Jadespring and 's/he-is-all-in-all'

[Jadespring]

So with your first statement, and your revision, do you believe men are basically good? Have they always been? Who introduced the "lie" that men's hearts tend towards evil?

What lie are you talking about?

 

[Jadespring]

I don't believe we are "utterly depraved", but because of our fallen sinful state our hearts tend toward evil.

Nin, how and what do you define as evil?

 

[Nineveh]

You've misunderstood then.

That's what you called it pages back. : shrugs :

Excuse me Nin but this is you're interpretation about me.
"My way" as you call it is neither special or select. It's been happening since Jesus died.
It's not some mystical club. Do you ever read anything by historic theologians or Church theological history?

Jade, Jesus supports the OT. He doesn't say, "Oh hey! The OT? I was joking about all that." Rather, he taught Isreal to repent and uphold the Law. And yes, "your way" of interpretation of Scriptures is "select". That is evident by how many times you have told me I can't possibly understand. Not because the Bible is clear, but because of the "esoteric spiritual" way you interpret it.

Nin. I'm sorry but you are still not getting it.

Put you're dictionary away.

I know I know... The Bible nor the Dictionary are good enough to understand your "esoteric spiritualized" interpretations. I'm so glad God made things clear so even us sneetches with no stars on our bellies can understand and be saved.

It has absolutely nothing to do with hidden and secret meanings.

Yes it does. When God really doesn't mean what He clearly says, it's a secret.

But hey I like you're imagination. Changing the words esoteric and spirtual into a verb and action as you have is interesting. I've never heard it been phrase before like that.

"esoteric spritualized interpretation"? The first two are adjectives. Like when you said, "esoteric spritual thought" in post 110.

It also does not mean that you read something and assume the exact opposite. It is also not about redefining everything. Nothing I say is new by any stretch of the imagination.
Only new to you I guess.

No, the idea men will seek after their own hearts is nothing new. Neither is fashioning a god in an image that agrees.

What lie are you talking about?

"We only think that we did and created a whole story to do with that idea. It was our mistake.... We only think we did."

Nin, how and what do you define as evil?

Morally bad or wrong wicked. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.

An Example: The reason God tells us sex is only for marriage is because God designed it for a purpose and knows when it is misused how destructive it is.

I'm glad to know you believe Jesus is literally God who became literally flesh and literally died for our literal sins

 

[Nineveh]

So, is fallenness genetic, or learned?

When a little 2 year old is told "no", but they do it anyway, did the parent have to teach that child to rebel against authority or did they have it figured out already?

 

[Jadespring]

Jade, Jesus supports the OT. He doesn't say, "Oh hey! The OT? I was joking about all that." Rather, he taught Isreal to repent and uphold the Law. And yes, "your way" of interpretation of Scriptures is "select". That is evident by how many times you have told me I can't possibly understand. Not because the Bible is clear, but because of the "esoteric spiritual" way you interpret it.

Where did I ever say that oh hey God was joking?

And No it's not select and it's not that I think you can't understand it's that you're not understanding.
Partly I think because we come from such different backgrounds and partly because I think you';re reading much more into what I write then I am.
See above: Where did I ever say God was joking?

I know I know... The Bible nor the Dictionary are good enough to understand your "esoteric spiritualized" interpretations. I'm so glad God made things clear so even us sneetches with no stars on our bellies can understand and be saved.

What's with this sneetches reference?

Yes it does. When God really doesn't mean what He clearly says, it's a secret.

This answer really doesn't make to much sense.
God means what he means. He doesn't talk in code.
However the the 'truth' of the meaning can be more then just factual truth.
A story can convey a multiple of meanings. That's why they are used as teaching tools so much. Ie. In the Bible.
This is what I am trying to explain.

No, the idea men will seek after their own hearts is nothing new. Neither is fashioning a god in an image that agrees.

Sure they do. Nothing revolutionary about that. People always use there own experience to interpret thinsg that they read. You cannot escape it.
Now convince me the you aren't doing the same things. How do you know that you are not seeking after your own heart and fashioning God in an image that agree with it?

