WIll God save us if we don't believe in the Resurrection?

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:20 AM

I don't think that's exactly what the Bible says.The story in the Bible of the Fall is an attempt to explain the origin of morality and rules. It must be seen in the same way that we view the Creation Myth. This is an attempt to explain the origin of rules and strictures that were essential to the nomadic way of life.It's the story of why humans must behave differently than animals.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Indeed, humans do behave differently than animals. Animals are still at one with the creation and God. But the misconception and denial of the none-believer individual, is that if they can't blame God for their mistakes in life, they'll blame Adam and Eve.God saves us, because we are forgiven from OUR sins, by Christ, not Adam and Eve's sins. They just brought sin in, and since then every single human in life has sinned, except for Christ, the one who fulfilled the law. That's why those of Sodom will get off lighter than those teachers of the law of Moses Christ spoke of.If our sins are based on Adam's sins, then why does Sodom get off easier than those people Christ mentioned? Therefore it is OUR sin we need forgiveness for, because repentance is for our own transgressions against God. Everybody does wrong things in life, but if they don't repent, how can they be forgiven?If I say "I will forgive you" and you say "I am not sorry" where is the sting of forgiveness gone? Is it not become a worthless gift given to an ungrateful child?Mother Martha can give kids icecream and feed the animals, but doing so will not negate here sins from her youth.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-13-2005 12:50 PM

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:20 AM

Let's see if I can answer any of them. LOL I believe the Fall never happened. That part is correct. But the second part of your question "... and is simply a myth to explain why the world is such a bad place?" is one I have problems with.I don't think it has anything to do with the world being a bad place and I don't think the authors saw it that way either. We'll get into that with one of your next questions. I'm not sure that most is accurate but I'd certainly say "many" is correct. I wonder just how many actually believe in a literal Adam and Eve today and of those that do believe it, how many have actually studied the evidence? It seems that a lieral Adam and Eve is not accepted by most churches these days (speaking of official church policy). A very important point. Glad you brought it up. IMHO this goes to the heart of the matter so please excuse me if I get a little wordy. I'm old and slow and so sometimes repeat myself.I believe GOD created the universe and all that's in it. The issue is whether or not humankind was some special creation or something GOD loves more than say, a rock. I do not believe that humans were some special creation. I don't think they were a goal or desired result, but rather simply one outcome from the system.Now, do we stand in some special place in GOD's eyes? Perhaps, but if so, it more like the precocious child, the prodegy, that shows surprising talent. No one sets out to have a precocious child but when it happens (if, in many cases it's only in the eyes of the parent), such things are appreciated. So perhaps, GOD is pleased with what happened.But, like the precocious child, there may well be facets the parents are not happy with. For example, the child may also be strong willed or demanding, prone to temper tantrums or unable to join in with the other kids in certain endeavors. Returning to the Genesis account. See, I told you we'd get back to that before we were through.Remember, IMHO the authors were speaking about their perceptions of society. They saw vast differences between the way people lived and the way animals lived. It was a very human centric point of view. They were trying to define a specific code of behavior, setting a basis for external laws that must be obeyed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My dog has the intellectual capacity to disobey me...and when I catch him you can see the guilt in his face that he knows he broke the rules. But according to the bible humans are the only animals responsible to obey
God. Ahhhh...the life of a dog, un-incumbered by religious doctrine. edit quote.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 06-13-2005 02:25 PM

Good explanation, I'd be impressed with you if I thought you actually believed any of this stuff (It seems you are playing devils advocate to prove the opposite point you are arguing for ) Alot of it is a too literal/fundamental for me to agree with, Adam and Eve actually existing for one. I don't have the time to really point out which parts specifically, maybe later.My off topic question is about your bible quoting. Which website do you use? How do you find the quotes that your 'point' is talking about? Can you 'search' the bible for passages about the discussion you're having, or do you just know these passages already?

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:21 AM

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:21 AM

Brian There were only two people supposedly on the planet,how do you imagine betrayal lying or cheating could occur? Before the fall Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed.Why would the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil cause them to be ashamed? Is there shame in being naked in a land where the god of the place allowed such display?
Let us also get the myth straight.God alienated people not vice versa.The choice was his to create a snake{who's nature could not be hidden from him} into Eden fully aware of the impending outcome. Oh, by the by,where did the snake gain the knowledge of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Also why were Adam and Eve not immortal to begin with? would this not be a property of Eden? Not at all! They could not turn their backs upon God until they were aware of the consequences of their actions after they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.They could not know that the action was wrong since the had no prior knowledge of what was wrong.That is obvious from the fact the the fruit was of a tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.Sin is simply about the breaking of rules,which, if not kept in check to some degree,makes it difficult for a society of people to stay together.The implementation of a series of rules {ten commandments} is easier to implement if you convince the people under your rule that they are rules given by a god. Are you seriously saying here that Adam and Eve challenged god's authority? Give me a break son.How can they challenge his authority? Do you suppose that Eve,while being talked to by a snake,{Hey Eve don't eat the mushrooms eh?} said to herself ooooh I wonder if this would piss off the big guy in the sky? Oh what the heck you only live once,gimme the fruit.If they have no concept of the magnitude of the act before they eat of the fruit how can they have formed the intent to challenge authority?After all the only experience they had to this point was a benevolent god showering them with all the neccessities of life .Again their first consideration was not Holy shit! is God gonns be pissed it was hey where can I get some clothes.Of course once the woman learned about clothes it was all over but the crying.

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

Well, if there were no literal Adam and Eve, and you seemed to agree that most Christian Churches today would say there was no literal Adam and Eve, then there was no literal temptation or Fall. The tale is then a metaphor for something else. How do you know that he did not do similar acts for the dinosaurs or for house cats or for birds? You say "He just wouldn't do that if we weren't special". From our point of view that sems reasonable, but how do you know he does not do the same for everything?We'll get to Paul eventually, but he's not that far from my position on this issue (he was a pure nutcase though on some). Hopefully I'll be able to show you that I ignore less of the Bible than you might think.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:21 AM

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:22 AM

!This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:22 AM

I don't believe that GOD had much to do with writing the Bible. Not the OT and certainly not the NT. The Bible is an anthology of anthologies. It was written by men, perhaps insired men, but still limited by the knowledge, understanding, culture, biases and limitations of their day. That's a really important point IMHO. I think that pretty much sums up much of the differences between many Christians. If you accept the stories in Genesis as literal truth, then you cannot reconcile the world we see around us. You must reject the TOE as an example. If you accept a literal GOE and A&E, then you reject common descent.But if you do not accept the literal interpretations a whole different world opens up. If you see the tales as stories, as metaphor, then you have to look at GOD. Is GOD reasonable and logical? Sidelined and I had a discussion on this not too long ago. If GOD is reasonable and logical, not Loki but GOD, He is not playing tricks. The record we see is true, there was a long age, old earth, billions of critters.A GOD that creates billions of critters but only loves a very, very small percentage of them seems to me to be illogical. I cannot resolve the image of a GOD that only loves humans, and not even all humans but only a small percentage of those humans, those who worship him, and has no concern for the billions that came before or after some event and the image of a logical, reasonable god.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion