Quote :

"Are you claiming that Mary was without sin?"

7/26/2011 10:42:13 PM

Quote :

"Are you claiming that Kakarot's power level was, in fact, over 9000?"

7/26/2011 10:50:10 PM

^^of course

7/26/2011 11:03:44 PM

Quote :

"Salvation once granted through true faith is not something which departs from the person (I share this belief with others, though some hold it in debate), there is much scripture backing this and to say this (that salvation can be taken away) takes away from the power of Christ. "

How are you defining salvation?

Quote :

"So how is having an icon of Mary not against the Ten Commandments? idol-Hebrew-pesel "carved image (2), graven image (14), graven images (1), idol (10), idols (3), image (1)." Apparently looking for the actual meaning of the Hebrew makes me devoid of common sense. As does reading the Bible myself. You'll forgive me if I don't think reading the Bible to determine something as important as eternal salvation, makes me devoid of common sense. "

So the world's largest Christian denomination is blasphemous... good to know. GG Jesus on spreading your message effectively...

Quote :

"And God does not make billions of people to send them to hell for eternity, it's like you said, it's a choice. As you said before the unpure cannot stand before God, but those who have believed in Jesus Christ for salvation to wash away their sins, will be pure, the others cannot have their sins forgiven and will be send to another place which is the absence of God, this absence of God, is hell, because whereas on Earth we have God to support us and keep us, God is not in hell, and thus suffering "wailing and gnashing of teeth." "

This is a paradox or a contradiction. If God is omniscient, then he knew before the universe were created that most people would not choose him. why then create them and expect a different outcome? That implies lack of omniscience, or a flaw in your interpretation doesn't it?

Quote :

"Do you really believe if someone dies before getting the chance to repent, they are going to hell?" ... Yes to 3 "

LOL...

what definition of "just" does this fall under?

7/26/2011 11:06:42 PM

On a completely unrelated note...

http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/187383/20110726/scientists-solve-14-year-mystery-discover-saturn-s-water-source.htm

Quote :

"Thanks to Saturn's sixth largest moon Enceladus, the mystery that has baffled scientists for 14 years is now solved. Herschel space observatory explains that the ring of water vapors surrounding Saturn originates from Enceladus. The ring is ten time greater than Saturn's radius and that Enceladus continues to feed water vapor during its orbit. "

This sounds a lot like the "upper firmament" if you take Genesis literally... what if Saturn was really the garden of Eden?!??

7/26/2011 11:13:49 PM

Quote :

"what definition of "just" does this fall under?"

Didn't read that one carefully enough, I don't know enough to speak on that.

Quote :

"This is a paradox or a contradiction. If God is omniscient, then he knew before the universe were created that most people would not choose him. why then create them and expect a different outcome? That implies lack of omniscience, or a flaw in your interpretation doesn't it?"

This may be the fact of the matter. We cannot know how God perceives time, your argument is similar to the Calvanist argument that all saints were predestined to be saints, and thus no one truly has free will, obviously this is false, and thus since we have free will, it is impossible for God to "control" who is saved and who is not. And it is certainly a valid argument, I do not have enough knowledge to speak on this matter without fear of misstep.

We must remember that the creation can't really question the motives of the creator. We know several things from scripture:

1. God created man (and woman) and they were perfect before God, they abode in his presence.


"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Gen 1:27


2. Man sinned against God and thus with sin was introduced death, the consequence of sin.

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

Eccl 7:29

3. God had made a plan of salvation before time began.

"And I [God] will put enmity between thee[serpent/Satan] and the woman, and between thy seed[Antichrist/sin] and her seed[Jesus Christ born of man]; it shall bruise thy head[he will conquer sin and death], and thou shalt bruise his heel[you will afflict him and his church on Earth]."

Gen 3:15

4. God gave to man the law, so that by knowing the law they could have knowledge of sin.

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death."

Romans 7:5


5. Christ's death on the cross and resurrection completed the plan for salvation bringing to pass the law of Grace.

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. "

Romans 10

7. The gift is given freely to whosoever choices it, it is neither controlled nor bound by any man, institution or principality.

Quote :

"How are you defining salvation?"

