's no reason to believe he was initially in the form of a snake, and even less reason to believe that the Hebrews were describing how snakes came into being, and I've shown you good reasons why this is most likely not what was being described. God doesn't say he's causing enmity between snakes and women, he says he's going to cause enmity between their seeds (offspring). Eve's first two offspring were males. The fact you deny that that's a prophecy about Christ is pretty sad; and even sadder you think it's about female fear of snakes, which is downright silly. I accept that he literally crawls on his belly eating dirt to this day if that’s the case; but I'm also willing to accept that the description is metaphorical, but I haven't denied that Satan was cursed or that the incident ever happened.

[RBerman]

I really don't know what to say to a person who objects in this manner. What say you?

What you can say to such a person is, "I understand your skepticism. Would you be interested in actually sitting down to read the Bible with me, and would you be offended if I pray for you?"

[KingsGambit]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Boyd calls for Christians to view their faith as a set of concentric rings with Jesus at the center, not as a house of cards that might fall if any part is challenged.

[oxmixmudd]

Wow, that’s quite a bit of presumption you’re leveling at me. I do believe that the text is true, but it’s important to get the nuances and the details about the account right. However, I'm not denying that it's literal history. I'm not denying that Satan physically appeared in the Garden; I just don't know what form he was in because the bible doesn't describe it to us. If he was a literally a snake, so be it. I mean the bible describes talking assess and staffs that morph into snakes, which I accept because the text is perfectly clear in that instance, so it's not like I'm trying avoid embarrassment about scripture or deny something that defies natural science theory. I accept that the first homo sapien was created from the dust of the earth, instead evolving from lower primates. I got no problem with that because the text is perfectly clear and concise there. If you want to accept that Hebrews thought snakes eat dirt, that’s your prerogative. But there's no reason to believe he was initially in the form of a snake, and even less reason to believe that the Hebrews were describing how snakes came into being, and I've shown you good reasons why this is most likely not what was being described. God doesn't say he's causing enmity between snakes and women, he says he's going to cause enmity between their seeds (offspring). Eve's first two offspring were males. The fact you deny that that's a prophecy about Christ is pretty sad; and even sadder you think it's about female fear of snakes, which is downright silly. I accept that he literally crawls on his belly eating dirt to this day if that’s the case; but I'm also willing to accept that the description is metaphorical, but I haven't denied that Satan was cursed or that the incident ever happened.

seanD, you really, really need to learn to read my posts before you respond to them. I did not deny the prophecy of Christ in the text. But you say I do above. Why do you do things like this in our discussions? What can't you just discuss what I actually said rather than making up additional, inflammatory statements?


Jim