"We only think that we did and created a whole story to do with that idea. It was our mistake.... We only think we did."

This has nothing to do with a lie. Again you are refering to the comment that I said was not correct.
Still don't know what exactly you are interpreting it as a lie though.
Can you please rephrase your answer?

So to try to explain further the comment about we created the whole story. I was refering to the actual writing down of it.

I don't take the creation story as something that literally happened. It is a symbolic, metaphorical story that was told and created to explain the origins of our seperation from 'knowing' God. When we don't 'know' God we are not living in right relationship(sin) with the Creator or ourselves. We have fallen away from our true state and are exiled. We are wounded and at out of this wounded nature we sin and live in a state away from God. Jesus came and did what he did because God loves us, wants us to live in right relationship (not sin or live in a state of exile ) with God and with each other. He brought the message that salvation (a healed state) was possible through him. Through him amends for our hubris, that led to this state could be atoned for and healed.

It is doubtful that even when it was written down in the first place that the people at the time were were expected to take it as absolute historical fact as were many other of the early stories.
For one the names used are representative in nature and there are actually two stories in the text that were written in different styles but this I think is another discussion.

The story however still is a very, very true and in no way makes it less sacred or important.
It doesn't matter whether you take it as historical fact(literal) or believe that it is symbolic.
The outcome is the same. A man named Jesus came to help us heal (salvation) and return to us to 'knowing" God and thus are saved.

Morally bad or wrong wicked. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.

Cool we agree on that.
Do you believe that there are degrees of evil actions?

I'm glad to know you believe Jesus is literally God who became literally flesh and literally died for our literal sins

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I don't take the creation story as something that literally happened.

Why not?

It is a symbolic, metaphorical story that was told and created to explain the origins of our seperation from 'knowing' God.

That doesn't make any sense.

When we don't 'know' God we are not living in right relationship(sin) with the Creator or ourselves. We have fallen away from our true state and are exiled.

How did this happen? No metaphors either -- I want the straight dope.

We are wounded and at out of this wounded nature we sin and live in a state away from God. Jesus came and did what he did because God loves us, wants us to live in right relationship (not sin or live in a state of exile ) with God and with each other. He brought the message that salvation (a healed state) was possible through him. Through him amends for our hubris, that led to this state could be atoned for and healed.

I'm sorry, but I think the Biblical explanation makes a whole lot more sense.

It is doubtful that even when it was written down in the first place that the people at the time were were expected to take it as absolute historical fact as were many other of the early stories.

Then why did it include genealogies? It doesn't seem to me that a metaphor really needs an extensive list of "begats."

For one the names used are representative in nature and there are actually two stories in the text that were written in different styles but this I think is another discussion.

There's only one creation story in Genesis. Chapter one gives a general overview of creation week, and chapter two goes into detail on events that took place in the garden on day six.

 

[Ecumenicist]

When a little 2 year old is told "no", but they do it anyway, did the parent have to teach that child to rebel against authority or did they have it figured out already?

Answering a question with a question? I promise I won't beat you up on this one, no
matter which way you pick. Genetic or learned. I won't try to stretch it to homosexuality
or anything else, either. One question, one subject. If you have a third alternative I
haven't expressed, that's OK too. Genetic, learned, or ???.

Dave

 

[Nineveh]

Where did I ever say that oh hey God was joking?

When you claim homos are a good pick to lead the flock.

And No it's not select and it's not that I think you can't understand it's that you're not understanding.
Partly I think because we come from such different backgrounds and partly because I think you';re reading much more into what I write then I am.
See above: Where did I ever say God was joking?

It's is every bit as esoteric as you have claimed it to be.

What's with this sneetches reference?

Check post 336 for a link

This answer really doesn't make to much sense.
God means what he means. He doesn't talk in code.
However the the 'truth' of the meaning can be more then just factual truth.
A story can convey a multiple of meanings. That's why they are used as teaching tools so much. Ie. In the Bible.
This is what I am trying to explain.

