What's your view?

[TheReasoner]

I was simply responding to this:
The church fathers were not Catholics.

The church fathers were those who actually followed Jesus when he walked the earth, and who were left to establish the Christian Church, and those who were inspired by God to write the Bible.

The Catholic Church did not become a state religion until the 4th century, so quoting Catholic bishops as if they are the authority on truth is meaningless to those whose church history goes back to Christ and his apostles.

So... You're saying that whatever thoughts on the bible anyone else has ever had are wrong. And you, who read it in 2012, are right. None of the big theologians or churches founded by the apostles who later grew into the different branches of the church today have any say?

It's just you, and the way you read it - that is the right way.

Is that right? Is your interpretation correct or in any way more credible than theirs?
Tell me, do you think Augustine or Aquinas or any of the big orthodox theologians were dead wrong and could not possibly be right? I mean... Here are great men with Godly hearts and lives who often lived through hardships we can't imagine and still glorified God. Wonderful people, often. Do you think they were incapable of reading the bible? Do you think they, reading the same words as you, would be LESS qualified to interpret scripture? Do you think your own interpretation, made with your cultural glasses is MORE viable than theirs? When great men of God both then and now disagree with your interpretation and hold another one as true. Why do you then dismiss it completely and lift your own interpretation up as more valid, truer and better than theirs?
Doesn't the bible say something about humility here and there? How do you make room for that and the possibility of human error in your own biblical position?

 

[Doveaman]

So... You're saying that whatever thoughts on the bible anyone else has ever had are wrong. And you, who read it in 2012, are right. None of the big theologians or churches founded by the apostles who later grew into the different branches of the church today have any say?

It's just you, and the way you read it - that is the right way.

Is that right? Is your interpretation correct or in any way more credible than theirs?
Tell me, do you think Augustine or Aquinas or any of the big orthodox theologians were dead wrong and could not possibly be right? I mean... Here are great men with Godly hearts and lives who often lived through hardships we can't imagine and still glorified God. Wonderful people, often. Do you think they were incapable of reading the bible? Do you think they, reading the same words as you, would be LESS qualified to interpret scripture?

I realize you like to refer to Catholic bishops as "great", "big" and "wonderful".

I don't share your sentiments. Nor does Scripture:

“Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Mat 10:18).

“Let God be true but every man a liar.” (Rom 3:4).

“Oh, what a wretched man I am!” (Rom 7:24).

The Scribes and the Pharisees were “great”, “big”, "wonderful" theologians, but they were dead wrong. If there is one lesson we should learn from them is that we shouldn’t put our confidence in “great”, “big”, "wonderful" theologians.

Do you think they were incapable of reading the bible? Do you think they, reading the same words as you, would be LESS qualified to interpret scripture? Do you think your own interpretation, made with your cultural glasses is MORE viable than theirs? When great men of God both then and now disagree with your interpretation and hold another one as true. Why do you then dismiss it completely and lift your own interpretation up as more valid, truer and better than theirs?
Doesn't the bible say something about humility here and there? How do you make room for that and the possibility of human error in your own biblical position?

This level of ranting is unnecessary.

From what you posted here, it seems you think that the lack of belief of Catholic bishops in a literal Genesis 1 somehow gives credibility to the idea that Genesis 1 is not literal. I simply disagree.

If you are trying to show why Genesis 1 is not literal, quoting Catholic bishops is not going to do it. You will need to quote the real Church fathers, the ones who actually wrote the Bible and established the Christian Church.

 

[thegandyman]

Ok, I'm gonna throw out an argument by the progressive creationists. We see the fossils records moving in a certain direction: amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, large mammals. We don't see a lot of animals that are links between them though. Doesn't this support the progressive creation model?

 

[Doveaman]

Ok, I'm gonna throw out an argument by the progressive creationists. We see the fossils records moving in a certain direction: amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, large mammals. We don't see a lot of animals that are links between them though. Doesn't this support the progressive creation model?

Yes.

If there are missing links, then the progressive creation model is more consistent with what we observe.

The time is coming when man will be transformed from mortal to immortal. It will not be the result of evolution, but the result of recreation.

