But dont ya know that sin is in the blood? Corruption.
Why A Virgin Birth?
Posts
Total:
53
-->
@ethang5
And this is where I agree with Etrnl. His point is that the important thing is the message God is trying to convey, not whether the story is literal or figurative.Both such stories can contain truth. Fables and parables are examples of figurative stories that can convey deep truths. Focusing on whether a story is literal or figurative instead of on the message the story is meant to impart is like a hungry man focusing on the bowl and not the food in it.
Very well put.
But often, the unbeliever is unable to see the message (the food) and thus concentrates instead on the only thing he can perceive.But with believers, I can focus on the message, because whether the story is literal or metaphorical, the message doesn't change. The story itself is just a container to transport the message.That's why so many of Etrnl's conversations here are sadly hilarious. He wants to focus on the message, and the atheist, able the see only the bowl, focuses on the container.
Lol very well put! this is all true.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I know Etrnl, sometimes both you and Tradesecret show so much patience and tolerance to nobheads, I want to reach into the net and slap them.
But reaching one person is worth going through the 9 who only want to fight.
-->
@ethang5
As an aside - while I finish up my response to you. Would you apply this principle to the death and resurrection of Jesus? Or is the message the important thing - not whether Jesus literally rose from the dead or not. So long as its message is conveyed - Jesus rose spiritually, or Jesus rose friguratively, or Jesus rose in my heart?And this is where I agree with Etrnl. His point is that the important thing is the message God is trying to convey, not whether the story is literal or figurative.
I will stand with Paul. The literal and physical rising of Jesus from the dead is the important thing. As is the message it conveys. My view in relation to the Genesis story is also in line with this. Many people suggest there was no first humans - and therefore there was no estate of sin which is inherited. Remove the first Adam and this in my view and I believe in accordance with the Bible removes the need for Jesus.
I have indicated before that I don't think we should spiritualise the Genesis story. I take the view that average Creationist misunderstands Genesis - for instance in relation to so called immortality prior to the fall of humanity. I don't have a particular view about a talking snake if that is what occurred. It is not like it is the only talking animal in the bible. I seem to recall a donkey talking to Baalam. The idea of course is unusal. Yet probably this is the point. When something is unusual we are supposed to sit up and take notice. Not just dismiss it as metaphorical or figurative. The bible has many figurative patterns in it. Even in the very first chapter of Genesis we see the patterns in the formation of the heavens and the earth. There are also clearly symbols as well such as the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I also think that the usage of the Hebrew alphabet is also quite powerful in the first chapter - it gives the notion of poetry. But poetry and metaphor and symbolism all don't automatically remove the reality of the picture in the first place. I remember studying a very powerful piece of poetry at school about war and in particular an episode of a battle in Vietnam. It was a very moving picture with the intent to express the horror of war. That was its message - yet it used a literal battlefield episode to convey this message. Poetry, message, yet literal. The concepts do not have to be mutually exclusive.
-->
@Tradesecret
Would you apply this principle to the death and resurrection of Jesus? Or is the message the important thing - not whether Jesus literally rose from the dead or not. So long as its message is conveyed - Jesus rose spiritually, or Jesus rose friguratively, or Jesus rose in my heart?
Before you jump the gun you should understand that when someone says a certain thing in scripture is probably figurative it doesn't mean the whole book is figurative. As a matter of fact I would say most of it is literal while some of it is figurative, there's a balance to it all. The Gospels are not written in a figurative way, unlike some of Genesis but to answer the question the things that are most important in scripture are those things which can be applied, beliefs are a dime a dozen they don't really make or break a deal. If they did a whole bunch of religious folk are in big trouble, and that may be the case but its not because of beliefs it will be because of their life style and the lack of application.
No one is really required to believe in absurdities, but they are required to apply that which is applicable. I'm not saying that miracles or unusual events are absurd either, I'm saying absurdities are most likely the obvious things like some of the examples I pointed out. On the other hand they aren't absurd when the proper interpretation is used. So it isn't that I'm dismissing anything, rather I am quite familiar with the style of writing in the Bible and I apply commonsense.
What makes it more confusing is that all the little denominations and religious sects like Catholicism have varying interpretations, some of which one MUST believe in. This is where is gets weird, because the Catholics managed to misinterpret many of the teachings of Jesus, translating them as literal rather than figurative. One such example is the passage where Jesus addresses Peter as the rock, upon which he was to build his church. But it wasn't literally Peter (and all his supposed descendants) that Jesus was to build on, it was actually the confession Jesus was referring to. Because of this seemingly small error the Papacy was established and so many generations of an abomination was created by that one error. Another such example is where Jesus tells the disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood, this only meant to point to the principle of application and abiding in what he was teaching, it had nothing to do with literal flesh and blood. I could go on and on...
