Christian faith in TrekLit?

[JB2005]

Where are you getting this from? I've never seen anywhere in Christian teachings where God instructs His people to "Worship Me".

I am the Lord Thy God, Thou shalt have no other gods before me...

Put yourself in "God''s perspective for this one......if you were the actual God and you knew that other 'gods' were causing problems for people because they were getting bad advice, wouldn't you say, "Hey dummies, I'm the real God, listen to me!".??

Meh, when god gave humans free will he lost his power to legislate.

How about when God destroyed the tower of babel, because people were matching his might instead of kowtowing?

- I don't believe the "Tower of Babel" to be an actual historical account of something that occurred.
- Even if it were, the point of the story is not to make people "worship" God, it is to not to place undue faith in mankind....something that should be incredibly evident based on where "we've" taken this world

Humanity co-operated to build a tower that was an affront to god. God got affronted and pissy and took away the tower and scattered humanity and created a language barrier. Can't help but wonder where we'd have taken the world if there had been encouragement of co-operation by the almighty...

or when humans were ejected from Eden because they ate the forbidden fruit and saw their nakedness?

Again, I don't take the story of A & Eve literally, however, what does being punished for disobeying a rule have to do with God saying "Worship me"? God said, don't eat the fruit. They did anyway. They were punished. What about that has anything to do with "Worship"?

why put the tree there if you don't want them to eat the fruit? humans were naive at the time, they didn't know their nakedness, all they knew was the snake told them to eat the apple and they'd know what god knew.

god could have stopped them, they didn't know better because they were naive at this point, but he let them and then got pissy and threw them out of the garden of eden and then thought it might be a good idea to block access to the tree!

______

I'm sorry but Christians annoy me when they say they don't take the bible literally. Either it's your holy book or it isn't. It's a book of stories that have clear messages. But we're supposed to ignore the clear messages and listen to the critical opinions on them? If the bible's wrong, rewrite it, don't keep it around but say "well it's wrong" because you can bet your arse there's someone who will say "well the bible says this so it's true" if we're not allowed to read the tower of babel as god getting pissy, you're not allowed to read leviticus as banning homosexuality.

Oh yeah, and for all you gay-bashing christians who hide behind the bible, if you're eating ham back there, good news - you're off to hell!

 

[Thrawn]

evolutionists concede that it did begin--see: The Big Bang Theory

Look: I disagree with you about approximately everything you've posted in this thread. You know this, we've been through this before, when you first joined. Given that, I want you to understand that I'm not talking about your beliefs right now.

This is, rather, a statement of fact.

"Evolutionism" does not mean anything. As has been pointed out to you countless times, evolution is the name of a scientific theory that presupposes absolutely nothing about the origins of anything. It is a theory in exactly the same way the theory of gravitation is a theory - it describes something that measurably, demonstrably occurs in the real world, then examines the implications of that knowledge.

(To wit: there could be some totally different reason that those two stars over there are getting closer together, but it matches our theory on gravity, so let's go with that, even though we have no idea what causes gravity in the first place. Similarly, nothing in the fossil record contradicts the theory of evolution just as no observation contradicts the theory of gravity. This is simply true. The bible may contradict it, but the bible is not a carbon dated skeleton, and is thus not in the purview of biologists trying to study the history of life on the planet Earth. All those skeletons seem to agree on a rather different explanation.)

But even if you disagree with the theory of evolution, saying "evolutionists believe in the big bang" is exactly as silly as saying something like "trekkies believe in the television". It doesn't mean anything.

When you say "evolutionist", you mean something like "militant atheist". Which I actually am, incidentally, and it's pissing me off that you're using the wrong word to describe me. It's like if I called you a "revelationist" because you believe in the book of revelation; yes, true, but encompassing but one tiny piece of your full belief structure. And even that isn't quite right, because a belief in science is qualitatively different from a belief in a religion in almost every way, but this is already a long post, and I won't get into that.

Regardless, I assume you've seen that used other places, but that doesn't make it right either. If a bunch of my atheist friends hung out calling you lot "Jesusists", it wouldn't be any less wrong. You're not a Jesusist, and I'm not an evolutionist. Please stop using that word.

One last thing, while we're at it: lots of scientists and militant atheists also have doubts about the big bang. As with all other realms of science, that particular conclusion is constantly being questioned. It's no more a theological statement than Newtonian physics was. Newtonian physics eventually turned out to be wrong and was replaced with a more accurate theory; so too may the theory of the big bang. Has precisely nothing to do with religion.

