Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apologies if you've once again misspoke but i can't understand a comparison between damnation of all mankind and (potentially at worst) jumping on a misinterpretation you made on an internet forum. These seem absurdly incomparable....as in, mankind isn't harmed by objections to your rhetoric whereas, if true, mankind was certainly harmed by the deliberate damnation of the creature of worship.
Incorrect. Comparisons are not the same thing as equivalences. When you compare things it is because there are points of similarity even while other things are different. Pointing out a difference as you do quite correctly here doesn't change the similarities or make two things incomparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
I mean.....is that another mistake?
Are you getting upset again? Maybe you shouldn't try so hard to do so. Some people love jumping on mistakes so much they will fashion them out of mist and vapors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Or is it perhaps just another post-Jedi mind trick you'll claim in order to (righteously in your mind) potshot atheists?
Taking potshots at atheists is just as fun for theists as taking potshots at theists is fun for atheists. "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone". LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Seems like a case of mistaken atheist was at play all along.
Did you pay any attention to my actual involvement in this thread, or have you simply forgotten in your desperate effort to see a nasty theist in your midst?
Now let's leave Martin's avid imagination and get back to reality. I actually agree with the atheist criticism on this point in Genesis. It IS absurd, especially if God had anything like a parental relationship with Adam and Eve (and I think He did), to think that God would get so bent out of shape by a little disobedience to some stupid test.
And... that is why I don't think this is what happened.
Now let's leave Martin's avid imagination and get back to reality. I actually agree with the atheist criticism on this point in Genesis. It IS absurd, especially if God had anything like a parental relationship with Adam and Eve (and I think He did), to think that God would get so bent out of shape by a little disobedience to some stupid test.
And... that is why I don't think this is what happened.
Incorrect. Comparisons are not the same thing as equivalences. When you compare things it is because there are points of similarity even while other things are different. Pointing out a difference as you do quite correctly here doesn't change the similarities or make two things incomparable.
Maybe it's just more hyperbole than I was anticipating but the differences are far greater than the similarities to me. You are comparing indefensible belief in the righteousness of pettiness to deserved correction in your misinterpreted response.
And even the angle on scorn or outrage isn't very apt, as nobody was actually outraged or scorning, but simply pointing out the misinterpretation. As if there is some martyrdom at play for yourself, where there ought to be none, or somehow you feel as if you were unfairly scorned.
Quote:
Are you getting upset again? Maybe you shouldn't try so hard to do so. Some people love jumping on mistakes so much they will fashion them out of mist and vapors.
Taking potshots at atheists is just as fun for theists as taking potshots at theists is fun for atheists. "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone". LOL
I think incredulity is the more apt term, rather than upset. Incredulity at the notion that yet another theist, who says he doesn't engage in argumentative discussion, yet engages in argumentative self-righteous martyrdom.
I'll get over it, not to worry though.
Quote:
Did you pay any attention to my actual involvement in this thread, or have you simply forgotten in your desperate effort to see a nasty theist in your midst?
Projection at its finest my friend. Your only reason for backtracking your misinterpretation was because you realized it was a theist who made the joke. To suggest that I am the one who prejudices my views of those of different beliefs as nasty or ill-intentioned, when I'm one of the people who pointed out the innocuous nature of the post....is some special kind of projecting.
Quote:
Now let's leave Martin's avid imagination and get back to reality. I actually agree with the atheist criticism on this point in Genesis. It IS absurd, especially if God had anything like a parental relationship with Adam and Eve (and I think He did), to think that God would get so bent out of shape by a little disobedience to some stupid test.
And... that is why I don't think this is what happened.
If you substitute "avid imagination" with "hypocrisy detector".....I'm in complete agreement.
So you 2 are pretty involved and well read.
I'd contend of the bible is actually historical, much is allegorical. Specifically about Adam and Eve, I lean more towards the allegory.
Whether literal or not, the lesson is there to be had. What's your thoughts?
It is the very first lesson we all must learn in life if we are to mature spiritually to life after death. We all must learn the difference between good and evil and learn to choose the good over evil.
It is the very first lesson we all must learn in life if we are to mature spiritually to life after death. We all must learn the difference between good and evil and learn to choose the good over evil.
Good and evil or right vs. wrong?
Again, I lean towards the latter but wouldn't wobble with the good vs. evil distinction.
It is the very first lesson we all must learn in life if we are to mature spiritually to life after death. We all must learn the difference between good and evil and learn to choose the good over evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
Good and evil or right vs. wrong?
Again, I lean towards the latter but wouldn't wobble with the good vs. evil distinction.
Once you remove all the religious hocus pocus from the terms they are equivalent.
I'd contend of the bible is actually historical, much is allegorical. Specifically about Adam and Eve, I lean more towards the allegory.
Whether literal or not, the lesson is there to be had. What's your thoughts?
Depends on which book in the Bible. There is plenty of symbolism and allegory in the Bible as well as many other kinds of literature. For example, I do not think the book of Job reads like history. The story is little more than excuse to embark on a long philosophical/theological dialogue which most of the book consists of.
Genesis clearly has an historical intent, though some of it reaches far before written history and can only have been passed down through the repeated telling of stories. I think it is because story telling tended to combine the purposes of many modern specialization, such oral traditions acquire a mythical character -- part homily, part children's entertainment, part science, part philosophy, part history, etc... They typically have a lot symbolism in order to speak differently to people of different comprehension levels.
But I see no reason why Adam and Eve cannot be real people. I just don't think they were golems of dust and bone fashioned by some ancient necromancer. Neither to I believe the talking animals and magical fruits should be taken literally. Those tree names shout symbolism louder than anything else in the whole Bible.
And of course I do not believe that they were the first homo sapiens on the planet. I think there is even evidence in the Bible that they were not. They were just the ones God chose to talk to. But how then could their actions affect everyone? Because it is through them which came a memetic inheritance from God.
Read Genesis chapter 6 again from that perspective. The sons of god, which the OT uses to refer to God's chosen, usually the Israelites, took the daughters of men (other homo sapiens) for their wives. And their children became giants, men of reknown (leaders of human civilization). Why this is simply the answer to the old conundrum of who did Cain and Seth marry?
Depends on which book in the Bible. There is plenty of symbolism and allegory in the Bible as well as many other kinds of literature. For example, I do not think the book of Job reads like history. The story is little more than excuse to embark on a long philosophical/theological dialogue which most of the book consists of.
Genesis clearly has an historical intent, though some of it reaches far before written history and can only have been passed down through the repeated telling of stories. I think it is because story telling tended to combine the purposes of many modern specialization, such oral traditions acquire a mythical character -- part homily, part children's entertainment, part science, part philosophy, part history, etc... They typically have a lot symbolism in order to speak differently to people of different comprehension levels.
But I see no reason why Adam and Eve cannot be real people. I just don't think they were golems of dust and bone fashioned by some ancient necromancer. Neither to I believe the talking animals and magical fruits should be taken literally. Those tree names shout symbolism louder than anything else in the whole Bible.
And of course I do not believe that they were the first homo sapiens on the planet. I think there is even evidence in the Bible that they were not. They were just the ones God chose to talk to. But how then could their actions affect everyone? Because it is through them which came a memetic inheritance from God.
Read Genesis chapter 6 again from that perspective. The sons of god, which the OT uses to refer to God's chosen, usually the Israelites, took the daughters of men (other homo sapiens) for their wives. And their children became giants, men of reknown (leaders of human civilization). Why this is simply the answer to the old conundrum of who did Cain and Seth marry?
Very well stated. I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, but similar to your statement, I think they were the first people God chose to reveal himself too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