Hopefully the excerpt from Romans 10 clearly defines salvation, if not please tell me and I'll explain in more detail.

7/26/2011 11:25:17 PM

Quote :

"This sounds a lot like the "upper firmament" if you take Genesis literally... what if Saturn was really the garden of Eden?!??"

According to Gen this is impossible, but also according to Genesis the Garden of Eden is somewhere still on Earth. Though if you found it, it would be the last thing you saw.



Back on topic:

Quote :

"of course"

If Mary is without sin, then why is she the first saint, if she did not sin, then she did not need to believe in Christ for salvation as she had lived a sinless life and thus needed no savior.

7/26/2011 11:27:45 PM

Despite your ridiculous views on the nature of the universe, you are one of my favorite new posters btw

7/26/2011 11:28:42 PM

Saint doesn't really require Christ not in that he didn't need to open the gates but a saint is simply one who is in heaven. Hypothetically, I'll play the game and say she probably didn't need personal salvation from christ but thats just hypothetical because it would be silly to think she rejected christ.

7/26/2011 11:35:42 PM

Quote :

"I'll play the game and say she probably didn't need personal salvation from christ but thats just hypothetical because it would be silly to think she rejected christ."

so are you claiming that belief in God and Christ is not necessary for salvation if a person leads a life with certain works.

7/26/2011 11:39:35 PM

I have had my doubts about religion and what I believe. Rather than going to some pastor or whoever, I wanted to find answers for myself. After carefully reading the entire bible and studying it, I decided that it does in fact make sense, and you have to read and study it in its entirety to understand that. I certainly did not before I read it. To try to help some that are truly interested in this thread, here is the gist of it:

Mankind---> all are sinners at least at some point in life (no one is perfect) even if he or she is generally a good person--->Mankind needs a savior from sin because God demands perfection--->God, realizing that mankind is naturally prone to sin, made a plan so that whoever is willing to accept it, can be saved from the consequences of their sin (God is not controlling us like robots—we all have free will to accept it or not. However, if we do not accept God’s gift of salvation, we will have to pay the consequences for our sins)--->Since mankind cannot survive the consequences of their sin, God sent Jesus (because he was the only one qualified for this task) to die and be judged and forsaken by God in man’s place--->Jesus is mankind’s savior--->How does mankind know this for sure--->Knowing that mankind has a brain, God set forth evidence pointing out our savior in the Old Testament written by many different people hundreds and even thousands of years before Jesus ever existed (which is why it is important to Christians—it helps Christians gain understanding of what is written in the New Testament. However, the law of the Old Testament [used to judge and forgive people of their sins before Jesus Christ] is no longer applicable to anyone because of what Jesus did for mankind) Here is some of the evidence provided in the Old Testament that Jesus is in fact our savior. We Christians are not just mindlessly basing our beliefs on what we have been told (when I refer to Christians I refer to anyone who admits that they are a sinner and believes in Jesus as their savior and has asked God for forgives of their sins and to accept Jesus’s gift of salvation. There is no holy church other than this group of people, whether they be Catholic or any other denomination—I personally am non-denominational because I think we should all just follow Christ’s example, and his simple commands. There is no reason for denominations.):

1. The savior will be crucified--Psalm 22 (this was written before crucifixion was even used on a large scale by the Romans. Not to mention, the Jews were trying to prove that Jesus was not the savior, knew this was written about the savior, and yet it was still fulfilled by Jesus.)
2. The savior will be betrayed by a friend—Psalm 41:9
3. The savior will be a descendent of king David—Jeremiah 23
4. The savior will be born in Bethlehem—Micah 6:2
5. The savior will be sold for 30 pieces of silver Zechariah 13:7
6. The savior’s bones will not be broken Psalm 22 (despite the guards breaking the legs of the two criminals next to Jesus).
7. The savior’s side will be pierced (instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, like they did to the criminals on either side of him, the guards decided to pierce his side to make sure that he was already dead)
8. The savior will be silent in front of his accusers--Isaiah 53
9. The savior will be crucified with criminals--Isaiah 53
10. The savior will be forsaken by his disciples--Zechariah 13

These are just 10 pieces of evidence. I’m not going to write them all because there are hundreds that God has provided us in the Old Testament. Coincidence? I think not—it is impossible for it to be a coincidence that Jesus fulfilled every single one of these requirements. God created us with the ability to reason, and use our brains. We have come up with clever dating techniques, which has allowed us to date manuscripts with these passages to before the time of Jesus. We can love Jesus with all our heart, and all our mind.

