I guess I'm so used to the Christians in my life believing all this bull shit and so I think the Christians on this forum are just as stupid. I think my understanding of skeptical Christians has been broadened. I really made this thread ignorant about the way you guys think but I have learned a little more.

But I still have one question. You guys say not to take it literally right? So what if God was not meant to be taken literally? Why do a lot of you pick and choose what is real and what isn't? For example: You will say the story of Moses is not meant to be taken literally. What if I told you Genesis was not to be taken laterally. God, Jesus, religion in general...what if I told you those are not meant to be taken literally. How do you guys know what is true and what isn't when it comes to your beliefs?


Also, Doodlebag: your gonna be in a hell hole here

I would argue that Genesis isn't literal, either. Primarily, I point to the story of Adam and Eve as being a parable for human nature in relation to God. It is a story demonstrating that we humans are prone to our sin, even when in direct contact with God. We choose what pleases us, what we want, instead of what is meant for us and what we need. That is why the story of Adam and Eve is called 'The Fall of Man.' It is our biggest flaw, being seperated from God as we are.

And that is the same approach I take with the Bible. It is a book of parables on humanity as it relates to God, spirituality, and Heaven and Hell. That is also my basis for the claim that God and Jesus are not allegorical themselves. The Bible is a book demonstrating the way humans work in relation to God and/or seperated from God. It refers to the spiritual affects of various actions and non-actions in relation to God, and demonstrates these through stories which were relevant to the time and culture.

Also, I would like to commend you for havng the balls to admit when you were wrong and ignorant in doing something. It means a lotand I'm sure it took a lot. haha

(September 11, 2010 at 1:35 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: I guess I'm so used to the Christians in my life believing all this bull shit and so I think the Christians on this forum are just as stupid. I think my understanding of skeptical Christians has been broadened. I really made this thread ignorant about the way you guys think but I have learned a little more.

But I still have one question. You guys say not to take it literally right? So what if God was not meant to be taken literally? Why do a lot of you pick and choose what is real and what isn't? For example: You will say the story of Moses is not meant to be taken literally. What if I told you Genesis was not to be taken laterally. God, Jesus, religion in general...what if I told you those are not meant to be taken literally. How do you guys know what is true and what isn't when it comes to your beliefs?


Also, Doodlebag: your gonna be in a hell hole here

Is it against forum rules if I told you that it's you who is going to hell?

Probably, Doodle. Probably.

I'd like to pose a question to you, Doodle. Do you believe I am going to Hell for my view of the Bible?

(September 11, 2010 at 1:47 pm)Watson Wrote: I wouldn't argue that Genesis isn't literal, either. Primarily, I point to the story of Adam and Eve as being a parable for human nature in relation to God. It is a story demonstrating that we humans are prone to our sin, even when in direct contact with God. We choose what pleases us, what we want, instead of what is meant for us and what we need. That is why the story of Adam and Eve is called 'The Fall of Man.' It is our biggest flaw, being seperated from God as we are.

And that is the same approach I take with the Bible. It is a book of parables on humanity as it relates to God, spirituality, and Heaven and Hell. That is also my basis for the claim that God and Jesus are not allegorical themselves. The Bible is a book demonstrating the way humans work in relation to God and/or seperated from God. It refers to the spiritual affects of various actions and non-actions in relation to God, and demonstrates these through stories which were relevant to the time and culture.

Also, I would like to commend you for havng the balls to admit when you were wrong and ignorant in doing something. It means a lotand I'm sure it took a lot. haha

It actually is very easy for me to say I'm wrong although that does not make you right.. That's why I left Christianity. And yes my balls are large.

---

(September 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm)DoodleBag Wrote:

(September 11, 2010 at 1:35 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: I guess I'm so used to the Christians in my life believing all this bull shit and so I think the Christians on this forum are just as stupid. I think my understanding of skeptical Christians has been broadened. I really made this thread ignorant about the way you guys think but I have learned a little more.

But I still have one question. You guys say not to take it literally right? So what if God was not meant to be taken literally? Why do a lot of you pick and choose what is real and what isn't? For example: You will say the story of Moses is not meant to be taken literally. What if I told you Genesis was not to be taken laterally. God, Jesus, religion in general...what if I told you those are not meant to be taken literally. How do you guys know what is true and what isn't when it comes to your beliefs?


Also, Doodlebag: your gonna be in a hell hole here

Is it against forum rules if I told you that it's you who is going to hell?

Haha, Nice way to be humble, Zeus.

(September 11, 2010 at 1:47 pm)Watson Wrote: I wouldn't argue that Genesis isn't literal, either. Primarily, I point to the story of Adam and Eve as being a parable for human nature in relation to God. It is a story demonstrating that we humans are prone to our sin, even when in direct contact with God. We choose what pleases us, what we want, instead of what is meant for us and what we need. That is why the story of Adam and Eve is called 'The Fall of Man.' It is our biggest flaw, being seperated from God as we are.

And that is the same approach I take with the Bible. It is a book of parables on humanity as it relates to God, spirituality, and Heaven and Hell. That is also my basis for the claim that God and Jesus are not allegorical themselves. The Bible is a book demonstrating the way humans work in relation to God and/or seperated from God. It refers to the spiritual affects of various actions and non-actions in relation to God, and demonstrates these through stories which were relevant to the time and culture.

Also, I would like to commend you for havng the balls to admit when you were wrong and ignorant in doing something. It means a lotand I'm sure it took a lot. haha

SO let me get this straight:you don't have to believe in Christianity to be a christian? I still don't EXACTLY understand.
But I will if you answer this. Was the resurrection of Jesus not literal? And is God not literal?

Hey,

I appreciate the you feel this is a valuable conversation. We all kind of get boxed in by the little world around us, but that makes communities as this so neat, nest pas?

I, although not an xtian, would have the same answer as I did prior. To say that the biblical account of Noah and the great flood is not possible, and therefor there is no god is an argument from incredulity, and it kind of makes you look a little bad. Not stupid bad, mustard on your sirt and you don't know about it...

It is a silly old Jewish story, we (people who are not xtian, but believe in something else) do not take it very seriously.

Thank you kindly.

To ABierman, thank you also for your reply.
I hear you that there is no reason to rationally believe in Yahweh, or the mean Allah, or any of what you referred to as supernatural.
I just always fell obliged to chime in that some of us also agree that xtianity can be silly, or misrepresented badly, but we believe in something. We may be affiliated with some fringe or minority religion of sorts, and some of us are either not fond of religion, or beside some of y'all ranting against it.
I also agree that we will find out the mystery when we die, and it is best to leave it at that. I would only disagree that there is no reason to believe in anything. Sure there is no reason to believe in stupid shit that does not serve you well, but what about healthy, pragmatic belief? If such a thing exists...
Thanks.

-Pip

(September 11, 2010 at 1:59 pm)Watson Wrote: Haha, Nice way to be humble, Zeus.

He's the type of person that's making the world stupid imho. He must be banned.

@Zeus- The ressurection of Jesus, whether literal or not, is an example in story form of how God could and does work in this world. Essentially, I don't know if it really happened, but with God it could have. I do believe that Jesus really did exist and really did ressurect from the dead, but I don't know for certain. No one can.

God is literal. He is the literal being that the allegory is pointing towards.

As for not believing in Christianity to be Christian...no. You have it wrong. I believe in Christianity; its principles, its teachings, its messages. I do not believe that the stories within have to be literal to be believed in. I believe the message those stories are trying to teach, I don't believe the events actually occured.