"God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another...There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies...And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven." (1 Cor 15:49).

"We will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye…we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." (1 Cor 15:51-53).

 

[thegandyman]

Yes.

If there are missing links, then the progressive creation model is more consistent with what we observe.

The time is coming when man will be transformed from mortal to immortal. It will not be the result of evolution, but the result of recreation.

"God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another...There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies...And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven." (1 Cor 15:49).

"We will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye…we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." (1 Cor 15:51-53).

So are you speaking on eschatology?

 

[Doveaman]

So are you speaking on eschatology?

I'm using a biblical example of what will be in the future to show what could have been in the past: newly created lifeforms created to fit into a newly created earth environment without the need for evolution.

"The elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. But in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth." (2 Pet 3:10-13).

"We will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye…we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." (1 Cor 15:51-53).

 

[TheReasoner]

I realize you like to refer to Catholic bishops as "great", "big" and "wonderful".

I don't share your sentiments. Nor does Scripture:

“Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Mat 10:18).

“Let God be true but every man a liar.” (Rom 3:4).

“Oh, what a wretched man I am!” (Rom 7:24).

The Scribes and the Pharisees were “great”, “big”, "wonderful" theologians, but they were dead wrong. If there is one lesson we should learn from them is that we shouldn’t put our confidence in “great”, “big”, "wonderful" theologians.
This level of ranting is unnecessary.

From what you posted here, it seems you think that the lack of belief of Catholic bishops in a literal Genesis 1 somehow gives credibility to the idea that Genesis 1 is not literal. I simply disagree.

If you are trying to show why Genesis 1 is not literal, quoting Catholic bishops is not going to do it. You will need to quote the real Church fathers, the ones who actually wrote the Bible and established the Christian Church.

What's your hangup with catholics? And why do you say they 'lack belief'? They read it differently, they don't disbelieve it.
Furthermore, did I use the word Catholic anywhere? No. I spoke of the early churches, you brought in catholics, whom you proceed to bash. Presumably without ever reading the works even. Kindly refrain from such intellectual dishonesty. Take your straw men elsewhere, Doveaman. And you know the Pharisees were admonished for their hypocrisy, not for being learned. And indeed, I do use those words concerning many of those men. because I think it fits. Augustine had his flaws, to be sure. But reading Confessions, how can anyone not get deep respect for the man? And what about the others? So many did really good things and lived lives wherein they sought the Lord and His teachings to an extent which exceeds yours or mine manyfold. Yet you would shun them? And mock them? What is that good for, how is that showing Christ's mentality or following His teachings?

Yes, I spoke of the way people used to read Genesis, and have since before Jesus came around as far as I know. Which was: NOT LITERAL! So why do you think that all of a sudden in modern times you get an epiphany which includes dismissing most prior interpretations, most contemporary interpretations the thoughts of most of the older churches around - and shove your own interpretation in there as the "right one". The way you read the bible is one which appears to have arrived with Protestantism. Making it very recent, and quite odd, to be frank. I mean, I understand 'sola scriptura', but I don't consider your version of that precisely healthy.

Come on, it is not even consistent with itself. Genesis 1 is not even consistent with itself. The sun coming around on day 4? What's that? That cannot happen, as the sun is what gives the term meaning. So obviously we're not talking 24 hours here, we're not talking about a literal work either because plants - which require sunlight to live - were around before the sun. And other things, too. Life cannot exist on this rock without the sun. And then there's Genesis 2, a different chronology. So suddenly your interpretation is in a heap of trouble.
It's fairly new, it's got less support even among contemporaries than you like to think (and "yell", I note) But it isn't even consistent with the bible which you claim to read the right way. It is meaningless the way you read it, plain and simple. Contradicted by everything from the bible to theologians to the creation itself.

Then we have the Alexandrian school of theology arising in the second century which basically considered that the bible could only be understood if read chiefly allegorically.[bless and do not curse]And Jewish scholars around the time of Christ and to my knowledge predating Him as well. The whole approach is quite evidently strong, consider that Paul treats the Genesis story of the sons of Abraham as an allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. Do you? I am assuming you consider it a literal tale.

