(August 27, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 27, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: What of Paul's teachings about love in 1 Corinthians 13?

Yep! That's a great one too. 

They are not opposite or mutually exclusive, of course. But rather, I think they add to each other.

1 Cor 14:34

I do not see why any Christian would want to follow Pauline Doctrine, thank Nero he's dead.

How can anyone misinterpret a book that can be made to say whatever one wants it to say. If that weren't true there wouldn't be fifty eleven denomination and each one thinking the other is wrong.

(August 27, 2015 at 10:46 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(August 27, 2015 at 9:56 am)Drich Wrote:

---

The doctrine of 'original sin' is not a biblical one.

 Get an epidural

that's not true. We all have the same opportunity everytime we are faced with the temptation of sin.

 
IDK... Maybe the same way Eddie Murphy made a 'Dunkey' talk.

Ah, no. All adam and Eve passed down was the knowledge of good and evil, the tree represented nothing more. The tree itself was not evil it only offered the knowledge of it. with knowledge comes responsibility.

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html
read the op
ah, no.. if you still think this click on the link above and re-read the op.

Oh the wonders I missed by not being a member in 2012.   Man evolved for a billion years while Adam and Eve live immortally in the garden and then God pitches them out among the  soulless "monkey men" that have been evolving meanwhile.

Every time I think I've seen the most batshit crazy apologetic yet, someone comes along and ups the ante.  Apparently Drich claims it as original:

(August 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm)Drich Wrote: I have only taken the face value account of Genesis and lined the holes up with the holes in the evolutionary account of origins and they fit together perfectly.

What do you think? I would like to refine and clean up this account of origins and start circulating it. Because there is literally nothing the atheist can say or do to disprove anything. Their standard goto the evidence only further supports the creation account at this point. This takes the account of "origins" out of the atheist arsenal for a legitmate reason they do not believe in God. While on the Atheist website because they saw the logic of this explanation many who originally greeted me with harsh words and complete disrespect started to ask legitimate questions.

 From Drich's original OP.

I like it when you all move to dismiss without addressing any points. Because it means you rather pretend to know better than to demonstrate it by pointing out logical errors.
 Just because something is new and/or original does mean it's impossible. At it's core my obversation simply states that their isn't a time line given between the end of creation and fall of man. This could have been a second or it could have been the 100 ballizion or so years 'science' says it took for evolution to happen.

We also know that the Garden while expansive was not considered to be a planet wide occourance. Their were 4 rivers that defined the garden. The bible also makes no mention of what happened outside the garden pre fall. However post fall we come to find out that their are cities. (Cain feld to one/Nod)
For community to be classified as a city a given number of people have to live there. We also know Adam and Eve did not populate a whole city between the birth of abel and his murder by his brother. Which means homo sapeian (monkey man) was active pre fall. (rome nor any other city wasn't built in a day) this observation also accounts for the spouces Adam's other children took.

The closest thing to this I ever heard was gap theory. and in gap theory it is assumed that between one of the days of creation all the scientific 'stuff' was planted in.

What I was given is not 'gap theory.' I am saying that between the end of a literal 7 day creation (which again is creation from a central point and time located from a garden perspective/because everything mention is from a singular vantage point in a linear progression of time Eg: 7 days of creation, was all from a single central garden POV) and the fall of man essentially the time span between basically genesis 2 and 3 the rest of the world was allowed to 'mutate/evolve' to catch up with what was created in the garden. then the fall happened, and A&E were expelled.

(August 27, 2015 at 2:57 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: How can anyone misinterpret a book that can be made to say whatever one wants it to say. If that weren't true there wouldn't be fifty eleven denomination and each one thinking the other is wrong.

That is exactly right, Rhonda. That is precisely why the bible should not be held as the main pillar of Truth, but rather, the Church should. And that is why we are not sola scriptura. 

(Drich will disagree with me on this lol, but that is why I'm Catholic and he's protestant. I can only speak for my own faith.)

Quote:Drich will disagree with me on this lol,

Me, too.  You might get the Nobel Peace prize.

(August 27, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well the interpretation of the turn the other cheek stance isn't literally to allow someone to keep hitting you lol. It's more about not returning insult with insult, and instead, to respond to the person with love and humility.   

What is the point of reading a book if I'm going to make it say whatever I want it to say anyway?

(August 27, 2015 at 3:07 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(August 27, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well the interpretation of the turn the other cheek stance isn't literally to allow someone to keep hitting you lol. It's more about not returning insult with insult, and instead, to respond to the person with love and humility.   

What is the point of reading a book if I'm going to make it say whatever I want it to say anyway?

I agree. The point of being Catholic is that you don't make your own individual interpretations on the bible (at least not on the things that really matter).

(August 27, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 27, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: What of Paul's teachings about love in 1 Corinthians 13?

Yep! That's a great one too. 

They are not opposite or mutually exclusive, of course. But rather, I think they add to each other.

They're not mutually exclusive, but they are very different, and the Pauline conception of love doesn't seem to be in accord with the idea of a loving god.

For what it's worth, I think of 1Cor13 as a deeply moving understanding of love, and even so, still incomplete, insofar as I have personally experienced the emotion.

(August 27, 2015 at 3:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I agree. The point of being Catholic is that you don't make your own individual interpretations on the bible (at least not on the things that really matter).

Why is taking someone else's word on such an important matter a good thing?

(August 27, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(August 27, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yep! That's a great one too. 

They are not opposite or mutually exclusive, of course. But rather, I think they add to each other.

They're not mutually exclusive, but they are very different, and the Pauline conception of love doesn't seem to be in accord with the idea of a loving god.

For what it's worth, I think of 1Cor13 as a deeply moving understanding of love, and even so, still incomplete, insofar as I have personally experienced the emotion.

The difference between the 2 is that Corinthians defines love in general, while Jesus's speech was specifically teaching us to love our enemy. I like them both very much, but I must say Jesus's speech is my favorite part of the bible.