Mihilz

When I say to theists that God was lying in Genesis when he said that Adam and Eve would surely die if they ate the fruit while the serpent told the truth, they say that Adam and Eve did indeed die but it was a spiritual death or a metaphor for separation from God.

I want to know what evidence are they drawing on for this defense?

I hate it when theists decide to change the meaning of Bible passages by saying that it's metaphorical. If the Bible doesn't mean what it says then a) why continue believing in it? and b) you can make any passage mean anything you want it to if that's the case.

WishboneDawn

Do you have evidence or support for claiming that it's not?

What do you mean by believing in it? An unreasoned blind faith that the bible is a literal account of the facts?

Not if you've bothered to put some effort and study into that view of the bible. Metaphor doesn't mean anything goes, it means what the author wants to tell you may be clothed in fiction.

You did right by challenging them and I wouldn't let them go with that claim. Neither would I have let you go with your 'God lied,' claim. Leniency and grace are issues both you and all those theists you talk to ignored.

No Robots

Spoken like a true fundie. Look here for support for your hate.

Mihilz

I know metaphor doesn't mean that anything goes. It's just that a lot of theists tend to use the metaphor defense as an excuse to cover up something in the Bible they don't like.
I don't need to provide evidence that death isn't used as a metaphor in the creation account because it clearly shows that God lied and the serpent told the truth. The serpent said that God doesn't want them to eat the fruit because they will know about good and evil. They then ate the fruit and what do you know? They didn't die but they did have the knowledge of good and evil just as the serpent said.
It is up to the theist to provide evidence that there is an underlying metaphor to this story.

Mihilz

I'm not a religious fundamentalist, i'm an atheist. I wasn't saying that people should believe that the creation story is literally true.

No Robots

Even for an atheist, this story is valuable for its themes: life, death, good, evil, freedom and knowledge. Wonderful! Now, maybe it's all put together in an overly poetic, even superstitious way. But boiling it down, can we not agree that Spinoza covers the same ground thoroughly, succintly, and rationally when he says, "A free man thinks of death least of all things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life"?

No Robots

Yeah, I know. I was just saying that many atheists seem to agree with fundies that only the most literal reading is valid.

WishboneDawn

So, if I explain to my daughter that the consequence of not cleaning her room is no dessert and then later decide that, despite having not cleaned her room, she can have dessert then I've lied? Perhaps there was some mitigating factor, like some serpent talking her into playing barbies instead that I needed to take into account. The penalty for not cleaning her room may still be what I originally stated but that doesn't mean I'm not open to leniancy when circumstances aren't cut and dry.

So is it a lie if I originally intended what I said? I'm open for debate on that.

I don't buy the spiritual death thing but I don't buy your account either. The first seems like sleight of hand with ancient hebrew myths that really wouldn't have a concept of spiritual death but yours seems like a really shallow skim of the story.

Mihilz

I don't really see it as a matter of leniency. God stated that if they eat it they will die, as if death is somehow causally connected to the act of eating this particular fruit; he didn't say he'd get angry for them disobeying him and kill them for eating it. It seems more like God was trying to prevent them from eating the fruit by scaring them.

The fact is that what God said would happen didn't while what the serpent said would happen did.

And you say I have a really shallow skim of the story. Have you ever considered that the story itself might really be as shallow as I make it seem but it's people like you read too much into it? Don't get me wrong; I'm not against people appreciating these ancient myths but I do like to distinguish between appreciation and dictating what interpretation people should have of it.

WishboneDawn

You mean like when they rail against metaphorical ones?

Look, you made a bit more of a case for your POV, you deepened it and now there's something to go on if we want to discuss it.

The story shallow though? No. Not that it can't be read that way but stories that cultures create to explain their origins or important ideas tend not to be shallow. If somehow it did start out that way then centuries upon centuries of readings and interpretation have certainly given it depth.