Just read what the first Christians had to say of the matter, I spoke to you of Augustine of Hippo. Alright, you dismiss him, the way I read what you wrote as a man lacking of faith. Have you read confessions? He does not strike me as a faithless man, quite the contrary! But there's more of course, what about Irenaeus, 1st century. He considered Adam and Eve allegorical and pointing to Christ's death. And plenty others. I am no theologian, but I could dig up some names. Point is, YOU are the one with the new interpretation here. The new theology claiming to be the original one. Which is distressing, Doveaman.

For longer than Christianity has been around the understanding has been divided, but largely that the tale is an allegory or a poem. That it's meaning is not literal but reveals human nature, and speaks of who God is in allegory, not in literal text. Which makes perfect sense, as that was a common method of communication. My point is here that you're detracting a lot from the bible and exalting yourselves and your own interpretation without looking left or right and thinking about what you're doing. God gave us brains, not so we could avoid using them and shun those who do and have done.


But seriously, one thing you really need to stop is the whole nonsense about 'literal interpretation' somehow being 'more faithful' and 'more believing' than other older and just as valid (IMO more valid) interpretations of the same passages. The amount of faith is not at it's maximum when a literal interpretation is chosen. It is merely different. I would argue a literal interpretation has historical precedents which indicate it might be more britle than an allegorical interpretation, and even with a sola scripture approach one can read it allegorically and have no weaker faith - but perhaps a stronger, more resilient, more real one.

 

[Doveaman]

What's your hangup with catholics?

I have no hangup with catholics. What’s your fascination with catholics? Don’t the disciples of Jesus have anything to offer?

And why do you say they 'lack belief'?

They lack belief in a literal Genesis 1.

They read it differently, they don't disbelieve it.

They read it differently because they disbelieve it was literal. If they believed it was literal they would not read it differently.

Furthermore, did I use the word Catholic anywhere? No. I spoke of the early churches, you brought in catholics,

You brought up catholic bishops when referring to the early church. Same thing.

The church existed before catholic bishops. Don’t you know of anyone else from the early church besides catholic bishops?

whom you proceed to bash.

False accusation.

I’m sure if I bashed catholics the mods would be on it by now.

Kindly refrain from such intellectual dishonesty.

Kindly speak into the mirror.

Yes, I spoke of the way people used to read Genesis, and have since before Jesus came around as far as I know. Which was: NOT LITERAL!

And then you proceeded to only mention catholic bishops as if catholic bishops were around since before Jesus. Why is that?

I understand 'sola scriptura', but I don't consider your version of that precisely healthy.

Exactly what did I say to you in this thread about scripture that you don't consider precisely healthy?

Genesis 1 is not even consistent with itself.

If that was true, that would be the author's fault, not mine.

The sun coming around on day 4? What's that? That cannot happen, as the sun is what gives the term meaning. So obviously we're not talking 24 hours here, we're not talking about a literal work either because plants - which require sunlight to live - were around before the sun. And other things, too. Life cannot exist on this rock without the sun. And then there's Genesis 2, a different chronology. So suddenly your interpretation is in a heap of trouble.

You don’t even know my interpretation.

Not everyone who disagrees with evolution theory is a YEC. Even though I believe YECs have a more biblically consistent argument than evolutionists.

Then we have the Alexandrian school of theology arising in the second century which basically considered that the bible could only be understood if read chiefly allegorically.[bless and do not curse]And Jewish scholars around the time of Christ and to my knowledge predating Him as well. The whole approach is quite evidently strong,

If I recall, Jewish scholars were studying Jesus for many years but still didn’t recognize him when he came. Maybe they were interpreting the coming Messiah the way you are interpreting Genesis: NOT LITERAL!

consider that Paul treats the Genesis story of the sons of Abraham as an allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. Do you? I am assuming you consider it a literal tale.

So the Jews and Arabs are not literally Abraham's sons?

Why don’t you go and tell them that?

Just read what the first Christians had to say of the matter, I spoke to you of Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine converted to Christianity almost four hundred years after Christianity was established. So how can he be among the first?

