CSLewis

Was that too brazen a move? Did I take my queen out too early?

Yes marsh, I concur with the science community that evolution is a conerstone of biology. I also believe the world is round. The problem is no matter how much evidence , 150 years of fossils, genetic testing, in lab speciation of bacteria through natural selection, etc. These people will never believe it is true. They have created an idol out of "Gods Holy Word" - worshipping it rather than recognizing that it was never intended to be a science textbook nor a history book. These are the same people who believe homosexuals are going to hell. There is little else you can do but pray for them. And yes I pray for myself as well. I pray that I am not bitter against people who refuse to see the truth. If they really sought truth they would be seeking out professional opinions at there university who could show them evidence however they do not instead they seek to play a game of chess on here seeking out their next player and opposition , never admitting defeat, because they know more than the scientist.

Inerrancy? Too err is human... And humans wrote the Bible and rewrote it and canonized it and twisted it and translated it -and retranslated it and added to it and abridged it and threw out parts and misquoted it.

Who called God a liar? Evolution is not a sheep in wolf's clothing. It is a scientific fact. It is as true as gravity. It is at the very cornerstone of Modern biology. The fact that your view of interpretation of genesis 1 contradicts truth doesn't make God a liar. It makes your interpretation wrong. I will be praying for you. Peace

"If it didn't really happen, then man doesn't need a savior. The rest of Scripture treats it as a historical narrative. That is the problem. If it didn't really happen, then man didn't really fall, and salvation is a hoax. You cannot deny the literal, historical nature of the text, while trying to affirm the Christian faith. The events in Genesis set the stage for the plan of redemption. If the events depicted in Genesis are simply metaporical and thus nonhistorical, there can be no literal redemption of man." Just because the events are nonhistorical does not mean they are not true. These are physical symbols that represent spiritual nontangible ideas. Adam and Eve represent the first humans the fruit represents the sin of humanity. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the consciousness of right and wrong the conscience. The conscience creates in man the ability to do evil. Death enters the world as a result. Not a physical death but a spiritual death. Herein is why we need atonement. It wasn't a literal apple or a literal snake or a literal garden these are symbols used by the author - it was a story of the fall - humanity's first sin and devolopment of consciousness. We need redemption not because someone ate an apple a long time ago because a snake told her too. We need redemption because humanity sins. We sin. The author of Genesis used symbols to express these complex ideas that would have been understood by the audience that it was written too and human characteristics to God that can be understood. Genesis is a book of instruction and these stories give a glimpse of God and the relationship he seeks to have with man. The truth of the texts lies in the lesson and not in the accuracy of literal events.

Jesus did not have an earthly father. Sin passes through the father, not through the mother. Jesus' flesh was sinless, but Mary had an earthly Father making her alleged immaculate conception impossible. Through the semen? So cloned embryos would be sinless?

"Do serpents (snakes) talk??? A little commonsense goes a long way." In this story one does. Does God breathe? In this story He does. Does God walk? In this story He does. Does eating a magical piece of fruit make us more like God? In this story it does.

The Jews did in fact have a creed - and the midrash to understand the Torah. Only those with authority could interpret the Torah so when Jesus taught in the temple he spoke with authority and people were amazed because here is a new interpretation of the Torah. Religion is the system of beliefs that is held by a community. The creeds were necessary at a time when gnosticism threatened to destroy the faith- the creeds themselves were more of a great compromise than orthodox decision. Just as there was much debate over which books should be included in the canon.

They should all be in jail.

Why does saying Mary made love with Joseph make Mary less holy? This tradition is not based on scripture nor does it make sense to human reason. Virgin birth? Yes blessed? Yes without original sin? Sure why not but perpetual virginity? You gotta be kidding me!!! You think Joseph is going to stay married and celibate and a carpenter, working hard all day coming home dealing with the kids running around his feet - and already stereotyped by the whole town as the man who knocked up his fianc

No these were not Jewish traditions. These were passed down by the apostles- they came out of Judaism but they are distinct sacraments.

"I should clarify and point out that Satan spoke through the serpent. Satan was not biologically a serpent, but rather he used serpent to to speak to Eve. Again, it does not qualify as "symbolism."" Where is your textual evidence of this? "Anthropromorphism is not symbolism and any competetent exegete can tell the difference. We are at at an impasse because you are simply not skilled enough in literary analysis to understand the difference between a symbol and assigning human characteristics to a nonhuman object/entity." I said using anthropromorphism is indicative of allegory, myth and symbolism - when you challenged me to provide symbol indicators. I did not say they were the same thing I said it was evidence of symbolism.

But to rely on the Bible is to rely on interpretters, and those who canonized the Bible. Those men relied on tradition and reason in selecting the books and epistles that they did. Even before the precious bible was canonized certain distinct patterns of worship and liturgy emerged. You accept sola scriptura but really no such animal exists. Because scripture and tradition are interwoven. And we use reason to understand it.

Yes it is Shiloh. You have provided no evidence from the text were God refers to the serpent as Satan. The text provides evidence of the symbolism- anthropromorphism, Attributed with characteristics of craftiness. We can see through archaeology and pagan literature the snake is used as a symbol of nature and beauty. If Satan was the snake then the text would say so but nowhere in the fall story does God refer to the serpent as Satan. The curse affected the snake and not Satan. Only by interpretting the curse as figurative does the true meaning of the text emerge. The prophetic foreshadowing. Now that being said the audience at the time would not have interpretted it as such. Only by understanding Christ and in light of the NT does this interpretation become apparent. The audience at the time would have had a different understanding of the text. The snake, worshipped by some pagan cultures, is cursed above all cattle. (cattle was worshipped as well in many cultures).

No we rely on the reasoning of the community around us and tradition of Christianity, and written scripture and ancient documents of the church.

No - through reason, tradition and scripture

It's a balance of tradition and reason and scripture.

Amazon.com

Chris - of course parents teach there children what they know - atheist parents teach there children also. As a parent you have a duty and obligation to care for and nurture your children , this includes teaching them morality and your belief system. It would be neglect not too.

If I am paying the rent and the food and the light bill and taking you to school everyday you are going to church with me on Sunday - don't like it ? Well when you are 18 and out of the house you can do whatever you want -

The story of the fall of man - God always refers to the serpent as snake and not Satan. If as you say the snake is Satan then why does the author convey him as a snake ? The clues are in the text itself "now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast that the Lord God had made" genesis 3:1 we see first in this story the snake is crafty and is a creation of God. In judgement God curses the snake by making it crawl on it's belly and eat dust (we can look at symbolism and meaning behind dust also) and put enmity between it and man. Nowhere in the text does God judge Satan for he never speaks to Satan only to the serpent. If Satan as some sort of shape shifter had taken on the form of a snake certainly God would know it and cursesatan and not the snake -

No, that is not symbolism. Giving human characteristics/attributes to a nonhuman entity is called an "anthropromorphism." That is not symbolic. Again, YOU are trying to assign symbolism to the text. The text does not indicate a more complex meaning that what is presented. You are simply trying to manufacture mre complexity than the text allows for. anthropromorphism is an indicator of myth, allegory and symbolism. I am not assigning symbolism the author does but he leaves clues to figure out the meaning.

Where n the text does the author of Genesis refer to the snake as Satan?

I would argue, Shiloh, that it is Christ in her that made her holy. Not to the point of worship but respect, admiration.

I think these ideas come from an Augustinian view of sex. Mary is only holy if she remains a virgin and the hymen remains unbroken. From this mysogyny the church does not allow female leadership, or married priests.