stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I did not say that at all. And I can't explain it any better than I already did.So, conscience can be wounded, or hurt then... are you in agreement?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I did not say that at all. And I can't explain it any better than I already did.So, conscience can be wounded, or hurt then... are you in agreement?
From your statement, I get the impression you believe that truth is relative to each individual.
If that is the case, then the information in the OP, or any post, for that matter, may be irrelevant to you, since you could say, "That is your truth, but it is not my truth."
In a case like that, there seems to be no room to reason, or be reasonable.
Am I being unreasonable?
I recall saying this... According to WikipediaI can only make short reply just now.
In the OP you told us all that most Christians are 'Christians' and not true Christians.
That was not a good start. OK?
Someone does a painting.Now. Yes. Truth is relative to each individual. The American Indians had a wonderful expression which they used before they made any statement of claim.
They started with ,'This is my truth.....'
So it was the truth as they saw it.
I recall saying this... According to Wikipedia
Christians are people who follow or adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
If we are going to use this definition, then we cannot turn a blind eye, or ignore ignorance concerning the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
In other words, we cannot refer to any person as Christian, regardless of if their religion and religious beliefs reflect the way Jesus lived - his actions and activities, and his teachings.
If that is wrong then I would be inclined to agree with you.
So now you remember?Hence, it is clearly evident, that the words Christian, and Christianity are being used lightly, and with frivolousness, thus incorrectly.
With such distortion, it is easy to overlook the clear distinction between Christian and "Christian"; Christianity and "Christianity", and thus fool oneself into thinking that the "Christian" knows what they are talking about... when evidently, they don't.
So............ what?Someone does a painting.
They use yellow paint to paint a yellow bird.
What is the truth... Is the bird yellow? Or is the bird pink... according to the color blind individual, who looks at it, and sees pink, because she has a defect, that interferes with normal vision? Or is the bird black, according to the blind individual who "looks" at it, and says, "Well all I see is black."?
I am pretending nothing.And you wrote and pasted copy about 'Christians'! Now you try to pretend that you did not?
So now you remember?
So............ what?
I knew what you wrote.......... You denounce so many as 'Christians', just like I said.
A bit of Truth....
Some do, especially: (1) those who were once Christians and well versed in christian topics, or (2) scholars who have studied it from the perspective of believers.It is often said, that Atheists know the Bible better than Christians.
A Cristian... ignorant about Christianity?Some do, especially: (1) those who were once Christians and well versed in christian topics, or (2) scholars who have studied it from the perspective of believers.
I encountered many Christians who were very ignorant about their faith and the Bible, but I assume you wish to exclude these in your considerations.
Which is why I didn't list that separately as we see quite a different pattern with them.Doesn't make them a Christian, period... does it.
Was God cursing a snake?
Evidently not. How do we know? The context.
When we consider the texts closely, from verse 1-15, we realize that there is an entity involved, that is not identified at this point in time, but is revealed much later.
Verse 15 however, sheds some light on a future revelation.
God said, "... I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”
This is not a prophetic utterance regarding a slithery reptile.
For the Christian, this is clear. The Atheists however, is evidently in the dark.
In just that early beginning, is is clear, the Atheist does not know the Bible as the Christian does.
Is he willing to learn? Let's see.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly.Which is why I didn't list that separately as we see quite a different pattern with them.
And just a reminder that Jesus said in Matthew 7[16] You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
[17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
[18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
[19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[20] Thus you will know them by their fruits.
That makes sense, and seems both reasonable, and accurate.It would seem to be an irrelevant splitting of hairs to try to draw a distinction between God not cursing that particular serpent but only cursing that particular serpent's offspring. Because the Hebrew word "zera" (seed) does means offspring or children.
I don't think you understood what I said.It would also be reasonable to say your assertion is false. Because if a parent cares about the fate of their offspring then to curse their offspring is to effectively curse the parent as well. It has a negative effect on them as the parent.
That makes sense, and seems both reasonable, and accurate.
I don't think you understood what I said.
God is not cursing the slithering reptile, nor the offspring of the reptile.
The serpent is prophesied to bruise the heel of the woman's seed, and the woman's seed is prophesied to bruise the serpent's head.
Of course there are people... I assume, who will think that an offspring of Eve will get bitten in the heel by this snake, and will crush the serpent in the head, and there will be an ongoing conflict or war between man and serpent.
Some people read the Bible that way, because the don't think of it as more than made up tales, to tell one's children.
When the Bible is taken seriously, people don't make such mistakes.
The above has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.I understand that the argument can be, and has been made, that there are different interpretations, hence no one can really know, but it seems to me, reasoning that way, is the same as saying no one can really be faulted for not knowing basic truths as taught by Jesus, so really Jesus failed to do what he came to do - teach the truth from God.
I don't think you really believe that though, do you?
I'm truly sorry, I did not see this post, up until now.I haven't seen you post a single reason why you think we should read it any other way, or why we can't read it at face value for what it says.
Or why reading it that way doesn't constitute "taking the Bible seriously".
You can't just take for granted the assumption that your premise is true without first supporting it's truth with evidence and arguments in favor of it.
I'm truly sorry, I did not see this post, up until now.
When you say 'read it that way', what do you mean? Do you mean read it in a literal, or figurative way?
That's a good point. I appreciate that.
I don't think you understood what I said.
God is not cursing the slithering reptile, nor the offspring of the reptile.
Of course there are people... I assume, who will think that an offspring of Eve will get bitten in the heel by this snake, and will crush the serpent in the head, and there will be an ongoing conflict or war between man and serpent.
Some people read the Bible that way, because the don't think of it as more than made up tales, to tell one's children.
When the Bible is taken seriously, people don't make such mistakes.
Thank you.I believe I can answer that question by readdressing your original post in some more detail:
What did the serpent do? "God said, Because you have done this..." So what did the slithering reptile do? Or was it the serpent?The Bible plainly says God is cursing the the reptile and it's offspring.
Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
The enmity between them is, in context, also part of the curse.
Sorry, I thought I did. Let me be more specific. Revelation 12 You need to read the entire chapter, because it includes the woman.You haven't given us any reason why it can't be literal.
Very, very true. is this not the case with Genesis 3:15?In fact, we know that Scripture can be both literal, representative of higher spiritual realities, and prophetically symbolic of other things to come, all at the same time.
In this case, you are referring to patterns, which yes, can include prophecy, since physical things represent spiritual... at times. Not always.We see examples of references to OT Scripture being used this way throughout the New Testament. And other areas where Paul explicitly tells us that the historical reality of certain things in the Scripture is also a picture of a higher truth to come. One example is Colossians 2:16-17
Agreed.Jewish tradition to this day still believes that Scripture has multiple levels of meanings such as the literal, allegorical, and prophetic, (Called "pardes").
They don't say it's just spiritual and not literal. They don't say it's just symbolic and not historical.
They say it's both literal, historical, and prophetic/symbolic/or allegorical at the same time.
This fits with the pattern we see in the Bible where God Himself establishes literal and historical things like the tabernacle, feasts and priestly service which are designed to reflect higher spiritual realities and are also a prophetic picture of what is to come in the future with Jesus Christ. Moses even built the tabernacle according to the pattern shown to him in Heaven of what was there.
Agreed.God Himself is seen to encode things with multiple levels of meaning beyond just the literal. But that doesn't mean the literal isn't true or didn't happen.
I did give you the basis, so we don't agree on this... unfortunately.Therefore, you have no basis for concluding that the account in Genesis did not literally take place as described, just because it also reflects other allegorical principles, prophetic things to come, or higher spiritual realities.