Alright, you dismiss him, the way I read what you wrote as a man lacking of faith.

You read it wrong. I dismissed him because he is not among the first Christians as you claim.

God gave us brains

Why would an agnostic say that? Are you sure God exist?

I would argue a literal interpretation has historical precedents which indicate it might be more britle than an allegorical interpretation, and even with a sola scripture approach one can read it allegorically and have no weaker faith - but perhaps a stronger, more resilient, more real one.

My faith is much stronger because I believe a literal interpretation is more consistent with the entire Scripture. An allegorical interpretation sounds silly to me.

The idea that Adam was not literally the first man and the one man through whom sin came into the world sounds ridiculous.

 

[Doveaman]

Genesis 1 is not even consistent with itself.

An Agnostic who believes in God is not consistent with himself.

 

[TheReasoner]

I have no hangup with catholics. What’s your fascination with catholics? Don’t the disciples of Jesus have anything to offer?

In this posts it seems like you do. You also present a false dilemma. Of course they have a lot to offer, but they don't stand in conflict with an allegorical view of genesis. They never have. In fact, I mentioned a school which was very strict on considering Genesis allegorical which was founded by James.

They lack belief in a literal Genesis 1.

Might just as well say that you lack belief in an allegorical one, and IMO you loose a lot by that. You neuter it, so to speak.

They read it differently because they disbelieve it was literal. If they believed it was literal they would not read it differently.

If you had read it allegorically you would not have seen a conflict between God's creation and the bible.

You brought up catholic bishops when referring to the early church. Same thing.

No. I brought up early theologians. Catholic, orthodox, Jewish. No one direction in christianity, nor even only christianity.

The church existed before catholic bishops. Don’t you know of anyone else from the early church besides catholic bishops?

False. I did not mention catholic bishops. I mentioned a couple who had different faiths over a span of several hundred of the church's earliest time.

False accusation.

Appeared and appears to me you think whoever has not a literal approach has less faith than those who do.

Kindly speak into the mirror.

Please show me where I have been intellectually dishonest. If you cannot, can it.

And then you proceeded to only mention catholic bishops as if catholic bishops were around since before Jesus. Why is that?

False accusation. I mentioned Augustine of Hippo by name, yes. But the view of genesis as allegorical has been around since before Jesus. You are the one who has an obsession with catholic bishops, not me.
Allow me to name a few more then. Philo of Alexandria - Jew. Irenaeus, no denomination to my knowledge, but honored in various orthodox directions, catholicism, anglican and Lutheran churches.
I also mentioned the Catechetical School of Alexandria which held strictly to the view of it as allegorical and it was founded by James - who you will note was an apostle.

Exactly what did I say to you in this thread about scripture that you don't consider precisely healthy?

It appears you hold a literal interpretations without room for admitting the possibility of error in the reader. Which, essentially, is fanaticism. If I read you correctly, that is what is unhealthy.

If that's true, that would be the author's fault, not mine.

So, if the author has a problem with writing it consistently, then surely it is not letter by letter divine and infallible - as a literal text - and cannot possibly be taken literally?

You don’t even know my interpretation.

Well, what is it?

Not everyone who disagrees with evolution theory is a YEC. Even though I believe YECs have a more biblically consistent argument than evolutionists.

With your cultural glasses and your upbringing. However, your view is not consistent and is indeed contradicted by every aspect of God's creation which touches upon it. Which is then most likely, that your interpretation is wrong or that reality is?

If I recall, Jewish scholars were studying Jesus for many years but still didn’t recognize him when he came. Maybe they were interpreting the coming Messiah the way you are interpreting Genesis: NOT LITERAL!

How could they have understood who Jesus was better if they had read the bible literally?

So the Jews and Arabs are not literally Abraham's sons?

Read what Paul said.

Augustine converted to Christianity almost four hundred years after Christianity was established. So how can he be among the first?

He was among the first christian philosophers and thinkers when one considers the age of christianity. He lived around year four hundred or so if I recall. Which is pretty early, but I brought forth other examples. Earlier ones. Going back to James. And before him, too.

You read it wrong. I dismissed him because he is not among the first as you claim.