 

[Thestral]

You will not encounter statements like 'maybe what this holy book says is wrong or not quite right', etc in any religion.

Not getting into your overall point - but this is absolutely not true.

First - let's see the examples.
Second - what is your 'point', then?

Right in this thread, we have somebody saying that the stories of Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel didn't literally happen.

Many/most Christians are perfectly happy to ignore vast parts of the Levitical code as being "not quite right" (or outright wrong). Many are likewise willing to say that the statement "Women should be silent in church" is wrong.

My point was simply that it's wrong to assume that all believers read their holy books literally.

 

[ST-One]

If the universe--space--was created by something (or someone), we must therefore assume that this source is not limited by space.

Do you have any evidence for that?

As time is considered a dimension of space (Einstein's spacetime continuum), said creator must also be held to have created time--and is therefore not limited by time.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Your god is everywhere all the time?
Damn, he's a quantum state.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Not getting into your overall point - but this is absolutely not true.

First - let's see the examples.
Second - what is your 'point', then?

Right in this thread, we have somebody saying that the stories of Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel didn't literally happen.

Somebody?

My post was "You will not encounter statements like 'maybe what this holy book says is wrong or not quite right', etc in any religion." - religion, NOT a believer.

Where in the BIBLE - or in another text, considered canon by all the faithful - does it say "what this holy book says is wrong or not quite right'"?

Many/most Christians are perfectly happy to ignore vast parts of the Levitical code as being "not quite right" (or outright wrong). Many are likewise willing to say that the statement "Women should be silent in church" is wrong.

My point was simply that it's wrong to assume that all believers read their holy books literally.

And many/most are NOT willing to do so - as history amply demonstrates.

And many of those who are willing to ignore/reinterpret parts of canon end up creating divisions/sects, with a different 'literal' truth.

 

[Almost Unique]

evolutionists concede that it did begin--see: The Big Bang Theory

If a bunch of my atheist friends hung out calling you lot "Jesusists", it wouldn't be any less wrong. You're not a Jesusist, and I'm not an evolutionist. Please stop using that word.

Actually I'd be quite honored to be called a Jesusist

 

[label]

I'm sorry but Christians annoy me when they say they don't take the bible literally. Either it's your holy book or it isn't. It's a book of stories that have clear messages. But we're supposed to ignore the clear messages and listen to the critical opinions on them?

I should clarify. I don't take certain parts of the Bible as literal, historical accounts when I don't believe that was the intent of the author(s) of the passages in question. For instance, there are many passages in the Bible that are songs or parables that were also not intended to be taken as historical accounts. I should also make it clear that I believe the entire Bible is suitable for teaching/learning and is the divinely inspired word of God that has been given to us so that we might understand why we're here and who we are. I don't look at Chapters 1-11 of Genesis as necessarily being literal, historical accounts concerned with the when and how based on lots of studies I've read on the subject and much personal soul searching.

Might I be wrong and there was an actual, literal Adam and Eve that literally get tempted to eat a fruit that bestows some magical knowledge when eaten? I suppose, though I find it unlikely given what I know. I see those "origin" stories to be in the same vein as the Epic of Gligamesh or other similar stories from that period that attempt to explain the "why" and "who".

If the bible's wrong, rewrite it, don't keep it around but say "well it's wrong" because you can bet your arse there's someone who will say "well the bible says this so it's true" if we're not allowed to read the tower of babel as god getting pissy, you're not allowed to read leviticus as banning homosexuality.

I never said any part of the Bible was wrong, merely that as with any book or text, that each part of it should be understood in context in relation to who the author was, who were his intended audience, what was the author trying to accomplish.

Oh yeah, and for all you gay-bashing christians who hide behind the bible, if you're eating ham back there, good news - you're off to hell!

I understand some people who label themselves Christians have given the ideology a bad name by acting in ways that are contrary to that ideology. However, here's where context is again important. The laws that were recorded in Leviticus were not intended to be directed at anyone but the people of that time and race. It would be a strange notion indeed to the author of Leviticus to think that anyone outside of his own people should follow these laws as they were not directed at anyone else. That doesn't mean that we can't benefit from learning why those laws were in place at that time for those people and there's no value in them, merely that they should be understood in context.

 

[ST-One]

I should also make it clear that I believe the entire Bible is suitable for teaching/learning and is the divinely inspired word of God that has been given to us so that we might understand why we're here and who we are.

