-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where did the second woman come from??
- Thread starter Barrackubus
- Start date
jasonwill2
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but I do not think that anyone with any form of poetic literacy could take Genesis literally without a ****-ton of useless self-deceit. Why is it so important that Genesis is literally true? How would your relationship with Jesus be a freaking ounce different if Genesis is an allegory for the sin of man? Why does it matter? How would your faith fundamentally and radically change because of non-literalism of a creation myth? Would Jesus stop loving you? How is creation even relevant to how a Christian should live their life? I was a Christian for many years and the kind of crap they push off as important issues do not mean a damn thing in light of what Jesus taught. Not that I agree with Jesus anyway, but my point still remains.
I'm not a Chaote but thank you
Also I meant to say I don't* add information to religious texts. I'll take influences from them, but I the eclectic nature of my religion kind of makes all those additional details added to Cain to be meaningless....Unless there are actual Holy Texts that claim those details. It's just that when we are talking about a canon, I need to be able to have some kind of historical or textual proof that said things were somehow legitmentally tied into said canon either as canon itself, or prior to the canonization (meaning they just excluded it such as with a number of books that didn't make it into the current Christian Bible).
However I wouldn't say that would you said is the views of everyone in the Left Hand Path because I don't think that the majority of LHP adherents give Cain two thoughts, much less Christianity. Considering the Tantric roots I don't think that Cain, Satan, Lucifer, or any other god is actually relevant to the path, only to the individual's belief system. The Left Hand Path isn't about belief, it's about practice. For example two Hindus could believe the same things religiously, but one could be Right Hand Path and one could be Vamachara ("Left Hand Attainment"), same as one Satanist could be Right Hand Path and one could be Left Hand Path (but I admit that it's difficult to be a Satanist and Right Hand Path due to the heterodox inherent in Satanism).
Last edited:
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Posted by FearGod
A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.
Reply by FearGod
((How old the universe)) is just an estimation and we are never sure on the exact date as to be true.
Astronomers estimate that the Big Bang occurred between 10 and 20 billion years ago. They estimate the age of the Universe in two ways: (a) by looking for the oldest stars; and (b) by measuring the rate of expansion of the Universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang.
Reference : The Size and Age of the Universe - Introduction
The idea of my post that the huge universe started from one entity and we can see it now to contain billions of galaxies which each contains also billions of stars and what is silly that we can't believe that human population started from one creation.
i see it as a silly question that why god permitted incest on the beginning of his creation and then made it as a sin.
At first,there was a purpose from such marriage which is reproduction which wasn't needed anymore once the population increased.
A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.
Reply by FearGod
((How old the universe)) is just an estimation and we are never sure on the exact date as to be true.
Astronomers estimate that the Big Bang occurred between 10 and 20 billion years ago. They estimate the age of the Universe in two ways: (a) by looking for the oldest stars; and (b) by measuring the rate of expansion of the Universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang.
Reference : The Size and Age of the Universe - Introduction
The idea of my post that the huge universe started from one entity and we can see it now to contain billions of galaxies which each contains also billions of stars and what is silly that we can't believe that human population started from one creation.
i see it as a silly question that why god permitted incest on the beginning of his creation and then made it as a sin.
At first,there was a purpose from such marriage which is reproduction which wasn't needed anymore once the population increased.
Even if it were a literal story, the fact is that since none of the Law had been written yet, so if Cain married his sister, it wasn't against any law yet.
I've heard all sorts of explanations from various people, one was that Cain married an ape and had children with this ape (I found that one a little farfetched).
But most people take the creation stories as symbolic, anyway.
I've heard all sorts of explanations from various people, one was that Cain married an ape and had children with this ape (I found that one a little farfetched).
But most people take the creation stories as symbolic, anyway.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I think you answered your own questions. You don't take Genesis as literal and you aren't a Christian anymore. If Genesis isn't literal when it reads literal, what else in the Bible isn't literal that reads literal, the account of Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected from the dead?