Anyways, the point being that at some point interpretations and beliefs only take you so far, but the aspects in scripture that are actually applicable are those things which can be applied to the self. So it doesn't really matter whether this person believes in talking snakes or that this person says it is figurative because the message remains the same, it reminds us of the nature of temptation. Since Jesus was a literal figure that walked the earth, whether or not he literally rose from the dead is probably a more serious matter but its the application of it which is the important factor. There are opinions and beliefs which have no real application to them, others may so I would take this on a case by case basis. We'd actually have to discuss each content in question, but as a general rule of thumb I think it is pretty easy to see what is figurative and what is literal. Some not really having great significance to the individual and their spiritual progression.
-->
@ethang5
Who's fighting?
I'm just whiling away a moment or two engaging in entertaining transatlantic discussion.
That's if I can interrupt your cosy little back scratching threesome.
What would a religious debate be without both the theist and the atheist....There's not so much fun in mutual self gratification....You would soon get bored.
And amidst all your pious aggression and stress you forgot the K in "nobheads".....Knobhead!...LOL...Only messing around....Regards.
-->
@zedvictor4
Who's fighting?
For the most part, atheists.
That's if I can interrupt your cosy little back scratching threesome.
Am I correct in assuming that you are voluntarily an atheist? If so, why the jealousy? You are the only one keeping yourself out of our cosy little back scratching threesome.
What would a religious debate be without both the theist and the atheist
It would be without the boorish idiot who knows nothing about Christian doctrine derailing every thread with a knee-jerk to the "god does not exist" debate regardless of the topic.
There's not so much fun in mutual self gratification....You would soon get bored.
But you must make up your minds atheists. On the one hand, you drone on and on about 33,000 denominations and how Christians all have different interpretations, then on the other hand, you say our talking together would be just mutual gratification. The both can't be true.
If theists got bored talking to each other, we'd already be on an atheist website. But you came here, showing it is really you atheists who get bored talking to each other.
And amidst all your pious aggression and stress you forgot the K in "nobheads" .....Knobhead!
Nobhead
noun \ˈnäb-ed\
Definition: An irritating person who is oblivious to how they are perceived.
Origins: Someone so abrasive and unaware of their surroundings, a penis could be drawn on their forehead without them realising or being told about it.
Synonyms: wazzock, dipsh*t
...pious aggression and stress...
LOL. Talk about someone abrasive and unaware of their surroundings.
-->
@Tradesecret
You seem not to understand. Some stories are literal, and some are figurative. Both of those stories carry a message.
I am not advocating taking all stories as figurative. I am saying that often times, whether the story is literal or figurative is only of secondary importance.
Jhn 14:11 - Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
I am not advocating taking all stories as figurative. I am saying that often times, whether the story is literal or figurative is only of secondary importance.
For example, observe what Jesus said in
Jhn 14:10 - Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Jhn 14:11 - Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Believing Jesus for the very works' sake was acceptable if one could not believe that He was in the Father, and the Father in him:
We need to be careful not to become legalists. People come to belief in Jesus in stages, not all at once. It is more important for a person to understand why Jesus had to die, and what that death is supposed to mean, than to believe His resurrection was literal.
Those sincerely searching for God will be lead by the Holy Spirit to the truth.
-->
@ethang5
Well.
That last reply was a whole lot of angst driven non-argument if ever I saw it.
And I was told...Never volunteer for anything.
-->
@zedvictor4
That last reply was a whole lot of angst driven non-argument if ever I saw it.
Is that going be your new schtick? I'm full of angst and piously aggressive? Or is that aggressively pious?
And I was told...Never volunteer for anything.
Then stop subconsciously buttaching to be part of our cosy little back scratching threesome.
I needed no argument as your post was, again, just your biased atheist personal opinion of something you don't understand.
-->
@ethang5
Well that is also your "schtick" which I have simply thrown back at you.
Nonetheless I do sometimes detect an element of frustration in your replies.
Do you really think that the religion board ought to be promulgating the idea of a completely outlandish and insulting myth about a mythological hero who was born to a virgin wife?
-->
@MayaWilson
Yes, you compulsive idiot. It's only insulting to you, because you're deluded.
You've asked a thousand times, and each time you've been told yes, and that you're a moron.
Make another sock and ask again, and you will be told again. You are a deluded moron. We like the religion board. And we don't care for your delusion or your insane compulsion.
-->
@zedvictor4
Well that is also your "schtick" which I have simply thrown back at you.
I've never said you were full of angst or frustrated. Or piously aggressive. Or is that aggressively pious?
Nonetheless I do sometimes detect an element of frustration in your replies.
You must have a feedback loop in your detector. You keep confirming your bias and I'll keep burning you. Deal?
-->
@EtrnlVw
The literal interpretation of course is the sort of sensational sort of hyperbole which was the norm for writers in those days.I don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis on how man was created so I believe in order to have a physical body it must be developed through a physical giver, this is the process of life here. While it is a process, it's still a process originated/generated by the Creator. So although God can create from essentially an empty platform, things are created though processes, "building blocks".