Also the parts that were edited out - the books that were part of the canon up to a certain point when they were removed in the fourth century?

I don't look at Chapters 1-11 of Genesis as necessarily being literal, historical accounts concerned with the when and how based on lots of studies I've read on the subject and much personal soul searching.

Might I be wrong and there was an actual, literal Adam and Eve that literally get tempted to eat a fruit that bestows some magical knowledge when eaten? I suppose, though I find it unlikely given what I know.

Considering what we know, it is not only likely that you are wrong - it's certain that you are wrong.

I see those "origin" stories to be in the same vein as the Epic of Gligamesh or other similar stories from that period that attempt to explain the "why" and "who".

Just stories then.

 

[label]

Also the parts that were edited out - the books that were part of the canon up to a certain point when they were removed in the fourth century?

Is there a question in here somewhere about the canonization process, and if so, which one?

Considering what we know, it is not only likely that you are wrong - it's certain that you are wrong.

You seem to be a bit confused.......I believe that the universe did not pop into existence over 6 literal days and I'm arguing against Adam & Eve being a literal, historical account......so, with that in mind, we have two ways we can take this.

The first way: I'm "wrong" in the context that I used the word and you intended to convey that Adam and Eve were real and Genesis 1-11 should be taken literally. That would be the contextually accurate way to interpret your remarks. However, if we assume you misused/understood the word in context, then we'll have to infer that you intended to communicate something along the lines of "I know science and science says your wrong......neener, neener."

Seriously.......these one line psuedo-rebuttals of yours barely require comment much less serious attention, but when you take the "I'm right, your wrong" absolute position even though you have no grounds on which to take it (and certainly nothing in anything you've posted adds any credibility to your arguments), you move yourself very quickly onto the troll list. You might pay attention to how Chris, Thrawn or other's have intelligently dialogued on the issue for reference.

So, which of the two ways do you want to be taken?
1. That you believe I'm wrong and Adam and Eve were real
2. Or, are you ignoring the fact that I don't believe in the literal Adam and Eve story as a historical event and trying to tell me I'm wrong anyway? If I'm wrong, could you please try and be a bit more clear about which part I'm wrong about?

 

[Thrawn]

evolutionists concede that it did begin--see: The Big Bang Theory

If a bunch of my atheist friends hung out calling you lot "Jesusists", it wouldn't be any less wrong. You're not a Jesusist, and I'm not an evolutionist. Please stop using that word.

Actually I'd be quite honored to be called a Jesusist

Fair enough, but my point still stands; pick any other random, vaguely derogatory term for Christians, and it's not a word I should be using to describe you in a respectful dialogue. Much like "evolutionist" doesn't describe my side of the spectrum.

 

[Rush Limborg]

evolutionists concede that it did begin--see: The Big Bang Theory

Look: I disagree with you about approximately everything you've posted in this thread. You know this, we've been through this before, when you first joined. Given that, I want you to understand that I'm not talking about your beliefs right now.

This is, rather, a statement of fact.

"Evolutionism" does not mean anything. As has been pointed out to you countless times, evolution is the name of a scientific theory that presupposes absolutely nothing about the origins of anything. It is a theory in exactly the same way the theory of gravitation is a theory - it describes something that measurably, demonstrably occurs in the real world, then examines the implications of that knowledge.

(To wit: there could be some totally different reason that those two stars over there are getting closer together, but it matches our theory on gravity, so let's go with that, even though we have no idea what causes gravity in the first place. Similarly, nothing in the fossil record contradicts the theory of evolution just as no observation contradicts the theory of gravity. This is simply true. The bible may contradict it, but the bible is not a carbon dated skeleton, and is thus not in the purview of biologists trying to study the history of life on the planet Earth. All those skeletons seem to agree on a rather different explanation.)

But even if you disagree with the theory of evolution, saying "evolutionists believe in the big bang" is exactly as silly as saying something like "trekkies believe in the television". It doesn't mean anything.

When you say "evolutionist", you mean something like "militant atheist". Which I actually am, incidentally, and it's pissing me off that you're using the wrong word to describe me. It's like if I called you a "revelationist" because you believe in the book of revelation; yes, true, but encompassing but one tiny piece of your full belief structure. And even that isn't quite right, because a belief in science is qualitatively different from a belief in a religion in almost every way, but this is already a long post, and I won't get into that.

Regardless, I assume you've seen that used other places, but that doesn't make it right either. If a bunch of my atheist friends hung out calling you lot "Jesusists", it wouldn't be any less wrong. You're not a Jesusist, and I'm not an evolutionist. Please stop using that word.

One last thing, while we're at it: lots of scientists and militant atheists also have doubts about the big bang. As with all other realms of science, that particular conclusion is constantly being questioned. It's no more a theological statement than Newtonian physics was. Newtonian physics eventually turned out to be wrong and was replaced with a more accurate theory; so too may the theory of the big bang. Has precisely nothing to do with religion.

Thrawn...as far as I know, there is no reason for you to be "pissed off". For goodness sake, this thread has seen people poking fun at my beliefs--you don't see me blowing my stack about that. The wrong word has been used to describe me countless times. Again, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about that.

My intention was not to make you defensve. If any of my comments resulted in putting a chip on your shoulder...I apologize for that. My intention was not to make people mad--my intention was to defend my own beliefs.

"Evolutionist" is an established term, just as "creationist" is. And when I say "evolutionist", I do not mean "militant atheist". I mean scientists who believe in the theory of evolution.

Now--I do not contest that not all evolutionists believe in the Big Bang. Nonetheless--the fact that it seems to be the most generally-accepted theory as far as the public is concerned is what led me to cite it.

Again, I am frankly astonished at your tone I don't want this to become personal, Thrawn. Please don't make it that. If you don't like the views I expresss...you can always put me on the "Ignore" list. But if you do not--don't take my views as a personal affront.

 

[Thrawn]

Thrawn...as far as I know, there is no reason for you to be "pissed off". For goodness sake, this thread has seen people poking fun at my beliefs--you don't see me blowing my stack about that.

My intention was not to make you defensve. If any of my comments resulted in putting a chip on your shoulder...I apologize for that. My intention was not to make people mad--my intention was to defend my own beliefs.

"Evolutionist" is an established term, just as "creationist" is. And when I say "evolutionist", I do not mean "militant atheist". I mean scientists who believe in the theory of evolution.

Now--I do not contest that not all evolutionists believe in the Big Bang. Nonetheless--the fact that it seems to be the most generally-accepted theory as far as the public is concerned is what led me to cite it.

Again, I am frankly astonished at your tone I don't want this to become personal, Thrawn. Please don't make it that.

This isn't personal, I know you aren't making fun of my beliefs, I'm not being defensive, and I don't see anything wrong with my tone. I'm not discussing beliefs, I'm discussing vocabulary. You are using the wrong word.

Allow me to quote the wikipedia entry on "evolutionism":

"Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion."

WHICH IT ISN'T. Notice the phrase "make it appear". No one that actually has the beliefs you refer to would call themselves an "evolutionist". (Again, quoting that article: "Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, the term is seldom used in the scientific community.") If you are referring exclusively to scientists that believe the theory of evolution is true, you should just say "scientists" or perhaps more specifically "evolutionary biologists", because it's pretty universal.

Either way, your posts make it sound like you are defining the position of "people who don't believe in religion" as "evolutionism", and it's the wrong word. (Certainly, belief in evolution, from a scientific perspective, has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang, so you're conflating the two when you write "evolutionists believe in the big bang", even if you didn't intend to.) We're "atheists". Stop using that word.

 

[Thestral]

Right in this thread, we have somebody saying that the stories of Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel didn't literally happen.

Somebody?

label obviously. Geez, read the thread.

My post was "You will not encounter statements like 'maybe what this holy book says is wrong or not quite right', etc in any religion." - religion, NOT a believer.

Where in the BIBLE - or in another text, considered canon by all the faithful - does it say "what this holy book says is wrong or not quite right'"?

Religion is the believers. Or, ok, the structure put together by believers to codify those things they share in common. But if the believers say so, thus is the religion.

As to the second part - Paul's letters in the New Testament state that the Law of the Hebrew Bible doesn't apply to Christians, but the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is still a canon part of the Christian Bible, including the Law.

And many/most are NOT willing to do so - as history amply demonstrates.

And many of those who are willing to ignore/reinterpret parts of canon end up creating divisions/sects, with a different 'literal' truth.

Well unless you're going to make the ridiculous statement that only Christians who take the Bible 100% literally as fact are real Christians... you have to accept that not all believers read their sacred texts literally all the time. Sorry if that's confusing, but that's how it is. Who cares if they make new divisions/sects - they're still believers.

