Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

Dripshit, you are getting more like MK every day.  Page after page of pointless drivel.

You should get fitted for a towel on your head.  You'd make a great muslim!

I think it is time you be fitted with a diaper as you have been running around here without pants long enough.. Incontinence is no reason to just give up on waist down garments!!!

---

Steve complains that we're not reading deeply enough into the background of the text.  When we do, Drich comes along and complains we're ignoring the plain meaning of the text.  And then when we do, along come Neo and Catholic Lady to tell us it's all symbolic and we should ignore the plain meaning of the text.  You just can't win with these fuckheads.

There really aren't any words to describe the ignorance behind your insults. How SteveII, Drich, C/L, and I approach scripture are not mutually exclusive. You have no excuse for ignoring what has been clearly taught for 800 years. That just reveals how dishonest and disturbed you remain.

"I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense [also] has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

A text can have meaning on multiple levels. It takes discernment and study to parse out those meanings. Holy Scripture will always be closed to ideological anti-Christian bigots....like you...and the rest of these...how did you say it "fucktards"...that have no other intention than to see the worst is what in sacred to others.

Good luck. Have a nice life.

I do agree that, my version your or even CL version are not mutually exclusive that all can hold truth to the origins as all view our origin through the lens of being unique individuals. My version shows how things could indeed work out literally as written if we do not assume time lines or hold to book chapter and verse denotation as a system of chronological order. while some people see 100% true in an allegory that reflects the nature of the plan of salvation that individual can indeed represent larger concepts reflected in the over all way salvation plays out in the real world. as we are all member of the same body and a foot may see the origins different or from a different perspective than an eye or a hand. We are the same body just different perspectives. I am leaing towards literal because most of these goons demand reconciliation of a literal and plausible interpretation. To which I have provided a path. however other may need more metaphysical, they may need to see a common thread tying Jesus of the NT to the God of the OT and if there is no common bond to them their can not be a Christianity. Well we have that base covered as well and both if not all can bee 100% truth from our various perspectives.

Why is that so hard for some to believe? because for 'some' religion fits a tiny tiny box in their world view and if religion made their world any bigger they would have to reconsider everything.. however pride demands they simply trim off any truth to religion they themselves are not smart enough to rectify, and because we push this truth they can not rectify they often times move to kill the messenger as a way to nix the message.