And I do not disagree, until "deeper meaning" starts disagreeing with what is plainly expressed in Scripture.

Sure they do. Nothing revolutionary about that. People always use there own experience to interpret thinsg that they read. You cannot escape it.
Now convince me the you aren't doing the same things. How do you know that you are not seeking after your own heart and fashioning God in an image that agree with it?

I dunno how many times I have answered this question. But I'll say it again.

I was raised in denom dogma. WELS to be exact. (that's Lutheran). I set all that asside and picked up the Bible and began reading it. I noticed what I was taught and what I was reading wasn't the same thing. Now I could have tried forcing WELS into the text, but instead I left the congregation and followed God. So yes, people can go about reading the Bible without men choking off their understanding. It all depends on the will of the heart.

This has nothing to do with a lie. Again you are refering to the comment that I said was not correct.
Still don't know what exactly you are interpreting it as a lie though.
Can you please rephrase your answer?



So to try to explain further the comment about we created the whole story. I was refering to the actual writing down of it.

I don't take the creation story as something that literally happened. It is a symbolic, metaphorical story that was told and created to explain the origins of our seperation from 'knowing' God.

And for all the fuss you have given me over not understanding, you have just supported what I have been trying to say. What other parts of the Bible aren't really what they appear? (Besides the account of Adam and Eve sinning, how God sees sexual immorality, and what God wants as church leaders)

When we don't 'know' God we are not living in right relationship(sin) with the Creator or ourselves. We have fallen away from our true state and are exiled. We are wounded and at out of this wounded nature we sin and live in a state away from God. Jesus came and did what he did because God loves us, wants us to live in right relationship (not sin or live in a state of exile ) with God and with each other. He brought the message that salvation (a healed state) was possible through him. Through him amends for our hubris, that led to this state could be atoned for and healed.

It is doubtful that even when it was written down in the first place that the people at the time were were expected to take it as absolute historical fact as were many other of the early stories.
For one the names used are representative in nature and there are actually two stories in the text that were written in different styles but this I think is another discussion.

The story however still is a very, very true and in no way makes it less sacred or important.
It doesn't matter whether you take it as historical fact(literal) or believe that it is symbolic.
The outcome is the same. A man named Jesus came to help us heal (salvation) and return to us to 'knowing" God and thus are saved.

This makes a world of difference jade. And as I suspected, it's not the words you used, it's the concept itself. If God can not be trusted to inspire the literal truth of the matter, what else can I not trust in the Bible?

You have just stated God does not have the ability to inspire an accurate record of events. If you see the account as meaning something totally different (I'm afraid to ask, but let me guess, it involves sex right?) then God didn't do a very good job of relating His Book. It seems it takes esoteric spiritualization to interpret what really happened.

Do you believe that there are degrees of evil actions?

All sin is the same in as far as it seperates us from God, BUT all sin is not the same in that they do not all require the same punishment nor do they all inflict the same level of harm.

IE: stealing a candy bar is less of a crime than using your neighbor for anonymous sexual gratification.

 

[Nineveh]

Answering a question with a question? I promise I won't beat you up on this one,no matter which way you pick.

I dare you to find a dialog you haven't let hang, dave. It's not like you and I haven't already been over most of what jade and I are now discussing.

Genetic or learned. I won't try to stretch it to homosexuality
or anything else, either. One question, one subject. If you have a third alternative I
haven't expressed, that's OK too. Genetic, learned, or ???.

Our sinful nature resides in our flesh, dave. Perhaps instead of mocking Paul you should be reading him?

Now... back to my question, do you have to teach a little kid to lie, or do they already have it figured out?

 

[Jadespring]

When you claim homos are a good pick to lead the flock.

Ah I see. Well that is you putting words in my mouth as to what I was infering.
I never claimed God was joking.

It's is every bit as esoteric as you have claimed it to be.

