Christian answering questions too!

[abaris]

Tying things together cohesively is not a trait that tends to make something more likely to be true. Often, true things are complicated and counterintuitive.

First, congratulations on your effort in quoting him. It's not the easiest task with all the tags he's woven into his posts.

Secondly, I have serious doubts over this guy being for real. I guess it's just another one of these folks getting off on impersonating something they consider to be funny. Maybe a sock even. He never managed to give a conclusive answer what he actually believes for starters.

[Mister Agenda]

It would take weeks to state every theological point I stand on.  The question was posed to me about which of the myriad of denominations of Christianity I subscribe to.  I thought sola scriptura would suffice in this matter as it is more accurate than saying I am a Catholic, Mormon or a bible thumping wingnut.

Sola scriptura means the Bible is the supreme authority, the stance of literally thousands of Christian denominations. You may as well have said 'I want to stay mysterious'. We're just asking for the basics. Are you a literalist? Do you believe in One God whose name is Jesus or the Holy Trinity? Was Jesus the son of God or God incarnate? Is baptizing infants acceptable or must the person be old enough to affirm Christian beliefs? Is speaking in tongues really from God, and important? Do you think men were inspired by God to write the Bible or is the Bible literally the word of God and the men were basically taking divine dictation?

When we don't have any idea where you're coming from; it's hard to tell where you're going. Hopefully answering these questions will at least give us a skeleton to hang our other questions on.

[Huggy Bear]

Really? Because that's usually a deal breaker between a married couple.

And...?

Again, that's your biggest concern? That's the main problem this world and life is all about? That someone couldn't keep their pants on is the reason of all evil?

Come on, doesn't that even give you a moment's pause?

No it doesn't.

When man was created, he was a theophany. In other words, he was godlike. A god (little g) has no need for sex, Adam was to "procreate" by calling up people from the dust just like he was originally created. Eve's adultery caused the human race to be hybrid and perverted what God had originally intended, bringing forth death.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. - Genesis 3:19

Once man has returned to the dust, it is now up to Jesus Christ (aka the second Adam) to call us back up from the dust in the resurrection like it should have been done in the beginning.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: - 1 Thessalonians 4:16

[drfuzzy]

And...?

Again, that's your biggest concern? That's the main problem this world and life is all about? That someone couldn't keep their pants on is the reason of all evil?

Come on, doesn't that even give you a moment's pause?

No it doesn't.

When man was created, he was a theophany. In other words, he was godlike. A god (little g) has no need for sex, Adam was to "procreate" by calling up people from the dust just like he was originally created. Eve's adultery caused the human race to be hybrid and perverted what God had originally intended, bringing forth death.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. - Genesis 3:19

Once man has returned to the dust, it is now up to Jesus Christ (aka the second Adam) to call us back up from the dust in the resurrection like it should have been done in the beginning.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: - 1 Thessalonians 4:16

And I thought that I had heard ALL the weird interpretations of the casting out of the garden story.  Nope.  Gotta add this one to the list.  Lots of theologians would disagree with you Huggy,  -- not that you would care.  And I certainly don't care, since the story is a silly myth.  But thanks for the chuckle.

[Huggy Bear]

If you place such faith in theologians, why don't you believe them?

Besides:
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. - Matthew 11:25

[drfuzzy]

If you place such faith in theologians, why don't you believe them?

Besides:
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. - Matthew 11:25

I have absolutely NO faith in theologians, other than the fact that they have studied the fairy tales of their particular sect at length.
And there are quite a few such verses in the Bible - praising childlike faith and bashing scholarship.  It's pretty easy to understand why they exist.  During the time the books were written, very few people were literate.  And praising simple acceptance deflects any sort of questioning.

No, I don't accept anything any theologian teaches.  I'm just saying that I have heard many "interpretations" of the creation stories in Genesis, and yours was a new one.

[Huggy Bear]

First of all, the scriptures "are of no private interpretation", you must let the scripture interpret itself.

Cain was never included in the Genealogy of Adam, thereby showing that he WAS NOT Adam's son.

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. - 1 John 3:12

Do the math.

[LadyForCamus]

First of all, the scriptures "are of no private interpretation", you must let the scripture interpret itself.

Cain was never included in the Genealogy of Adam, thereby showing that he WAS NOT Adam's son.

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. - 1 John 3:12

Do the math.

"Allow the scripture to interpret itself"?   That sentence makes absolutely no sense.

[LadyForCamus]

First of all, the scriptures "are of no private interpretation", you must let the scripture interpret itself.

Cain was never included in the Genealogy of Adam, thereby showing that he WAS NOT Adam's son.

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. - 1 John 3:12

Do the math.

"Allow the scripture to interpret itself"?   That sentence makes absolutely no sense.

[LadyForCamus]

Double post, sorry.