It's long understood that a literal interpretation of the Creation account offered in Genesis (I should actually say "accounts" as there are two different ones) is (are) in no way congruous with fact or rational thought for that matter. Even the Pope has--as I see it--been backed into a corner and admitted that only a metaphorical reading could hope to put its foot in the door of any intellectual circle.
Though thoughtful Christians are quick to dismiss the talking snake's genuine historicity or the Garden of Eden's actual geography, they just as quickly betray the safety of this retreat. They assert that some choice aspects are quite literal and have inescapable and significant effects on our literal lives, most notably the fall of man. But if the account is admittedly a metaphor and not history, then how is it any different from say the mythology of the Greeks and the explanation it offers for the state of humanity?
Surely a Christian doesn't loose sleep over the veracity of Greek metaphors and stories used to explain (due to a lack of knowledge) surroundings and conditions. I would think this is because they understand that simply because one can construct a metaphor doesn't mean the situation it describes is therefore true. But this same criticism applies equally to the Christian metaphor in the exact same way. It is unfortunate and the point of this post to suggest that this criticism may be self-consciously slithering away from the honesty of Christian minds (at least the ones I've discussed with).
There would need to be an addition of further supporting evidence of a stronger kind to exalt this one particular account over all of the other creation myths. But in admitting that it is not literal, one has simultaneously stripped it of any potential of ever acquiring said stronger evidence.
Either the account is a metaphor which at best posits flimsy pseudo-truths or it is a grotesquely inaccurate and embarrassing speculation from extreme ignorance. Either way, it in itself holds no reason to conclude that it is true or even practical. So my question would be, with respect to what is true or at least to what we are able to perceive of truth, why still believe in it and uphold it?
Though thoughtful Christians are quick to dismiss the talking snake's genuine historicity or the Garden of Eden's actual geography, they just as quickly betray the safety of this retreat. They assert that some choice aspects are quite literal and have inescapable and significant effects on our literal lives, most notably the fall of man. But if the account is admittedly a metaphor and not history, then how is it any different from say the mythology of the Greeks and the explanation it offers for the state of humanity?
Surely a Christian doesn't loose sleep over the veracity of Greek metaphors and stories used to explain (due to a lack of knowledge) surroundings and conditions. I would think this is because they understand that simply because one can construct a metaphor doesn't mean the situation it describes is therefore true. But this same criticism applies equally to the Christian metaphor in the exact same way. It is unfortunate and the point of this post to suggest that this criticism may be self-consciously slithering away from the honesty of Christian minds (at least the ones I've discussed with).
There would need to be an addition of further supporting evidence of a stronger kind to exalt this one particular account over all of the other creation myths. But in admitting that it is not literal, one has simultaneously stripped it of any potential of ever acquiring said stronger evidence.
Either the account is a metaphor which at best posits flimsy pseudo-truths or it is a grotesquely inaccurate and embarrassing speculation from extreme ignorance. Either way, it in itself holds no reason to conclude that it is true or even practical. So my question would be, with respect to what is true or at least to what we are able to perceive of truth, why still believe in it and uphold it?
Last edited:
