Christianity, really?

Claearly by there tresspass they were not "uncorrupted" or were they perfect, can you not see the flaw in your statement, or do you believe in it's "perfect" state man will rebel against god?

So much for this free will you constantly use as an excuse to explain your gods seemingly indiffrence towards the various suffering of man.

If the god you worship is truly omnipotent I would go so far as to say that the shortcomings of man are engineered by your god including the eating of fruit from trees.

Does this punishment truly make sense to you?

Have you ever even considered that this fairy tale is manufactured and not fact?

Masochism.

 

Either someone chooses to believe it or they don't. We all have our own interpretation of Genesis and I don't think anyone is going to budge on the matter. We all think of each other as being incorrect so what else more can be done?

It has been said that the Bible is merely symbolic throughout so that supernatural events don't exist and that God can't perform them if he wanted to, or chose to make a donkey speak when he wanted... I believe the Bible is both symbolic and literal but it has to be chosen which is which.

One side is saying the meaning is lost if we take the Bible literally and another is saying that the literal aspect improves the quality of our understanding.

There really isn't much more to say other than stating our opinions on the matter.

 

Who chooses when it should be taken literal or symbolic?

 

We can examine the fruit of our perspectives and practice. What evidence from the practice of belief emerges to reinforce that belief, or cause ones faith to grow.

 

We all choose. Some choose to take nothing in the Bible literally, others take the whole Bible literally, and still some take parts of it literally. I am the one that takes some literally but not all. For example, when the Bible says that God has a white beard, then I take this figuratively mainly because it uses words such as 'like' in the same sentence, so it's using a simile.

When Jesus is called the Lamb of God, I personally take it symbolically. We go back to what a lamb represents throughout the Bible and what unleavened bread represents; I don't believe that he was an actual lamb, but it's eluding to what Jesus represents based on practices of the Jews. But when the Bible says something like Jesus walked on water, I believe that to be both symbolic and literal. If it was just symbolic then it would still remain meaningful, but it's my opinion that it makes more sense and creates more meaning if Jesus performed miracles that actually occurred in reality that eluded to a message, God's ability, behavior, and plan.

If Jesus did not perform those miracles in front of his disciples, then it's my opinion that the Gospels are lying because then why would it say Jesus did these things in front of people when he didn't? All we would have is Jesus saying he is walking on water, but no one to see it because it didn't happen, so the reader then reads this in the future and thinks these things really happened when they didn't... Why would God of the Bible do this? So I don't believe that the Bible lies when it says that certain events occurred unless through context and literary devices points to it not being literal.

It really is a case by case basis, but in the case of Genesis, I do believe that what happened there in the garden is what happened as it happened when Jesus was preaching and performing miracles; Actual events created symbolic meaning while also eluding to: a message, God's ability, behavior, and plan.

 

Satan is the personification of evil. When Satan is called the original serpent, I take it to refer to the serpent in Genesis--the tempter. Without making this connection, the relationship of the serpent to other references to Satan would not be clear. Gnostic Christians, for example, believed that the serpent in Genesis was good and that Yahweh was the bad guy. Calling the original serpent Satan clears that up.

 

Can it both clear up the confusion and talk about something that wasn't just a personification?

When people meet angels in the Bible, are they just talking to themselves? Is God talking to himself when he talks to the serpent?

Are the Angels just personifications of God?

 

They say if a newborn baby chimp is taken away from it's mother at birth the only two instinctive fears it possess are of falling an of snakes, a few people have made the connection between this and many religions and peoples disdain for serpents as possibly a hold over from a time when our species had every right to hold these things as chiefly fears.

I of course can't say if this is true or not but I find it interesting.

 

It's important to discuss and learn but there comes a point where it conversation turns forceful.

 

Satan is the personification of evil. When Satan is called the original serpent, I take it to refer to the serpent in Genesis--the tempter. Without making this connection, the relationship of the serpent to other references to Satan would not be clear. Gnostic Christians, for example, believed that the serpent in Genesis was good and that Yahweh was the bad guy. Calling the original serpent Satan clears that up.

In Aztec-Toltec mythology, the serpent represents tonal, which is loosely translated in Christian terminology as "the world", as opposed to nagual, loosely translated as "the spirit". Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent, is the link between these two worlds--the serpent that crawls and the eagle that soars. Tezcatlipoca (literally "smokey mirror") is the obscurer, the lord of darkness, also represented as a prowling black jaguar. Different symbols and metaphors, similar concepts.

 

I heard about that too. That our fear of snakes is attached to our collective unconscious from a time when snakes were a real threat to our earlier species.

The Egyptians didn't seem to mind

 

Thanks.

 

No, it it is not clear by their trespass that they were corrupted or not perfect before they sinned. Someone without sin is perfect and until Adam and Eve ate of the tree they were without sin.

What in the world are you talking about?

You can say that but that doesn't make it true.

Punishment? How so? They basically did it to themselves.

Have you ever even considered that it is not a manufactured fairy tale and is a fact?

Again, what in the world are you talking about?

 

So if the temper or serpent in Genesis is Satan, why do you have such a problem with Satan talking to Eve?

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 4:14

 

Ok, I couldve started a new thread about this, but I didn't really feel like it.

In exodus 35:2 it says that we are to kill anyone who works on the sabbath.

In Leviticus 25:16 we are commanded to gather the whole church congregation together and stone anyone who insults god to death.

We are also commanded to stone gay people.

Why do you think you can you pick and choose what laws you follow in the bible?

 

Transcendent tidings require some kind of form that we can relate to. Gods, Demons, Angels, street signs, take your pick. These names are expediencies used for the sake of communication. It is not flesh and blood with which we contend, but principalities and powers.

 

That would be a good question to ask the Jews, who feel they are still under the law but although the principles in the law are valid, Christians are not under the law and are not required to carry out the punishments required by the law.

(Romans 6:14) For sin must not be master over YOU, seeing that YOU are not under law but under undeserved kindness.

 

But in Matt 5:17 Jesus tells us that he did not come to change the law, but to fufill it. And a few verses later he says that anyone who breaks the smallest part of the law will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

 

I believe you mean: the means of production is the Law; also the law may be the understanding of working with laws of social contact, and the law prescribes the failure of Christianity to work within the confines of Nature.

The Jews succeed in Nature and fail in Love. The Christians succeed in at best the dialogue for love; fail in Nature; require the miracle...