(February 11, 2013 at 5:09 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 3:59 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Your definitions of "literally" and "non-literally" are back to front. That's not a reassuring start at all.........

Right, so "literally" Genesis poetically describes the relationship between God and man. A-ha, so you're up to speed with my dad i.e. you're telling me you believe Genesis is not history. Great, we just reiterated the OP. Now onto the question at hand:

What does this mean in terms of the saviour of the world? Why did he die for you? What did he save us from, an ambiguous and confused poem that proves itself to be too futile to produce a sound theology that answers the question "what did he save us from"?

Back to front: yes definately to modern misunderstanding.

Poetically, not exactly. Literally theological, but I assume you knew this. But you say I'm on a par with your dad, which I clearly am not??

Jesus saves us from sin in this theological construct. Not some fabricated logical car crash of poetry/ pseudo science.

Ok, so Jesus is saving us from sin. Where did sin come from?

---

(February 11, 2013 at 5:32 am)catfish Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 5:09 am)FallentoReason Wrote: You think you've won without even being able to produce an explanation for what you believe? Hilarious.

How blind are you to the words that you wrote? It was a loaded question that I answered despite your flawed wording and you weren't happy with my answer. You then confirm what I said about you being closed-minded and now you expect me to explain?

And for the record, I haven't won, you've lost... (if you can understand what I mean by that, you have a chance)
.

This is void of all meaning. You're getting me to talk about everything and anything except for what I'm here to talk about. My last post had an "on topic" component to it as well as a "not on topic" component and you decide to respond to the latter only.

Thanks for your time, but from now on I'll ignore what you say unless it's to do with the discussion at hand.

(February 11, 2013 at 5:09 am)FallentoReason Wrote: It's a start. Now how about you take up the challenge and answer my free-thinking-inspired thread? I stated before I'm looking for any answer that shows it's sensical to believe Genesis to be allegorical all the while showing how it relates to literal events in the NT.

And you still don't see what's wrong with your loaded question???

Free-thinking is a misnomer when related to what you wrote. You allow no free thought, accept no free thought and frankly, I don't think you'd recognise free thought as you seem to expect me to adhere to a "denomination"...

C'est la vie...
.

(February 11, 2013 at 3:26 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I'm interested to see people's answers on here. I already know that Drich likes to have his cake and eat it on this one. God created two "worlds" where one is the garden and the other is the rest of the earth. Then after the events in the garden, Adam & Eve got jiggy with the monkey men who, coincidentally, where at a stage in the evolutionary path equal to where A&E were poofed into being.

Not A&E, the sons and daughters of "Man made in the image of God."

(February 11, 2013 at 9:04 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Ok, so Jesus is saving us from sin. Where did sin come from?

Man is fallible. It's in our natures. The foundation of which is illustrated in the fall story.
Reference back to it is following the logic of a set down structure. It's like writing a book on the basics of maths, and then referring back to our basic conclusions for support.
If you think that man is fallible, a taboo ridden phrase from this very foundation, then we're in agreement.
This is by no means proof that man is fallible, just a view point. If you take a different starting point, then this basis doesn't apply.

Why do I need an actual physical person to make that work? I just don't get that. If anything it weakens the position, and adds in a whole unnecessary additional layer of doubt about a spurious claim.

---

(February 11, 2013 at 9:46 am)catfish Wrote: you seem to expect me to adhere to a "denomination"...

Now there's one for the quote gallery

(February 11, 2013 at 9:46 am)catfish Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 5:09 am)FallentoReason Wrote: It's a start. Now how about you take up the challenge and answer my free-thinking-inspired thread? I stated before I'm looking for any answer that shows it's sensical to believe Genesis to be allegorical all the while showing how it relates to literal events in the NT.

And you still don't see what's wrong with your loaded question???

Free-thinking is a misnomer when related to what you wrote. You allow no free thought, accept no free thought and frankly, I don't think you'd recognise free thought as you seem to expect me to adhere to a "denomination"...

C'est la vie...
.

I don't "expect" you to adhere to a denomination. By default your beliefs will either coincide with one of the 30 000+ out there or you will have created yet another system of Christian thought i.e. a denomination.

