Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

My point, o disingenuous one, is that one of us is defending a character in a story depicting said character as a "moral monster" (to use your own phrase) against the charge of being a moral monster. It doesn't matter if either of us believe it really happened or is a literal anything. Your character's actions would still be astonishingly sick and twisted if carried out by any real person. But if you want to relieve yourself of the task of defending your own mythology, be my guest.

While you're at it, perhaps you'd be so kind as to actually respond to the points I raised, as opposed to dodging them so blatantly?

What points, Stimbo?

That God deliberately set up Adam and Eve by creating what? No literal tree for sure. Then what?

Well, whatever. He created something whatever it was, and He made it SOOOOOOOO appealing that despite the fact that He told them not to what? Eat it? Touch it? Do it?

Well, whatever. He told them not to, but they did it any way, but it wasn't really their fault because they had no real reason to think that they shouldn't despite the fact that they had been told not to?

No, I'm sorry, if you HAVE any points, you're going to have to be a bit more explicit about what exactly you are alleging.

The story of the fall is an allegory which explains that our first parents preferred their own will over submitting their wills to God. As a consequence of that decision, they separated themselves from God, and we are stuck with that consequence without hope of rectifying the situation.

God, however, has provided the way by which we may be reconciled with God: through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.