Is Genesis to be taken literally Part II

no, perhaps not. but we can call ourselves followers of christ.

not to mention that the bible instructs us to resist the temptation to fall into chanting and recitation "as the pagans do" (no offense meant to any pagans. apparently most of them don't chant anymore lol) and yet i've not been to a single church where chanting and recitation isn't the main point.go into a closet and lock the door, and there go to your father in secret.

I edited and clarified your post. Basically, you said: Many of your ideas are Biblically based. God (Jesus) IS coming back for a Bride.I would think, however, that a Creator by definition is more complex than just having two parts.(Knowledge and Life) My theory on all of this was that I used to define the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as the Tree of the Knowledge of Either/or. In other words, before the tree was sampled and became an intrinsic part of human nature, there never was a world of such paradoxes as you describe.(technology=efficient killing)Some have argued previously that God=evil because God knew that we humans would choose evil(knowledge of either/or reality) The either/or reality by definition is the ability to choose God (Truth) or our own choice(Paradox)One point: God NEVER created an evil Satan. God created a freewill Lucifer who chose (and thus allowed) evil to exist. Evil by definition = rebellion from truth.Once humanity became infused with a dualistic thought awareness
(Listen to God or have freedom to choose otherwise) we then began to slaughter each other. In the OT, (which was written by humans) when it says that God orders so and so to kill the whoeverites, the perspective is from an unenlightened Jew who honestly feels that they are hearing from God.It would be as if, say the Bible were written today, the words would say
"God saw the sins of the Sadaamites,and said to the leader of the Americites
to wipe out every man in the army of 100,000 and to occupy their land."In reality, as far as we know today, God never told America to do that. The leaders felt as if they had a mandate of "fairness and necessity" however. (Sorry...I am wandering off topic)This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-07-2005 11:36 AM

But most Christian churches believe just as I do. Original sin has been discarded by almost every Christian Church for hundreds of years. They agree that the story in Genesis is allegorical and instructive, not literal.Are you saying that the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church are not Christian?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not at all. By definition a Christian believes in Jesus as GOD, something more than just a prophet.But, and there is always that but ...I do not limit GOD to only speaking to one people in one way. As a Christian I can appreciate and understand the Islamic point of view. I can believe that Muhammad was a prophet, sent by GOD to carry a message to a people.The GOD is still the same GOD, the medium is different as are the methods. The message though is still the same, Love GOD and love others as you love yourself.The two religions are not antagonistic in nature although members are unique to one or the other.Consider this comment from Muhammad : We both worship the same GOD. Just as it is wrong for a Muslim to elevate Muhammad to a position of diety, I believe it is wrong when Christians elevate the Bible to a position of diety. The Map is not the Territory, GOD is not the Bible and the Bible is not GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's hardly a unique condition for a book. There's nothing about the Bible that necessitates, for reasonable people, that special rules or lower standards be employed. This book, and other books. Personally my life changed for the better when I stopped reading it, and that's true for millions of other people, too. I can, and am. People change their own lives, for a myriad of reasons; books don't change people's lives for them.

I'm sure you know this but "Christian" means "follower of the Christ". You're playing with words without changing the meaning.

---

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

I must be getting senile in my old age. I've never in my entire life heard that the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church rejected the fall of man from grace (original sin).Please by all means show me the light in this respect.They may have many opposing views but I guarantee that that isn't one of them.

---

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

Let me rephrase that then.God through the bible changes peoples lives. I know that as an athiest you could never accept this particular thought.It irritates many who are bound only by the 5 senses. Poppycock they say. It is inconcievable that a man can be so superstitious in this day and age, they say.Where there is a rejection of belief there is no faith and no understanding of God through the bible.

---

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

Are you suggesting that the New Testament was written by God (versus the OT which was written by men)?Are you suggesting that Christians are enlightened (compared to Jews)? If, as St. Paul asserts, "Every government is set up by God." Then YES. God did send Americites to kill the Sadaamites.db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

As far back as the Council of Trent in the 1500's it was established that original sin was something voluntary, something only analogous to sin. It is not something committed but only a state, a state of denial. For a look from the Roman Catholic perspective, see here.But it is also a totally Un-Christian belief.Let me ask you a question.Jesus death reveals the message that GOD has forgiven us. Is that correct?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This brings up a good issue. Some say that the Bible is written through human inspiration, while others say Divine impartation.
The N.T. authors were filled with the Spirit on the day of pentecost, while the O.T. authors were writing under the wisdom of God as well. The question to me at least is this:
How much of the time were these authors writing under the Spirit vs writing out of their own human motive?Perhaps only Believers can understand where I am coming from, but I believe that there are certainly times when any Christian says something hat is influenced by the Spirit of God versus our own vain and limited imagination. The question is how often? Not always.In a similar sense, the authors of the Bible were all inspired SOME of the time in my belief, but I have a harder time believing that every single word was inspired.

Something tells me this view is not shared by our fundamentalist friends but I would have to agree. The esteemed scholars who have edited the Bible certainly preserved the better of what was available for inclusion. Imagine having our own erudite opinions quoted there one day. It's not out of the realm of possibility you know. But then some future smart ass translator could decide that we were not 'inspired.' Then our pearls of wisdom might be cast aside like so much 'apocrypha.' db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Well, great. You've gone from one verifiable claim to a claim that is beyond verification or inquiry. How is the discussion supposed to continue?You're making my point for me. How are we supposed to have discussions with believers when, at the slightest hint of rebuttal, they retreat into assertions that are inherently beyond discussion? Apparently, judging from the lack of any sort of consensus among believers, there's no understanding of God through the Bible with belief. On the other hand, there's a surprising amount of consensus among people who draw conclusions not from faith but from evidence.How can you claim to have understanding through faith when nobody with faith can come to consensus on what it is, exactly, that they understand? It's like those blind men in the Bible, the ones with the elephant. None of them have the same story about what they're talking about, which is how we know that they don't understand the elephant in front of them.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-07-2005 07:25 PM

yes it means that. but i don't know a whole lot of christians who follow christ. i know a whole lot of christians who follow paul, however.