Just stories then.

"Just" stories are the foundation and basis for our civilization and culture.

"Evolutionist" is an established term, just as "creationist" is. And when I say "evolutionist", I do not mean "militant atheist". I mean scientists who believe in the theory of evolution.

That's simple nonsense. It might be an established term, but not one that thinking people should use. Not to mention a false dichotomy.

 

[Thrawn]

"Evolutionist" is an established term, just as "creationist" is. And when I say "evolutionist", I do not mean "militant atheist". I mean scientists who believe in the theory of evolution.

That's simple nonsense. It might be an established term, but not one that thinking people should use. Not to mention a false dichotomy.

Exactly.

I bet if you polled every american that believes that the theory of evolution is fact, far more than half of them would still be Christian. As much for them as for me, defining people who don't believe God created the universe as "evolutionists" is ridiculous. It's simply the wrong word.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Thrawn...as far as I know, there is no reason for you to be "pissed off". For goodness sake, this thread has seen people poking fun at my beliefs--you don't see me blowing my stack about that.

My intention was not to make you defensve. If any of my comments resulted in putting a chip on your shoulder...I apologize for that. My intention was not to make people mad--my intention was to defend my own beliefs.

"Evolutionist" is an established term, just as "creationist" is. And when I say "evolutionist", I do not mean "militant atheist". I mean scientists who believe in the theory of evolution.

Now--I do not contest that not all evolutionists believe in the Big Bang. Nonetheless--the fact that it seems to be the most generally-accepted theory as far as the public is concerned is what led me to cite it.

Again, I am frankly astonished at your tone I don't want this to become personal, Thrawn. Please don't make it that.

This isn't personal, I know you aren't making fun of my beliefs, I'm not being defensive, and I don't see anything wrong with my tone.

And I see no problem with my wording. But we seem to be looking at unintended effects concerning words....

I'm not discussing beliefs, I'm discussing vocabulary. You are using the wrong word.

Allow me to quote the wikipedia entry on "evolutionism":

"Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion."

WHICH IT ISN'T. Notice the phrase "make it appear". No one that actually has the beliefs you refer to would call themselves an "evolutionist". (Again, quoting that article: "Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, the term is seldom used in the scientific community.") If you are referring exclusively to scientists that believe the theory of evolution is true, you should just say "scientists" or perhaps more specifically "evolutionary biologists", because it's pretty universal.

There are a great deal of scientists who belive in a creator, Thrawn. It's not as "universal" as you may think.

Also, as any college student writing a thesis paper knows...wikipedia is not an inherently credible source. Anyone can edit and re-edit it. What you read there is best taken with caution.

Either way, your posts make it sound like you are defining the position of "people who don't believe in religion" as "evolutionism", and it's the wrong word.

Well, I can assure you, Thrawn, that was not my intent. I was pointing to a specific subcategory as an example of a larger category of those who do not necessarily believe in a creator.

(Certainly, belief in evolution, from a scientific perspective, has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang, so you're conflating the two when you write "evolutionists believe in the big bang", even if you didn't intend to.) We're "atheists". Stop using that word.

So--I should alter the point to "aitheists believe in the big bang", then?

Okay, let me clarify something about the tone. It is, in part, your writing requests so that they look like commands. Namely, "stop using that word". (I personally prefer to write such things as, "Could you not use that word?" or "Please don't use that word.")

Also, you did say this:

When you say "evolutionist", you mean something like "militant atheist". Which I actually am, incidentally, and it's pissing me off that you're using the wrong word to describe me.

I took that, among other things, as defensiveness.

But...we could discuss tone all week. That's just how I saw it.

 

[Rush Limborg]

"Evolutionist" is an established term, just as "creationist" is. And when I say "evolutionist", I do not mean "militant atheist". I mean scientists who believe in the theory of evolution.

That's simple nonsense. It might be an established term, but not one that thinking people should use. Not to mention a false dichotomy.

Exactly.

I bet if you polled every american that believes that the theory of evolution is fact, far more than half of them would still be Christian. As much for them as for me, defining people who don't believe God created the universe as "evolutionists" is ridiculous. It's simply the wrong word.

Oh, I am aware of the existance of "theistic evolutionists". But again...there are many such evolutionists--and even some creationists--who accept the Big Bang Theory.

Thus, what you pointed out does not alter my previous point.