7/26/2011 11:44:08 PM

7/26/2011 11:51:16 PM

Quote :

"We have come up with clever dating techniques, which has allowed us to date manuscripts with these passages to before the time of Jesus."

... but these dating techniques are invalid when they demonstrate Genesis can't be literal?

7/26/2011 11:52:38 PM

Quote :

"but these dating techniques are invalid when they demonstrate Genesis can't be literal?"

I had to retract what I said about the age of the Earth being 6000 years, as it was not in scripture, the age of the Earth is not mentioned in scripture merely the age of Earth with man, as the Bible is the expounding of the relationship between God and man, thus pre-man time was irrelevant.

A clear example of why we should always question our views and ensure they are scripturally sound. Everyone can sometimes say something that is against scripture, it is up to the Holy Spirit, and the saints to help them in their path if they do so. Thus when I read Genesis and the commentary, written by saints, I had to rethink what I initially had thought, without thinking about the age of the Earth. A clear example of one time when I listened to a popular Christian view and it turned out to not have basis.

[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 11:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2011 11:56:58 PM

^^^^so you believe jesus is in hell?

Quote :

"so are you claiming that belief in God and Christ is not necessary for salvation if a person leads a life with certain works."

On earth yes. A good Hindu can find out about God after death and go to heaven. Ignorance is not condemnable. For christians, Jesus is mainly a guide on how to live our life. Some people are good and don't need a story for guidance. They are able to operate well enough off of the guidance from the holy spirit in their hearts.

[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 11:59 PM. Reason : mk]

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 12:00 AM. Reason : ^man has clearly been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years ]

7/26/2011 11:58:59 PM

Quote :

" I had to retract what I said about the age of the Earth being 6000 years, as it was not in scripture, the age of the Earth is not mentioned in scripture merely the age of Earth with man, as the Bible is the expounding of the relationship between God and man, thus pre-man time was irrelevant."

What does this mean? What number do you put as the "age of the Earth with man"?

And how does the bible not imply the 6k year figure? If you look at Numbers (that's the one, right?) aren't you theoretically supposed to trace back to Adam/Eve from there?

AANNDD... Genesis talks about a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with "Earth with man." What justification would you have to other Xtians about this just being figurative?

7/27/2011 12:05:44 AM

Quote :

"so you believe jesus is in hell?"

Well Jesus believed in God the Father and in following the Father's will.

"I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me."

John 5:30

"For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me."

John 6:38

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will."

Matt 26:39

The Father was with the Son, and he believed and wholly followed the will of the Father, to this extent sin was not found in him, would it be possible for him to be sinless without believing in the will of the Father?

Quote :

"On earth yes. A good Hindu can find out about God after death and go to heaven. Ignorance is not condemnable. For christians, Jesus is mainly a guide on how to live our life. Some people are good and don't need a story for guidance. They are able to operate well enough off of the guidance from the holy spirit in their hearts."

You believe in something I used to believe (which is a very deceptive and convincing world view) that if you do enough good works and live a decent life you wont be condemned. In the end all this worldview boils down to is either universal salvation, (which is not of the Catholic church) or moral relativism, which cannot be defined adequately. There are countless themes, Epistles, and scripture that condemns the belief that salvation is based on works.

7/27/2011 12:08:31 AM

No I absolutely do not think that Jesus is in Hell. He never was in Hell. After he was crucified, he gave up his spirit into heaven, and his body was buried. He joined his body on Earth again to proclaim that he did in fact rise from the dead, stuck around on earth for another 40 days or so, was seen by hundreds of people, and then went back into heaven.

7/27/2011 12:11:42 AM

Quote :

"And how does the bible not imply the 6k year figure? If you look at Numbers (that's the one, right?) aren't you theoretically supposed to trace back to Adam/Eve from there? AANNDD... Genesis talks about a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with "Earth with man." What justification would you have to other Xtians about this just being figurative?"

The Bible implies the 6k figure from the creation of man to current day, several scholars have calculated it. It is off however, since the Jewish calender is no longer in place (or not correct). I am not saying anything in Genesis is figurative:

""It bears on the very face of it the indication that it was written by man, and for man, for it divides all things into the heavens and the earth. Such a division evidently suits those only who are inhabitants of the earth. Accordingly, this sentence Genesis 1:1 is the foundation-stone of the history, not of the universe at large, of the sun, of any other planet, but of the earth, and of man its rational inhabitant. The primeval event which it records may be far distant, in point of time, from the next event in such a history; as the earth may have existed myriads of ages, and undergone many vicissitudes in its condition, before it became the home of the human race. And, for ought we know, the history of other planets, even of the solar system, may yet be unwritten, because there has been as yet no rational inhabitant to compose or peruse the record. We have no intimation of the interval of time that elapsed between the beginning of things narrated in this prefatory sentence and that state of things which is announced in the following verse, Genesis 1:2.""

This was the argument I posted earlier from Barnes. It has to do with Genesis 1:1 and the tensing and wording which is often misconstrued(as I did).

7/27/2011 12:14:03 AM

Quote :

" The Bible implies the 6k figure from the creation of man to current day"

Based purely on historical archeological evidence, we know man has been around for > 6k years in rational form.

Throw in genetics and prehistorical evidence, and we definitively have been around longer than that. You don't really solve any of the real problems with a literal Genesis and reality.

And how are you not saying Genesis isn't now figurative? The Barnes quote there says "only suite those who are an inhabitants of the Earth" this sounds like a roundabout way of saying "yes this is figurative because antiquated societies couldn't understand astrophysics."

But even if you assume that the beginning of Genesis implies an ambiguous "before" time, how does that explain the wonky description of the stars/space? How does it explain that fowls/fish/animals definitely exited prior to humanity?

7/27/2011 12:25:23 AM

Please, please don't make me repeat all those arguments over again.

7/27/2011 12:26:55 AM

ha where did you make them...?

just post what page they are on... i'll read them.

7/27/2011 12:27:33 AM

I think 5 and 6 are most of them. They're really all I have to say for now on the subject. FUN FUN FUN can probably explain them much better than I can anyway.

7/27/2011 12:28:56 AM

OH SHIT! SCIENCE!

7/27/2011 12:28:58 AM

Quote :

"God sent Jesus (because he was the only one qualified for this task) to die and be judged and forsaken by God in man’s place--->Jesus is mankind’s savior-"

This makes it sound like you think jesus went to hell in mans place.

Quote :

"You believe in something I used to believe (which is a very deceptive and convincing world view) that if you do enough good works and live a decent life you wont be condemned. In the end all this worldview boils down to is either universal salvation, (which is not of the Catholic church) or moral relativism, which cannot be defined adequately. There are countless themes, Epistles, and scripture that condemns the belief that salvation is based on works."

I don't believe in what you used to believe in because they, like babies, go to purgatory and accept God there.

7/27/2011 12:28:59 AM

Quote :

"I don't believe in what you used to believe in because they, like babies, go to purgatory and accept God there."

Well, what's the real difference does anyone in purgatory not accept God? If so then it still either devolves into universalism or moral relativism, who defines the extent of the sin?

Also, stop putting TSB in Chit Chat.

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 12:32 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2011 12:32:00 AM

shouldn't babies stay in purgatory for a while until they're old enough to make a decision on their own?

i mean, i accepted the j-man when i was like 5, but i also accepted candy from strangers at that age. so if i had died then, i guess i would have gone to heaven.

but now, i probably wouldn't.




timing; it's a motherfucker



[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 12:34 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2011 12:32:18 AM

place holder

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 12:36 AM. Reason : eric moulder scully]

7/27/2011 12:35:58 AM

Quote :

"Well, what's the real difference does anyone in purgatory not accept God? If so then it still either devolves into universalism or moral relativism, who defines the extent of the sin?"

They get one last chance to accept God and repent. Some people are obviously in for more time than others.

There is no way an all loving all powerful God would both allow people to never know about him AND punish those people for eternity for never knowing him. Your God may be wrath but My God is love.

7/27/2011 12:36:20 AM

^^^^^Sorry I didn't mean to sound that way.

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 12:38 AM. Reason : sorry not enough ^]

7/27/2011 12:36:55 AM

Quote :

"They get one last chance to accept God and repent. Some people are obviously in for more time than others. "

And how is this defined? The length and extremity.

7/27/2011 12:40:24 AM

Quote :

"I think 5 and 6 are most of them. They're really all I have to say for now on the subject. FUN FUN FUN can probably explain them much better than I can anyway. "

Your answer boiled down to "i don't know."

But the thing is... i've LITERALLY (as in really, literally) been reading explanations of this for about 10 years now, i've spoken to dozens of people both religious and non-religious, and NO ONE has an explanation that isn't obviously flawed or they "don't know." How is it that for the past several thousand of years, no religious person has been guided to the solution to such a pivotal question?

7/27/2011 12:41:44 AM

Quote :

"But the thing is... i've LITERALLY (as in really, literally) been reading explanations of this for about 10 years now, i've spoken to dozens of people both religious and non-religious,and NO ONE has an explanation that isn't obviously flawed or they "don't know." How is it that for the past several thousand of years, no religious person has been guided to the solution to such a pivotal question?"

Well I'd say it's because it is not pivotal question, it is certainly not a pivotal question between man and God. Salvation and the defining of the law and sin, are pivotal questions between man and God not creation. Those who view it as pivotal need only look to the fact that Genesis deals shortly with the beginning of the world while Revelation/much of the OT and some of the NT deal with the end of the world. God is very concerned with the future and things to come, hence countless prophecy and other things, but the just are saved by faith, not by secular knowledge. Thus the idea that creation is a pivotal argument can be put on the level of "Why does God not instantly reveal himself to man and thus cause everyone to worship him?" The reason being because those who are saved are saved by faith in God, even if he appeared surely there would be some who didn't truly have faith, but merely trembled at God at the time only to revert back to their old ways. The fact of the matter is God doesn't bother with what he doesn't deem is important. He put together a whole book on the free gift of salvation and redemption from sins, but didn't inspire anything past Genesis about the age of the Earth, there is a reason for this.



I noticed my boss had the "Origin of Species" in his bookshelf today, awkward turtle indeed.

7/27/2011 12:56:29 AM

Quote :

"There is no way an all loving all powerful God would both allow people to never know about him AND punish those people for eternity for never knowing him."

this is true, but the Bible suggests that everyone has a basic innate knowledge of God, imprinted on them by Him. As such, it's not really a matter of "never knowing Him." I forget the verse. Now, what, exactly, that means, is up for debate. Does it mean "everyone knows Jesus is the real deal"? I doubt it.

Quote :

"Throw in genetics and prehistorical evidence, and we definitively have been around longer than that."

assuming said evidence wasn't created by God when He created the earth. Why He would do that, I dunno, but, meh...

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 1:02 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2011 12:59:18 AM

It's not pivotal because it really matters how the Earth was created, it's pivotal because it demonstrates that it's foolish to assert the Bible is the literal word of God. It is clearly the product of man's political systems over the years, and pointing out these glaring flaws in Gensis demonstrates this.

For example, you can't seriously tell me that Salvation per Christianity is of utter importance without being able to explain the nature or purpose of Genesis. If Genesis is figurative, then many other portions of the Bible should be figurative. If Genesis is supposed to be literal, then you need a clear explanation of what's literal to know how the other literal parts of the Bible fit in.

You're right, it's content isn't pivotal. I'm not talking about its content, but it's position in the logical chain of things. If you're saying the Bible is the literal, word of God, this is a bold claim that you should be able to clearly demonstrate, from Genesis to Revelations.

If you're saying the Bible is more of a Craigslist Guide to Christianity, then it's okay to have some flaws.

And Revelations has its own problems in terms of fitting with reality.

Quote :

" The fact of the matter is God doesn't bother"

You're selling God short if you think his doesnt-bother seems a LOT like man's doesnt-bother. You're anthropomorphizing God. You are projecting human traits and emotions onto God that aren't apt. You seem to be forgetting that God is (allegedly...) perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. The term "bother" doesn't apply to such a being. God wouldn't have to "bother" to create a logical, understandable Genesis for the ancient people.

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 1:07 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2011 1:04:32 AM

Quote :

"It's not pivotal because it really matters how the Earth was created, it's pivotal because it demonstrates that it's foolish to assert the Bible is the literal word of God."

It can be the "literal word of God" without requiring that every single word talks about something that literally happened. there is a difference.

7/27/2011 1:06:37 AM

Quote :

"this is true, but the Bible suggests that everyone has a basic innate knowledge of God, imprinted on them by Him. As such, it's not really a matter of "never knowing Him." I forget the verse. Now, what, exactly, that means, is up for debate. Does it mean "everyone knows Jesus is the real deal"? I doubt it."

I'll back up this claim, though I can only offer my opinion and not the scriptural support.

7/27/2011 1:08:32 AM

^^ irrelevant, no interpretation of the term "literal" can validate Genesis.

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 1:09 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2011 1:09:05 AM

no, not really. Genesis can be the "literal word of God" and still not be a literal account of creation. At which point the claim that "the literal word of God" has problems then falls away. maybe you can state what you mean by "literal word of God" in another way

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2011 1:18:31 AM

Quote :

"You're anthropomorphizing God. You are projecting human traits and emotions onto God that aren't apt. You seem to be forgetting that God is (allegedly...) perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. The term "bother" doesn't apply to such a being. God wouldn't have to "bother" to create a logical, understandable Genesis for the ancient people."

I guess you're right, I am giving traits to God, a better wording would be He did not, and why is beyond our understanding, though I've hinted at reasons.

Quote :

"If you're saying the Bible is the literal, word of God, this is a bold claim that you should be able to clearly demonstrate, from Genesis to Revelations."

Well I certainly postulate that Genesis is literal as the theories which defy Genesis are just that theories. aaronburro I'm sure would be happy to discuss that point.

Also, I can't "demonstrate" that it is literal from Genesis from Revelation, Revelation speaks of things that haven't yet happened, Jonah was swallowed by a fish (supernatural occurrence), and Jesus was raised from the dead(supernatural occurrence). I cannot demonstrate a literal interpretation I can merely state, that the Bible was meant to be read, and through reading we were meant to understand, and to me that is part of the Love of God, that he loved us and made it very clear how things were going to be accomplished, even if certain things were lacking he made our relationship to Him very clear.

Not to mention how one person defines something literally another may define in a different matter, certain things are figurative, but taken within the context of the work as a whole can be explained. I for one do not think Genesis is this way.

My example would be that Christ spoke in parables:

"10And the disciples came, and said to him, Why speak you to them in parables? 11He answered and said to them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that he has. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which said, By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive:

15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

Matthew 13

Obviously he was not literally referring to sowers in the field, but he is also obviously speaking figuratively. I fail to see obvious figurative speaking in Genesis.

Many Apocalypse prophecies are also figurative, and many have decoded what they have meant based on analysis of what all the prophets have said regarding the items within scripture.

7/27/2011 1:22:02 AM

I'm going to sleep. Goodnight everybody.

7/27/2011 1:25:25 AM

^^ Obviously some things are figurative (that's practically what the term "parables" means) and some are literal... but that's kind of the issue. That's the slippery slope. That's the "problem" with religions.

Because of this ambiguity from person-to-person, you don't know what's what. Why is Catholicism the largest Christian denomination, but you believe they have blatantly blasphemous beliefs? Because they have used power and influence to convince people their perspective on what's literal/figurative is right.

You're saying Genesis is a certain way, someone else says it's another way, you're saying your view is divine, they are saying their view is divine. The simplest, most consistent explanation is that neither of you are divine, you are just humans trying to find a world view that brings you comfort regardless of logical consistency with reality (nothing wrong with that-- but why reject real truths to make this happen?).

