Is Genesis to be taken literally Part II

The evidence of the world we observe, and the reason of conclusions drawn from that evidence.But a position of "I'll believe no matter what the evidence says" is not a position that can be discussed.

I actually agree with you on the point that this topic can be discussed from the point of view you subscribe to. I do that continually in my day to day work. The difficulty lies in that this specif topic also has a spiritual relevence which cannot be quantified by the method you subscribe to.In the context of this discussion if you leave out the spiritual world which in my opinion is as real as the physical one but cannot be quantified by human rationale in general, we are left with an incomplete approach to the discussion of this topic.We can still talk about it but it would be like making a cake with only half the ingredients. The richness of Genesis has this spiritual component which cannot just be metaphorical or allegorical as literature in general is studied.The spiritual world also exists and has to be taken into account.My difficulty in this situation is that when we say we are christians (for those that do say so), we automatically assume a set of beliefs that are accepted by a great majority of people that identify themselves as such. These dogmas or cornerstones of faith have to be accepted on faith for the christian faith to make sense and work in those peoples lives.If these cornerstones aren't accepted then the person can scream to high heaven that they are christian but in fact they are not. Saying it is not being it.For ex. Jesus died on a cross and shed his blood so that through his sacrifice we can be forgiven our sins and be saved. If there was actually no fall from grace then what he did has no significance since there was never any fall or transgresion.This is the singlemost important cornerstone of christianity. If we reject it we cannot be called or call ourselves christian.P.S I've tried to answer a few posts with this one, this is'nt only in relation to your comment crashfrog even though it's addressed to you.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Sure we can.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I can call myself superman but it doesn't make me one. There is no such thing as a non practicing or non believing christian.Either you are or you aren't. Unlike many things in the world in this there is no grey area no matter how much you would like to believe differently.

and I don't believe there was ever a fall from grace, original sin or any indication of it in Genesis.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

and i second's jar's opinion.also, i don't practice any more. i don't see what to practice, there's very little ritual associated with christianity, more or less only baptism (which was supposed to end with john the baptist) and communion (which i think was meant to be ironic, and apply to all food consumption nto a ritual).

Then I have no reason to believe that it exists, short of your opinion that it does. How can that be a basis for discussion? It's like baking a cake without a fish, two quarters, and a cup of axle grease. The "ingredients" you refer aren't a part of the debate because they cannot be substantiated, cannot be known to exist, and therefore, no consensus can be come to on their existence beyond "we don't know." They're simply not a part of the debate; they can't be, by definition.

You are free to believe that if you want. The other monotheistic faiths have that belief. Since christianity in this case doesn't share this belief with you in general, that leaves us with the my first point in that without this belief as a cornerstone in the christian faith one cannot call themselves christian.There is a difference between having grown up in a christian society and following the traditions of the church by rote and actually following the faith itself.True christianity is not a following of ritual and tradition it is the change that that faith provokes in peoples lives for the better. It is living it truly knowing that God is helping you all the way.That may sound corny but that is the difference between a dead religion and a living faith.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Ok I agree with you you that the spiritual world is not quantifiable in a scientific sense. One cannot (in a scientifically based argument) use the the spiritual element to explain and refute a simple scientific debate.Yet here we are discussing Genesis and thus indirectly the bible in a way that deflates it of all its intended meaning and purpose.That leaves just the words to be analysed, taken apart and be put back together again in millions of different possibilities. Equating the book with general literature and interpreting it that way, ignoring the fact that this book is used by millions to know God in a personal way.If that is all we are doing here then I agree with all you have said in your posts on this thread. Since you can poke all the holes you want in the book and its meanings. You can even throw it away and live your life without a single backward thought on the matter.It doesn't change one essential item though, and that is that millions of lives are changed for the better when they read this book.You can deny the essence of the book or the existence of a spiritual element all you want, but you can't deny the evidence that this book changes peoples lives in a real way.So maybe we are talking at cross purposes and no real debate is possible since the only people you can debate with (and who will certainly agree with you) are those that deny the essence of what the bible is all about in the end.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

I agree with Jor-el that the word "Christian" means something specific in belief, and that without a sin in Genesis as he refers to, you are not a Christian. You are trying to dilute meaning of the word.I find it interesting that the evolution-believing writers who criticise Jor-el probably also argue that an animal "kind" is not specific enough in scientific circles as a "species."In Islam faith some believers interpret meanings of verses differently, as in all religions. However, there are some fundamental beliefs that a Muslim must have to properly be called Muslim. If you do not believe Muhammad was a prophet, you are not a Muslim. It sounds like with your loose meanings that you could simultaneously be Christian and Muslim at the same time.

Sorry. I replied to the wrong person. I meant to reply to Jar and Arachno...I am still new to this. Sorry.

that's my beef with vegans too.

no. thorns are not dead leaves. take a bio class.

there is an idea thata few people and i have been throwing around for a while. that there are to things that make up god: knowledge and life. hence the two trees. when he created man, god gave them a choice of which godlike quality to attain first on their way to becoming gods. as god was lonely, he wanted to create a companion for himself. (maybe so he could stop talking to himself.) anyways. so perhaps mankind as a whole will become this companion, or maybe there is a select human that will become it. eitherway, we would have to move closer to being godlike for this to work out. so when we first chose knowledge (the selfish choice) he knew we had to grow up a bit more so he prevented us from choosing life after the fact and becoming immature and impulsive gods. had we chosen life, we could have learned knowledge easily without having to have great records and technology. but we chose knowledge and (as almost all our technology revolves around killing each other) will have to overcome our knowledge to achieve life.

well obviously the snake ate from the tree of knowledge. *aside* can snakes talk?*/aside*i think that nothing ate from the tree of life. without knowledge, one cannot be selfish. wanting to live forever is a very selfish thing. you continue to use resources when you should have stopped etc.of course i used selfishness to define the choice for knowledge. so i will be more precise. which would you rather, to know the answers to your greatest questions, or to live forever in ignorance? for most here, we want knowledge, no?This message has been edited by brennakimi, 04-07-2005 01:06 PM