No it s not. And it is not select. It is actually quite normal and widespspread. Perhaps not where you come from but it is. I'm not talking about anythign special, radical or revolutionary here.
Why do you assume that just because it's not something that you personally are not familiar with that it is something small ans 'select' as you have called it?
Are you some sort of expert that I don't knwo about on world theological understanding?
I really don't want to be nasty about it but this I've never heard of it, or I don't know about it so it must something weird and not normal attitude is getting old and quite tiresome.
You telling that it is small, select etc etc is goign is not going to make me change my mind and ways for one, because I know that it is just not true and two you still have said nothing to convince me the you're interpretations are any better and any more legimate.


Think about metaphor as I have spoken about on the other thread I think, and perhaps you can come to closer understanding of what I am trying to explain. Metaphors are not secret.

Check post 336 for a link

I know the post. I just don't know what point you were trying to make with it.

And I do not disagree, until "deeper meaning" starts disagreeing with what is plainly expressed in Scripture.

Still it's your opinion, based on your abilities and knowledge that determines what you disagree with.
Do you claim that you are capable of always being right? About everything? And if so why? Are you special?

I dunno how many times I have answered this question. But I'll say it again.

I was raised in denom dogma. WELS to be exact. (that's Lutheran). I set all that asside and picked up the Bible and began reading it. I noticed what I was taught and what I was reading wasn't the same thing. Now I could have tried forcing WELS into the text, but instead I left the congregation and followed God. So yes, people can go about reading the Bible without men choking off their understanding. It all depends on the will of the heart.

That's not an answer hence why I keep answering the question. Fine I get it your denom that you grew up in didn't agree with what was in your heart when you interpreted the book. It's still you're interpretation and you went and found somewhere that agreed with it.

[QUOTE}
And for all the fuss you have given me over not understanding, you have just supported what I have been trying to say. What other parts of the Bible aren't really what they appear? (Besides the account of Adam and Eve sinning, how God sees sexual immorality, and what God wants as church leaders)
[/QUOTE]
You're still missing the point and no I'm definately not supporting waht you have been trying to say.
The story is as, what it says. There is 'truth' in the stories in the Bible.

This makes a world of difference jade. And as I suspected, it's not the words you used, it's the concept itself. If God can not be trusted to inspire the literal truth of the matter, what else can I not trust in the Bible?

The Bible does hold truth. 'Truth' however does not need to be literal, historic fact.

I can try to give you an example of what I'm trying to say.
Previously I asked you a question that was never answered:
What does this mean? ---- Man that guy is crazy for saying that. He's way out in left field.

I can also try to explain this 'truth' concept if you like. I can start by asking a question. Do you know of the story "The Boy who cried Wolf?"

You have just stated God does not have the ability to inspire an accurate record of events. If you see the account as meaning something totally different (I'm afraid to ask, but let me guess, it involves sex right?) then God didn't do a very good job of relating His Book. It seems it takes esoteric spiritualization to interpret what really happened.

Actually I didn't state at all that God cannot inspire a record of accurate events. Your still focusing on believing that litteralness=truth. That something can only be true if it literally happened.
I was speaking about the 'truth' that is found in stories. Truth is not necessarily dependant on literal, historic accuracy.


This is a very common interpretation and it does not mean something totally different from what I think you mean. (except I'm not really entirely sure exactly how you're theology works, because I've only got bits of it)
In the garden we were exiled from God, into a world ruled by the law of sin and not in right relationship/seperateness (sin) with God and ourselves.
Jesus came and showed us the way to become new again and to leave this old way of thinking and brings us anew to God. It is the message of the new creation.
It is the transformation through death and ressurection, into a new relationship "in Christ"
I don't think this is so very different from what I have heard you say so far. Perhaps you can state your opinion on why it's totally different from what you believe the story says and we can explore whether it really is.

2 Cor.
So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, F13 not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

And why would you assume that it has anything to do with sex? I never said anything about sex in my explanation.

 

[Jadespring]

Why not?

Why do you?

That doesn't make any sense.

Why not?

How did this happen? No metaphors either -- I want the straight dope.

Like it says in the story. Dopes there.

I'm sorry, but I think the Biblical explanation makes a whole lot more sense.

It's from the Bible. It makes sense.
What's your explanation?