Everything is relative, Dove.

Why would an Agnostic say that?

You have not done as my signature suggests, nor read it - it would seem.

I will make it easy for you:

I am a believer despite the discrepancy between believers and Jesus.

I do not wish to be identified with Christianity as I feel the focus is too cultural and narrow, and not enough on who Yeshua was and is as well as what He teaches.
Therefore, I will not be labelled a 'christian'. Too often that term is associated with condemnation of social groups, it often has political connotations and social restrictions imposed on it that run contrary to Christ's teachings and life.

Therefore I will not call myself a Christian. And for that reason there is no cross by my name.

My faith is much stronger because I believe a literal interpretation is more consistent with the entire Scripture.

No, it is not. It tears itself apart. Why would Genesis 1 be in conflict with Genesis 2? Also, a literal interpretation... You KNOW I could shoot that to pieces. Your reading is selective. it must be because a consistently literal interpretation is impossible. Or do you avoid shaving? Do you adhere to the clothing and dietary requirements of the bible? Do you think it is square, no round, no square and on immobile pillars? Do you think the blue sky above us is hard, hammered as an ancient mirror upon which God physically walks? No? Then you're not reading it consistently literally.

An allegorical interpretation sounds silly to me.

Yet it is the only way to make the bible and God's creation not be in total and utter conflict. Furthermore, it is the only way to ensure the bible does not end up tearing itself to pieces with internal conflicts.

The idea that Adam was not literally the first man and the one man through whom sin came into the world sounds ridiculous.

To you, because that is what you have been taught and it is something you have never questioned or really thought about. Your position is a fairly new one though.

 

[Doveaman]

God gave us brains

Why would an agnostic say that?

You have not done as my signature suggests, nor read it - it would seem.

I still don't get it.

Are you sure God exist?

 

[TheReasoner]

I still don't get it.

Are you sure God exist?

I have faith that He does.

 

[Doveaman]

I have faith that He does.

How is that different from what Christians have?

What's the point in being an Agnostic?

 

[TheReasoner]

How is that different from what Christians have?

What's the point in being an Agnostic?

Hmmm... I thought it was clear, but evidently I have not explained well enough. I will try, I hope to succeed this time:


The reason I do not want to call myself a Christian is not that I do not believe. I do believe. The reason is that Christianity has become too much about culture and legalism and not about Christ and His teachings.

This would take a long time to go into but part of it is what goes on in this forum right here. Christianity has, to my experience, in the states at least started becoming about

• homosexuality being a sin (and estrangement of homosexuals)
• Abortion being a sin (Yet no real help being offered to single mothers, who are also estranged)
• Science being anti-christian (Which, I consider really really weird - how can God's creation physically with it's essence contradict God?)
• Estrangement of different political positions. If you're for this or that you'll be labelled and subsequently "ejected" from the church.

It has become about the condemnation of the above, and not

• Loving all, including those who hate you
• Turning the other cheek
• Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you
• Humility in reading of scripture, in dealing with others, in facing life.
• Compassion
• Ability to see things from another person's point of view and being there for and with them

I don't intend to debate this here and now. It's not the right forum. You might see things differently, and that's okay. But my perception is that Christianity today is all about taboos, rules, social stigma, condemnation and estrangement. And not about Christ.
Now, I am not perfect. Not at all. But I don't want to be a part of the aforementioned. If someone is a homosexual, I'll treat him or her with respect as I would anyone. If someone is a mother or father outside wedlock I would treat them with respect. If someone is a criminal, a junkie, an alcoholic... Jesus loves them, and so should I. That's all there is to it. And that means every aspect of my life should at least not conflict with that. Politically, professionally, privately it is my honest desire to follow Christ's teachings though NOT the cultural entity that Christianity has morphed into. Not the condemnation, segregation, elitism and so on. I want no part of it. And I do not want to be associated with it. Therefore I do not use the term Christian about myself. It is just a word, whom I follow is so much more than that.

Does that make sense?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Hmmm... I thought it was clear, but evidently I have not explained well enough. I will try, I hope to succeed this time:


The reason I do not want to call myself a Christian is not that I do not believe. I do believe. The reason is that Christianity has become too much about culture and legalism and not about Christ and His teachings.