Also...Kestrel, you admit that "evolutionist" is an established term. Doesn't that mean that your claim that "no thinking person should use it" is purely subjective?

You claim I used a false dichotomy. I could contend you used a bandwagon argument.

 

[label]

I bet if you polled every american that believes that the theory of evolution is fact, far more than half of them would still be Christian. As much for them as for me, defining people who don't believe God created the universe as "evolutionists" is ridiculous. It's simply the wrong word.

I agree. I think using terms "evolutionist" to carry the connotation of "atheist" is a false one. I know plenty of Christians who believe in Theistic Guided Evolution as a better explanation for how God might actually work in the world vs. the 6 days "poof" approach. I think terms like those also helps perpetuates an adversarial relationship between science and religion when one doesn't need to exist.

 

[Thrawn]

You claim I used a false dichotomy. I could contend you used a bandwagon argument.

Well, you DID use a false dichotomy.

^Well, the universe is bound by scientific laws, which are part of its existance. Therefore, whatever (or whoever) caused the universe to begin (and even evolutionists concede that it did begin--see: The Big Bang Theory) probably therefore also created said laws.

If the universe--space--was created by something (or someone), we must therefore assume that this source is not limited by space.

Since nothing in this post refers to evolution in any way shape or form, I can only conclude you were using the term to refer to people who don't believe God created the universe. Which is, in fact, a false dichotomy... and so: you were, in fact, using the wrong word!

People who don't believe God created the universe are "atheists".

I was unaware that, when correcting a factual misunderstanding (as you are, in fact, using the wrong word), I needed to be sensitive to your feelings.

If I kept calling the holy book of Christian faith "the Revelation book", you'd say "Thrawn, it's called the Bible, you're using the wrong word". That's all that's going on here.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Again, I make no such connotation, per se.

But...for the sake of clarification, perhaps I should have re-worded my use of "evolutionists" to "atheistic evolutionists", as opposed to "theistic evolutionists"--who accept a creator, albeit though a different manner than literalists like myself would hold.

 

[ST-One]

Also the parts that were edited out - the books that were part of the canon up to a certain point when they were removed in the fourth century?

Is there a question in here somewhere about the canonization process, and if so, which one?

No.
I asked you, since you believe the Bible to be "the divinely inspired word of God", whether you consider the parts that were left out of the official canon as "divinely inspired" also.

Pretty simple question, actually.

Considering what we know, it is not only likely that you are wrong - it's certain that you are wrong.

You seem to be a bit confused.......I believe that the universe did not pop into existence over 6 literal days and I'm arguing against Adam & Eve being a literal, historical account......

Perhaps you shouldn't have written this, then:

"Might I be wrong and there was an actual, literal Adam and Eve that literally get tempted to eat a fruit that bestows some magical knowledge when eaten? I suppose, though I find it unlikely given what I know."

Which is contradicting what you wrote a sentence earlier.

The first way: I'm "wrong" in the context that I used the word and you intended to convey that Adam and Eve were real and Genesis 1-11 should be taken literally.

No.

That would be the contextually accurate way to interpret your remarks.

No.

However, if we assume you misused/understood the word in context, then we'll have to infer that you intended to communicate something along the lines of "I know science and science says your wrong......neener, neener."

Seriously.......these one line psuedo-rebuttals of yours barely require comment much less serious attention, but when you take the "I'm right, your wrong" absolute position even though you have no grounds on which to take it (and certainly nothing in anything you've posted adds any credibility to your arguments), you move yourself very quickly onto the troll list. You might pay attention to how Chris, Thrawn or other's have intelligently dialogued on the issue for reference.

So, which of the two ways do you want to be taken?
1. That you believe I'm wrong and Adam and Eve were real
2. Or, are you ignoring the fact that I don't believe in the literal Adam and Eve story as a historical event and trying to tell me I'm wrong anyway? If I'm wrong, could you please try and be a bit more clear about which part I'm wrong about?

Whatever. BTW, dialogued isn't a real word.

Perhaps all this is due to my limited command of the English language (I'm German, after all).
So I guess you'll need to explain to me how else I should understand
"Might I be wrong and there was an actual, literal Adam and Eve that literally get tempted to eat a fruit that bestows some magical knowledge when eaten? I suppose, though I find it unlikely given what I know."
but to mean that you do think that there was and actual Adam and Eve.

Oh, this

(and certainly nothing in anything you've posted adds any credibility to your arguments)

Could you expand a little on it?