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 1:33 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2011 1:33:36 AM

Humans create new things all the time—it is not a far-fetched idea. And yes, the Bible can be taken literally, but like someone said earlier, it does not mean every single thing is literal. Jesus tells parables that are perfectly logical, but they are stories to teach a lesson. It is similar to when professors say that something can best be explained with an example. I think that Catholicism is the largest denomination because people do not read the Bible to answer their own questions, and just accept what they are told. I had a friend who was Catholic and went to a priest to ask about a biblical passage conflicting with Catholicism. He told her not to read the Bible anymore because that was his job—that’s the real problem.

7/27/2011 2:04:23 AM

^ so what are you saying? Genesis IS literal or IS figurative?

7/27/2011 2:07:42 AM

Quote :

"you're saying your view is divine"

This is a generalization, I'm saying the Word of God is divine, my view is not Divine, Christ is Divine, Jehovah is Divine, my view is not. My view is merely the best possible scriptural explanation for salvation that I can create, and I'd also postulate that most of the figurative moments of the Bible are obviously figurative, but I can certainly see your point.

But I feel that my claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and the claim that the Bible is literal are different. People can speak of different things about certain passages, but other passages are very clear when saints explain them. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm merely saying that the Word of God does. It is through the Holy Spirit that we often recognize and understand things in the Bible, and through discussion with other saints. One lesson is that when the teacher of the Word has stopped learning, he is no longer fit to teach.

Quote :

"but why reject real truths to make this happen?"

There is more to the discussion of this then just arbitrarily designating the claims as real truths. Though I'm sure others would disagree. I mean let's say that these methods and ideas had a 1/100,000,00 chance of being wrong, I would postulate that they could still be wrong and that Genesis could still be justified along another basis.

Another reason for not believing that Genesis is figurative is this:

If Genesis is figurative, then how is it figurative?

Figurative prophecy is discerned based on other parts of the Bible, when the prophets speak. Other figurative language is spoken and explained by Christ.

7/27/2011 2:09:11 AM

Quote :

"I'm going to sleep. Goodnight everybody. "

7/27/2011 2:12:58 AM

I ate two cans of Tuna because I was hungry. This was a mistake.

7/27/2011 2:14:05 AM

Quote :

" I mean let's say that these methods and ideas had a 1/100,000,00 chance of being wrong, I would postulate that they could still be wrong and that Genesis could still be justified along another basis."

This is another fallacy. Yes, the methods could be wrong, but not in a way to change the answer by 9 orders of magnitudes.

Quote :

"But I feel that my claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and the claim that the Bible is literal are different. People can speak of different things about certain passages, but other passages are very clear when saints explain them. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm merely saying that the Word of God does"

This is circular reasoning though. You're saying that it only seems wrong because I don't believe it's right. But how do you get someone outside this circle into this circle? You are essentially asking someone to disregard their logical sense in order to join this circle. That is not viable.

And i have been using the term "literal" very loosely. I functionally mean the "inspired word of God." The point though is that even among "saints" there is not a high level of agreement. You are actually the first literalist i've come across to suggest that Genesis really means the Earth is billions of years old maybe, but man perhaps has only been around for a few thousand.

7/27/2011 2:24:59 AM

Quote :

"But how do you get someone outside this circle into this circle?"

They have faith in God and salvation, if they said they wanted to believe in evolution, I would hold that it is contrary to many basic tenets of scripture but, so is Catholicism and Mormonism. You don't have to believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God to be saved.

7/27/2011 2:36:17 AM

Quote :

" It did literally happen, it just didn't happen exactly the way its portrayed in the bible. Do you not believe humans are naturally mischievous and inclined to sin? literal vs literalist"

I don't think "sin" exists as some objective thing, so no I don't think humans are inclined to sin. Also, "naturally mischievous?" What in the fuck does that even mean?

Did a talking snake convince the first woman to disobey god by eating a magic fruit or not? That's what I want to know. If you buy into evolution then you know there was no "first woman", no garden of eden, no ribs being plucked from a man, no talking snake, no magic fruit. So if it didn't happen as written, how did original sin happen at all? The NT clearly states that before Adam's transgression we were sinless, but after we were sinful, but if you don't think there actually was an Adam eating fruit then what do you believe?

Quote :

"5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

It boggles me how anyone could think this is a just system, btw. I'm screwed because someone else sinned, but I can be saved by the torture of another. Saul was a crazy mofo.

7/27/2011 9:02:27 AM