Then why did it include genealogies? It doesn't seem to me that a metaphor really needs an extensive list of "begats."

Wasn't refering to all to geneologies. I was refering to the creation stories themselves..

There's only one creation story in Genesis. Chapter one gives a general overview of creation week, and chapter two goes into detail on events that took place in the garden on day six.

Thats one way of looking at it. Especially if you are depending on just the english translation and assuming that's all there is.
Though if you actually study the origins, texts and scholarship about when and how these stories came about historically and specifically look at answering "Why are these stories told in this way?" you could see it differently.

However none of this is important in the big picture. Jesus and what he did is what counts.
If you want to believe that it actually, historically happened and the world was created in six day etc etc. Then go for it.
The outcome of the story is still pretty much the same.

 

[Nineveh]

Ah I see. Well that is you putting words in my mouth as to what I was infering.
I never claimed God was joking.

Jade, perhaps you have forgotten already, but this thread was split from the thread where we were discussing your views on homos getting married and homos in the pulpit. It's linked in the first post of this thread if you would like a resher on where you stand on the issue.

One question about your view on God being neuter... why add both genders to denote none?

Think about metaphor as I have spoken about on the other thread I think, and perhaps you can come to closer understanding of what I am trying to explain. Metaphors are not secret.

Maybe not to you, but they are when interpreting the Bible. You don't think God painted an accurate picture, that means His real intent is hidden.

I know the post. I just don't know what point you were trying to make with it.

If you didn't read it, you should, it's a Dr. Seuss classic

If you did read it, did the moral of the story escape you?

Still it's your opinion, based on your abilities and knowledge that determines what you disagree with.
Do you claim that you are capable of always being right? About everything? And if so why? Are you special?

Jade? Do you miss what I'm saying on purpose?

A Just Righteous and Holy God who claims He is not the author of confusion will not hide an opposite meaning in what He plainly says. Deeper meaning yes, but a meaning that is contrary to everything else He says? No.

That's not an answer hence why I keep answering the question. Fine I get it your denom that you grew up in didn't agree with what was in your heart when you interpreted the book. It's still you're interpretation and you went and found somewhere that agreed with it.

I simply read it. Don't you get that yet? I read it to find out what God had to say for Himself. I didn't let denom dogma interpret it for me, I prayed to the God of that Book to show me the Truth. I went to The Source of the Book to understand it.

And to correct your assumption, I don't belong to a denom, I am a member of the Body of Christ, that's it. He is enough for me.

You're still missing the point and no I'm definately not supporting waht you have been trying to say.
The story is as, what it says. There is 'truth' in the stories in the Bible.

And that is where we differ. You want to find truth in a "story" while I find the "account" True. I believe God inspired the Bible, and I do not think He was incapable of telling us the Truth of where we came from and why things are as they are today.

The Bible does hold truth. 'Truth' however does not need to be literal, historic fact.

I can try to give you an example of what I'm trying to say.
Previously I asked you a question that was never answered:
What does this mean? ---- Man that guy is crazy for saying that. He's way out in left field.

I can also try to explain this 'truth' concept if you like. I can start by asking a question. Do you know of the story "The Boy who cried Wolf?"

Jade, why would God not tell us exactly what happened? What could have happened that we could not understand that God would have to lie almost from the beginning of the Book?

I will add, there is no need to spiritualize historical accounts when that is the way they should be taken in context.

Actually I didn't state at all that God cannot inspire a record of accurate events. Your still focusing on believing that litteralness=truth. That something can only be true if it literally happened.
I was speaking about the 'truth' that is found in stories. Truth is not necessarily dependant on literal, historic accuracy.

Nor does literal historic accounts need to be taken in any other fashion unless you need the freedom to change other things as well.

This is a very common interpretation and it does not mean something totally different from what I think you mean. (except I'm not really entirely sure exactly how you're theology works, because I've only got bits of it)
In the garden we were exiled from God, into a world ruled by the law of sin and not in right relationship/seperateness (sin) with God and ourselves.