If we are to believe the imaculate conception in that God wanted to show a physical birth, we have to accept that at some stage there would need to be an interface from the supernatural to the physical.
So, given that God did not physically inseminate Mary, there would have to be some sort of physical intervention within her body to conceive and ultimately give birth. All we know is that it was God's "will" to instigate the process and, given that there was no indication of consent from the mother, would we not still say that God was guilty of assault?
-->
@ethang5
Yes, you compulsive idiot. It's only insulting to you, because you're deluded.You've asked a thousand times, and each time you've been told yes, and that you're a moron.Make another sock and ask again, and you will be told again. You are a deluded moron. We like the religion board. And we don't care for your delusion or your insane compulsion.
It was'nt me and I don't know who the heck it is who literally copied and pasted my post #13.
Nevertheless, it was a fair question and answering with hot-headed spam is hardly appropriate, is it?
-->
@Willows
@Monte_Carlo
You tell me. You're banned. I'm not. Again....answering with hot-headed spam is hardly appropriate, is it?
7 days later
-->
@ethang5
...answering with hot-headed spam is hardly appropriate, is it?
You tell me. You're banned. I'm not. Again.
You are a Christian. I'm not.
Would you say that sums it up, given the biased nature of the moderator who banned me?
-->
@T_Recks
You are a Christian. I'm not.
Yes. You are suffering from OCD. That's why an atheist who claims to find nothing good in Christianity would park himself on a religion board.
Would you say that sums it up, given the biased nature of the moderator who banned me?
Every mod cannot be biased moron. And don't you think by stupidly trolling the site now validates the mods judgement of you?
You are a troll. The way you are behaving now is not new, it was always in you.
I said of you 3 years ago, "you do not want debate or dialogue, like an idiot who spray paints insults on a church wall, all you want is to shock and insult. And we have seen, that is all you do."
You rationalize your insane behavior, but in your heart of hearts, you know you're not OK. I've always known you were OCD.
To soothe yourself, you are probably telling yourself that you are bothering the mods and Christians. But as always, no one really thinks of you. Like hari, dee dee, and disgusted before you, you are insignificant. Empty.
Everyone has seen your rant before. You simply repeat it under a slightly different title. No one cares. You are like the crazy man on the street corner yelling his obsession. Everyone walks past you and avoids eye contact.
You could be well if you got treatment, but for some reason, mentally sick people like you never want treatment. You know you're sick. Your own behavior shouts it.
Now, like the moron hari, you waste your life posting the same stupidity over and over to a site that doesn't want you. Stupidly calling yourself a "crusader". Hari called himself a "researcher", dee dee was a "Christian" minister bringing the "truth".
Each of you are deluded and rationalizing to keep your delusion intact and the cognitive dissonance at bay.
How long will you keep spamming and sock puppeting? For years? Could you really be that insane? Is your life that frivolous? Are you really that petty?
This will end sadly for you. And everyone will see that you were just a mentally ill troll with an empty life. But you are compulsive. You cannot stop.
So I'll toss you for lolz. The fact that you're too dense and compulsive to stop shaming yourself is not my business.
You are a gift, and I'm going to unwrap you.
-->
@ethang5
You are suffering from OCDbiased moronlike an idiot who spray paints insults on a church wallyour insane behaviorno one really thinks of you. ........ you are insignificant. Empty.You are like the crazy man on the street corner yelling his obsessionyou waste your life posting the same stupidityHow long will you keep spammingCould you really be that insane? Is your life that frivolous? Are you really that petty?you were just a mentally ill troll with an empty lifeThe fact that you're too dense and compulsiveYes, you compulsive idiot. It's only insulting to you, because you're deluded.You've asked a thousand times, and each time you've been told yes, and that you're a moron.
This comes from just two posts on this page.
In the last instance, the member quit in disgust.
You have been pulled up in several posts already that your compulsive,insulting, offensive behavior has gone way beyond the pale.
-->
@T_Rocks
T_Rocks? T_Rocks? Where are you?
In the last instance, the member quit in disgust.
Stop lying. The post was directed to T_Recks, a banned alt of yours. He didn't quit. He was banned.
...offensive behavior has gone way beyond the pale.
You will tell a girl her behavior is skanky as you rape her? Buy a clue loser. You're continuously violating CoC to tell me I'm violating?
Lol. Your obsession has really screwed up your brain.
T_Rocks, where are you? Not banned again certainly. You're the ethical one with integrety, where are you?
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I read the first four and a bit paragraphs.Try beating that
I got as far as "concrete reason".
-->
@Stephen
Lol! Two geniuses brag about not reading the post they responded to.
Does this not explain the intelligence level of their responses?
I can't wait for their movie reviews of films they didn't watch. I bet the intellectual quality will be similarly sterling.
Lol!