This would take a long time to go into but part of it is what goes on in this forum right here. Christianity has, to my experience, in the states at least started becoming about

• homosexuality being a sin (and estrangement of homosexuals)
• Abortion being a sin (Yet no real help being offered to single mothers, who are also estranged)
• Science being anti-christian (Which, I consider really really weird - how can God's creation physically with it's essence contradict God?)
• Estrangement of different political positions. If you're for this or that you'll be labelled and subsequently "ejected" from the church.

It has become about the condemnation of the above, and not

• Loving all, including those who hate you
• Turning the other cheek
• Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you
• Humility in reading of scripture, in dealing with others, in facing life.
• Compassion
• Ability to see things from another person's point of view and being there for and with them

I don't intend to debate this here and now. It's not the right forum. You might see things differently, and that's okay. But my perception is that Christianity today is all about taboos, rules, social stigma, condemnation and estrangement. And not about Christ.
Now, I am not perfect. Not at all. But I don't want to be a part of the aforementioned. If someone is a homosexual, I'll treat him or her with respect as I would anyone. If someone is a mother or father outside wedlock I would treat them with respect. If someone is a criminal, a junkie, an alcoholic... Jesus loves them, and so should I. That's all there is to it. And that means every aspect of my life should at least not conflict with that. Politically, professionally, privately it is my honest desire to follow Christ's teachings though NOT the cultural entity that Christianity has morphed into. Not the condemnation, segregation, elitism and so on. I want no part of it. And I do not want to be associated with it. Therefore I do not use the term Christian about myself. It is just a word, whom I follow is so much more than that.

Does that make sense?

Now that's a Christianity I recognise and am familiar with. That's what the term Christian means to me: tolerance and understanding.

The fundamentalist views expressed on this forum always make me feel that something has gone very wrong somewhere.

 

[Elendur]

Hmmm... I thought it was clear, but evidently I have not explained well enough. I will try, I hope to succeed this time:


The reason I do not want to call myself a Christian is not that I do not believe. I do believe. The reason is that Christianity has become too much about culture and legalism and not about Christ and His teachings.

This would take a long time to go into but part of it is what goes on in this forum right here. Christianity has, to my experience, in the states at least started becoming about

• homosexuality being a sin (and estrangement of homosexuals)
• Abortion being a sin (Yet no real help being offered to single mothers, who are also estranged)
• Science being anti-christian (Which, I consider really really weird - how can God's creation physically with it's essence contradict God?)
• Estrangement of different political positions. If you're for this or that you'll be labelled and subsequently "ejected" from the church.

It has become about the condemnation of the above, and not

• Loving all, including those who hate you
• Turning the other cheek
• Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you
• Humility in reading of scripture, in dealing with others, in facing life.
• Compassion
• Ability to see things from another person's point of view and being there for and with them

I don't intend to debate this here and now. It's not the right forum. You might see things differently, and that's okay. But my perception is that Christianity today is all about taboos, rules, social stigma, condemnation and estrangement. And not about Christ.
Now, I am not perfect. Not at all. But I don't want to be a part of the aforementioned. If someone is a homosexual, I'll treat him or her with respect as I would anyone. If someone is a mother or father outside wedlock I would treat them with respect. If someone is a criminal, a junkie, an alcoholic... Jesus loves them, and so should I. That's all there is to it. And that means every aspect of my life should at least not conflict with that. Politically, professionally, privately it is my honest desire to follow Christ's teachings though NOT the cultural entity that Christianity has morphed into. Not the condemnation, segregation, elitism and so on. I want no part of it. And I do not want to be associated with it. Therefore I do not use the term Christian about myself. It is just a word, whom I follow is so much more than that.

Does that make sense?

This is definitely worthy of rep.

 

[Doveaman]

Of course they have a lot to offer, but they don't stand in conflict with an allegorical view of genesis.
They never have.

Nor do they support that allegorical view.

In If you had read it allegorically you would not have seen a conflict between God's creation and the bible.