Why were we exiled?

Jesus came and showed us the way to become new again and to leave this old way of thinking and brings us anew to God. It is the message of the new creation.
It is the transformation through death and ressurection, into a new relationship "in Christ"
I don't think this is so very different from what I have heard you say so far. Perhaps you can state your opinion on why it's totally different from what you believe the story says and we can explore whether it really is.

I guess we need to see why you believed they were exiled.

And why would you assume that it has anything to do with sex? I never said anything about sex in my explanation.

No, but you are now being asked why they were expelled. I have heard a couple "interpretations" of what the "origional sin" was, and usually those who don't believe God really means what He says, interpret it as having something to do with sex. So I guess I'll wait and hear your "interpretation" of the "story".

 

[wickwoman]

Hi Jadespring. Seems Ninny is using her description of "my God" for yours now. Some are quick to disect the universe into sub-parts, having quite a bit of difficulty with the concept of the interpenetrating nature of Reality.

It's a concept we discuss in Buddhism, that is, it is difficult to see where you end and God begins. The danger is in thinking of God as an old man with a gray beard. Or even in thinking God inhabits a body or has a personality. It's really something we just can't know right now. And it's the carrot forever dangling on a stick before us. It prevents us from seeing what's here right now. And, there is plenty here to keep us busy.

Anyway, perhaps this has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. But, that's what I wanted to say.

-Peace.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Welcome back WW!

Hey, I thought I posted a reply in here somewhere... You deleting things, Nin?

 

[wickwoman]

Dave, you tempter you. Knew you'd draw me in somehow didn't ya?

 

[Jadespring]

Jade, perhaps you have forgotten already, but this thread was split from the thread where we were discussing your views on homos getting married and homos in the pulpit. It's linked in the first post of this thread if you would like a resher on where you stand on the issue.

Nin I am well aware of where this thread came from. I never said God was joking.
You said that I said it because of how you intepret the bible.

One question about your view on God being neuter... why add both genders to denote none?

As I have explained in previous posts on this thread that using s/he is a common way to convey gender neutraility when writing the English language. As of yet English has no pronoun that conveys the concept of gender neutraility in the way that it comes across in Hebrew. Words are only symbols of concepts.

Maybe not to you, but they are when interpreting the Bible. You don't think God painted an accurate picture, that means His real intent is hidden.

I never said he didn't paint and accurate picture. You even said yourself that the Bible has metaphor in it. And I will repeat again. I am not at all talking about "hidden' meaning. I am talking about a holistic undersatndign of truth as conveyed through story.
And please stop telling me what I think.
The proper pharasing would be "Jade, I think that you're saying that God does not paint and accurate picture."

If you didn't read it, you should, it's a Dr. Seuss classic

If you did read it, did the moral of the story escape you?

Wow okay now we're getting somewhere.
So you do know what a moral of a story is. This is what I am talkign about.
This sneetch story means something more then what is literally on the page. Unless of course you're telling me that you believe the story is literally, historically and factually true?

This is exactly t the type truth that I am talking about. It is by no means hidden.

Jade? Do you miss what I'm saying on purpose?

A Just Righteous and Holy God who claims He is not the author of confusion will not hide an opposite meaning in what He plainly says. Deeper meaning yes, but a meaning that is contrary to everything else He says? No.

No I'm not missing it at all Nin. I understand perfectly what you are saying which is why I keep responding and saying NO you're understanding of what I'm saying is incorrect.
Why are you so convinced that this 'hidden' meaning you keep talking about (which I keep saying is not what I'm talking about) is equal to being opposite?

I simply read it. Don't you get that yet? I read it to find out what God had to say for Himself. I didn't let denom dogma interpret it for me, I prayed to the God of that Book to show me the Truth. I went to The Source of the Book to understand it.

Yes and still it fall to matter of you're own interpretaition. It's so weird that you cannot understand this idea. YOu can never, ever, ever get away from the fact that how you read and come to an understanding of your world is dependent and influenced by you and you're experiences. Thus you are a part of your interpretation whether you listen to someone else or not. To claim absolute rightness in a big picture sense is just arrogant IMO.
None of us can ever get away from it. It is simply a function of human cognition. It's nothing to be afraid of. It is just the way it is.