As for staying on topic... I'm a free thinker. I will gladly ponder beyond what I believe to be true hence why I began this thread. I mean, if I don't believe in this stuff, then why would I bother asking about it in the first place?

With all of that out of the way, how about you finally hit me with your understanding of... everything. Why did Jesus have to die for a poem? What does it all mean if Genesis isn't literal?

---

(February 11, 2013 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 3:26 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I'm interested to see people's answers on here. I already know that Drich likes to have his cake and eat it on this one. God created two "worlds" where one is the garden and the other is the rest of the earth. Then after the events in the garden, Adam & Eve got jiggy with the monkey men who, coincidentally, where at a stage in the evolutionary path equal to where A&E were poofed into being.

Not A&E, the sons and daughters of "Man made in the image of God."

So Cain and Abel?

(February 11, 2013 at 9:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: By default your beliefs will either coincide with one of the 30 000+ out there or you will have created yet another system of Christian thought i.e. a denomination

No no no

catfish FALLS OUTSIDE of that grouping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity < catfish won't adhere to this classification). He rejects the basics of mainstream Christianity openly. The 30,000 I have no problem calling brothers and sisters in Christ.

JWs call themselves Christians too, and just like catfish, reject mainstream Christianity as it is commonly agreed to mean.

Just clarifying that for you

fr0d0 Wrote:Man is fallible. It's in our natures. The foundation of which is illustrated in the fall story.
Reference back to it is following the logic of a set down structure. It's like writing a book on the basics of maths, and then referring back to our basic conclusions for support.
If you think that man is fallible, a taboo ridden phrase from this very foundation, then we're in agreement.
This is by no means proof that man is fallible, just a view point. If you take a different starting point, then this basis doesn't apply.

I agree that man is fallible. So Genesis illustrates this point and therefore Jesus came to... point us in the right direction?

Quote:Why do I need an actual physical person to make that work? I just don't get that. If anything it weakens the position, and adds in a whole unnecessary additional layer of doubt about a spurious claim.

Absolutely. This reminds me of my former self actually. My attempts to align Christianity to reality is what led to my deconversion.

---

(February 11, 2013 at 10:03 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 9:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: By default your beliefs will either coincide with one of the 30 000+ out there or you will have created yet another system of Christian thought i.e. a denomination

No no no

catfish FALLS OUTSIDE of that grouping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity < catfish won't adhere to this classification). He rejects the basics of mainstream Christianity openly. The 30,000 I have no problem calling brothers and sisters in Christ.

JWs call themselves Christians too, and just like catfish, reject mainstream Christianity as it is commonly agreed to mean.

Just clarifying that for you

Ah, I see...

Maybe he's a reformer of Christianity for all we know.

I have a question, why do you need this to work as an allegory?

(February 11, 2013 at 9:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: With all of that out of the way, how about you finally hit me with your understanding of... everything. Why did Jesus have to die for a poem? What does it all mean if Genesis isn't literal?

He didn't have to die, PERIOD!
Learn what Yeshua taught while he was ALIVE and you should be able to understand what I "believe"... You're on your own now, maybe you can ask fr0d0 if he understands...

(you really need to stop with the loaded questions, it is an illogical approach that limits choices...)

(February 11, 2013 at 10:11 am)catfish Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 9:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: With all of that out of the way, how about you finally hit me with your understanding of... everything. Why did Jesus have to die for a poem? What does it all mean if Genesis isn't literal?

He didn't have to die, PERIOD!
Learn what Yeshua taught while he was ALIVE and you should be able to understand what I "believe"... You're on your own now, maybe you can ask fr0d0 if he understands...

It is said that Yeshua predicted he was going to die once or twice (can't remember how many times). Is this to be ignored as trivial?

As for him not having to die: what do we have then? A [normal] human who spoke about the change of heart of YHWH? Does Yeshua's father care at all if I ever become a "CHRISTIAN"/True Christian™?

Quote:(you really need to stop with the loaded questions, it is an illogical approach that limits choices...)

I'm not purposefully doing that. I'm sincerely looking to be enlightened on the topic. Help me understand!