But I don’t see a conflict when I read it literally. So there is no need for me to change it to an allegory. That’s your problem, not mine.

False. I did not mention catholic bishops. I mentioned a couple who had different faiths over a span of several hundred of the church's earliest time.

You did not mention what the actual authors of the Bible wrote. All you are doing is mentioning the opinions and interpretations of ancient theologians. Why should I care? Their opinions and interpretations mean nothing to me.

If you want to convince me, then quote the authors who actually wrote the Bible. Not a bunch of ancient theologians.

Appeared and appears to me you think whoever has not a literal approach has less faith than those who do.

You are making it obvious you have difficulty interpreting the writings of others. I’m sure this difficulty applies to Genesis too.

I also mentioned the Catechetical School of Alexandria which held strictly to the view of it as allegorical

I just find it strange that whenever I look up any one you mention they are somehow associated with the Catholic Church. Even the history you rely on is catholic history.

and it was founded by James - who you will note was an apostle.

You forgot to mention there are other historians who believed that school was founded long after James was dead.

But all this is irrelevant.

What is relevant is if James himself and any of the biblical authors had such a strict view of it being allegorical. And, as far as I know, no version of history tells us that.

In addition, there are many religious schools and churches that went astray shortly after the time of the apostles. The Bible calls it “the falling away” –

“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first”. (2 Thess 2:3).

This is why relying on the opinions and interpretations of extra-biblical sources are not all that reliable.

It appears you hold a literal interpretations without room for admitting the possibility of error in the reader. Which, essentially, is fanaticism. If I read you correctly, that is what is unhealthy.

You are not reading it correctly, as usual.

Do you have room for Genesis being literal?

If not, are you a fanatic?

So, if the author has a problem with writing it consistently, then surely it is not letter by letter divine and infallible - as a literal text - and cannot possibly be taken literally?

The author has no problem. You do.

So the Jews and Arabs are not literally Abraham's sons?

Read what Paul said.

I did read what Paul said, and nowhere did he say that Jews and Arabs are not Abraham’s children.

These are the kinds of wacky conclusions people come to when trying to reconcile the Bible with evolution theory.

You have not done as my signature suggests, nor read it - it would seem.

I will make it easy for you:

I am a believer despite the discrepancy between believers and Jesus.

I do not wish to be identified with Christianity as I feel the focus is too cultural and narrow, and not enough on who Yeshua was and is as well as what He teaches.

He who is without sin can cast the first insult.

Therefore, I will not be labelled a 'christian'. Too often that term is associated with condemnation of social groups, it often has political connotations and social restrictions imposed on it that run contrary to Christ's teachings and life.

Therefore I will not call myself a Christian.

So you prefer to call yourself an Agnostic, who believes it is impossible to know if God exist?

And for that reason there is no cross by my name.

This is the most ridiculous explanation I’ve ever heard.

Why don’t you go a step further and stop identifying yourself with mankind because of their evils ways.

I’m sure Yashua is not impressed with your choosing not to identify yourself with Christianity since He Himself, no doubt, identifies with it despite its shortcomings.

Why would Genesis 1 be in conflict with Genesis 2?

Because of your pathetic interpretation of Genesis.

Also, a literal interpretation... You KNOW I could shoot that to pieces. Your reading is selective. it must be because a consistently literal interpretation is impossible.

I never said everything in the Bible is literal. I’m saying a literal interpretation of Genesis is more consistent with the rest of Scripture. An allegorical interpretation is not.

To you, because that is what you have been taught and it is something you have never questioned or really thought about.

But I did question the story of Adam and Eve and the origin of sin. I don’t rely on the opinions and interpretation of other theologians. I studied it for myself, and a literal interpretation is the only answer that resulted from my studies, because a literal interpretation allows us to makes sense of the rest of Scripture. An allegorical interpretation tears it apart.

Your position is a fairly new one though.

That’s because your version of history began long after the Christian Church was established.

 

[Doveaman]

Hmmm... I thought it was clear, but evidently I have not explained well enough. I will try, I hope to succeed this time:


The reason I do not want to call myself a Christian is not that I do not believe. I do believe. The reason is that Christianity has become too much about culture and legalism and not about Christ and His teachings.