And to correct your assumption, I don't belong to a denom, I am a member of the Body of Christ, that's it. He is enough for me.

It may not be a denom but you still belong to a identifiable group that interprets scripture in a particular way.

And that is where we differ. You want to find truth in a "story" while I find the "account" True. I believe God inspired the Bible, and I do not think He was incapable of telling us the Truth of where we came from and why things are as they are today.

Yes perhaps it is a difference. However it's the meaning or the "moral" that one gets from the story that is the important part.
And even if we know for sure that what we are reading is historically accurate different people can take different meaning or morals from accurate depictions.

Jade, why would God not tell us exactly what happened? What could have happened that we could not understand that God would have to lie almost from the beginning of the Book?

I still don't get why you think that in my interpretation I am saying God is lying.

I will add, there is no need to spiritualize historical accounts when that is the way they should be taken in context.

I betting that you do all the time. Or do you actually think that Jesus meant that we were to actually, literally drink his blood and eat his flesh?

Nor does literal historic accounts need to be taken in any other fashion unless you need the freedom to change other things as well.

Whether it's literal or not we still have to understand and take meaning from the account. Otherwise it's useless to us.

Why were we exiled?
I guess we need to see why you believed they were exiled.
No, but you are now being asked why they were expelled. I have heard a couple "interpretations" of what the "origional sin" was, and usually those who don't believe God really means what He says, interpret it as having something to do with sex. So I guess I'll wait and hear your "interpretation" of the "story".

I've already given you my interpretation of the story. We were exiled because we turned away from God, thought ourselves above God (hubris) and thus fell out of right relationship with God. The expulsion from Eden is the consequence for we cannot live in paradise if we do not know who God is. It is the seperation from God. And seperation leads to sin.
Jesus came to provide us a way back into reconciliation with God.
It has nothing to do with sex.


I'll repeat this one question that I have asked twice now.
If you don't know the answer I will try another example.

What does this mean" " Tha guy, he is really out in left field."

 

[Rimi]

Jade, Jesus had no trouble with the gender of HIS Father. Why do you? If this Being wants to refer to Himself as male, why is that so hard for you to accept?

 

[Balder]

Jade, Jesus had no trouble with the gender of HIS Father. Why do you? If this Being wants to refer to Himself as male, why is that so hard for you to accept?

Y'all are so silly. It's obvious that it's a bunch of guys who decided to refer to God as a guy! You know, the guys who wrote all those books in the Bible?

 

[Jadespring]

Hi Jadespring. Seems Ninny is using her description of "my God" for yours now. Some are quick to disect the universe into sub-parts, having quite a bit of difficulty with the concept of the interpenetrating nature of Reality.

It's a concept we discuss in Buddhism, that is, it is difficult to see where you end and God begins. The danger is in thinking of God as an old man with a gray beard. Or even in thinking God inhabits a body or has a personality. It's really something we just can't know right now. And it's the carrot forever dangling on a stick before us. It prevents us from seeing what's here right now. And, there is plenty here to keep us busy.

Anyway, perhaps this has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. But, that's what I wanted to say.

-Peace.

Welcome Wickwoman,

Nice to have you here too.

I can understand why Nin would see similarities with a traditional Buddhist concept the Godhead and the way I and other Christians conceptualize God, especially if she hasn't been exposed to such thinking in the Christian world. There are similarities from what I know.

I agree with your statement that it is something that we can never know right now. Neither do I think we even need to or argue about it so much. God is not in the details counter to what that saying says.
As a Christian, I see the Bible and life and experience of Christ as a lens or a window
to God as gleaned from the experience of others with God and their own conceptions of God.

 

[Jadespring]

Y'all are so silly. It's obvious that it's a bunch of guys who decided to refer to God as a guy! You know, the guys who wrote all those books in the Bible?

Uh oh. Can 'o worms just got opened.