This would take a long time to go into but part of it is what goes on in this forum right here. Christianity has, to my experience, in the states at least started becoming about

• homosexuality being a sin (and estrangement of homosexuals)
• Abortion being a sin (Yet no real help being offered to single mothers, who are also estranged)
• Science being anti-christian (Which, I consider really really weird - how can God's creation physically with it's essence contradict God?)
• Estrangement of different political positions. If you're for this or that you'll be labelled and subsequently "ejected" from the church.

It has become about the condemnation of the above, and not

• Loving all, including those who hate you
• Turning the other cheek
• Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you
• Humility in reading of scripture, in dealing with others, in facing life.
• Compassion
• Ability to see things from another person's point of view and being there for and with them

I don't intend to debate this here and now. It's not the right forum. You might see things differently, and that's okay. But my perception is that Christianity today is all about taboos, rules, social stigma, condemnation and estrangement. And not about Christ.
Now, I am not perfect. Not at all. But I don't want to be a part of the aforementioned. If someone is a homosexual, I'll treat him or her with respect as I would anyone. If someone is a mother or father outside wedlock I would treat them with respect. If someone is a criminal, a junkie, an alcoholic... Jesus loves them, and so should I. That's all there is to it. And that means every aspect of my life should at least not conflict with that. Politically, professionally, privately it is my honest desire to follow Christ's teachings though NOT the cultural entity that Christianity has morphed into. Not the condemnation, segregation, elitism and so on. I want no part of it. And I do not want to be associated with it. Therefore I do not use the term Christian about myself. It is just a word, whom I follow is so much more than that.

Does that make sense?

Nope.

 

[TheReasoner]

-znip-

Okay. I know when discussion is fruitless.

Have a good one Dove. I'd rather not continue this discussion. But I would ask you to please show some of the humility christ followers are supposed to have. You could be reading it wrong, I have shown you plenty of verses and plenty of theologians who show that it is both legitimate and consistent to read it another way than you do. You do not recognize that, but stick to your useless guns. And no. Reading the genesis tale, considering God's creation and realizing that it is not literal does not make me a fanatic. Ignoring God's creation, ignoring conflicting verses, ignoring theologians who disagree with your viewpoint and sticking to theologians who share it, following their teachings legalistically IS fanatical however.

As for my faith... I do not understand why you do not understand my explanation. And I cannot make it clearer except perhaps to say:

I do not want to have the views of americonservative and fanatical christianity ascribed to me. I do not want to be associated with cultural christianity, condemning christianity and fundamentalist christianity.
I want to follow Yeshua. The carpenter's son (though not genetically) who ended his life on a cross and then rose from the dead three days later. The guy who told us to love all, and turn the other cheek. That's who I want to follow.

Others appear to understand. If it is still unclear perhaps one of them can try to explain. I appear unable to communicate with you. Possibly because you appear unable to see any other viewpoint than your own. Not saying you are, mind you. But to me, that is how you appear.

 

[Michael]

I do not want to have the views of americonservative and fanatical christianity ascribed to me. I do not want to be associated with cultural christianity, condemning christianity and fundamentalist christianity.

There's an easy fix for all that. Simply don't own those particular belief systems any longer, assuming you ever did in the first place.

I want to follow Yeshua. The carpenter's son (though not genetically) who ended his life on a cross and then rose from the dead three days later. That's who I want to follow.

That's technically all Yeshua ever asked of you in the first place. I don't buy Americanized fundamentalism but I am a "Christian" because I love Jesus and I follow his teachings and I APPLY them to my life.

YEC fundamentalism is really isn't "Christianity" so much as it is *A* brand of "Christianity" that includes extra dogma unrelated to Christ's teachings. If fundamentalism doesn't suit you, find a "religion/sect" that better suits you in terms of the ENTIRE Christian dogma package. FYI, most of them (in terms of sheer numbers) don't include YEC or an aversion to empirical physics. In terms of the dogma and the percentages of YEC to Christians as a whole, one can get a very skewed view of the actual numbers from forums such as these.