Barrackubus
Residential Occultist
How can you take Genesis literally even as a Christian....
Christine ES said.... Even if it were a literal story, the fact is that since none of the Law had been written yet, so if Cain married his sister, it wasn't against any law yet.*
We know it wasnt against the law yet???
And to javajo.....please offer an explaination, give us the benefit of your christian wisdom..
Christine ES said.... Even if it were a literal story, the fact is that since none of the Law had been written yet, so if Cain married his sister, it wasn't against any law yet.*
We know it wasnt against the law yet???
And to javajo.....please offer an explaination, give us the benefit of your christian wisdom..
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I'm not Christine, obviously, but still:
Even if it was literal (which it isn't):
Adam and Eve, etc: Genesis
Abraham, who married his half-sister: Genesis
The laws prohibiting incest: Leviticus, Deuteronomy
But you're getting caught up in myth as history.
jasonwill2
Well-Known Member
Personally, a demi-god coming back to life is more plausible than the creation story in genesis, MUCH more so. But I don't know if Jesus raised from the dead, I don't think about it because it doesn't matter to me. Either way he's still a king of deniers of self and others' selves to me.
Also Genesis doesn't read literal unless you really, REALLY lack literacy in literature. Try reading it again with said things in mind and the writing devices, tropes, and styles will quickly make you realize it's like Jesus's parables... as in they are analogies for much more greater spiritual issues than say creation. Creation doesn't affect your life, but the spiritual truth the myth is about probably is.
Gosh, when a Satanist gives Christians advice on how to be better Christians I know something is wrong :thud: I guess I would rather see a Christian be reasonable about science than agree with me spiritually, at which point we are so radically as to not even have the same point of references in sight (I don't believe in the Christian Satan at all for example. I'm a Pantheistic Satanist by the way).
I gave an example of how you can take Genesis literally.
Read my earlier post in this thread.
averageJOE
zombie
This is how it was explained to me at one time;
Men and women were created on the 5th day according to the book of Genesis chapter 1 verses 26-28.
26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
Adam wasn't created until Genesis chapter 2 verse 7, and Eve in chapter 2 verse 22. So basically it is saying that Adam and Eve were not the first 2 people god created, just his main characters. God filled the earth with people prior to creating Adam and Eve. (According to the literal chronological order of Genesis that is)
Men and women were created on the 5th day according to the book of Genesis chapter 1 verses 26-28.
26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
Adam wasn't created until Genesis chapter 2 verse 7, and Eve in chapter 2 verse 22. So basically it is saying that Adam and Eve were not the first 2 people god created, just his main characters. God filled the earth with people prior to creating Adam and Eve. (According to the literal chronological order of Genesis that is)
waitasec
Veteran Member
so gods standards are not a constant...?
It wasn't a written law yet. Even if they broke the Law, then they didn't know they were breaking the Law.
I am not the possessor of great wisdom or anything, I just state my opinion.
Since I don't believe Cain to be a literal person, then I don't believe that he married his sister. Abraham, on the other hand, did marry his half-sister, Sarai (Sarah). He was called a man who "walked with God". If God thought that Abraham marrying Sarah was such a great sin, then why would he be called that? If sin is a deliberate breaking of God's Law, then Abraham couldn't have done that. The Law wasn't written yet. But I am going around in circles.Suffice it to say: If it were a literal story, then Cain would have no other woman except for his sister. The same with Seth. (But since it isn't a literal story, in my opinion, then why sweat it?)
I don't recall saying that. But read my post before this, I offer an explanation in my own way, as not a Bible scholar.
God's standards are a fixed and constant platform, so to speak, like a political party, for each cycle of Creation. Each Creation as a whole is like a single individual with its own unique DNA. The party platform only goes up for convention as each new Creation is conceived. Once conception takes place, that Creation plays out, just as a newly conceived life in its mother's womb does. Cells in that body can think to change the rules and apply a different constitution for that body, but doing so causes cancer and other maladies. We are living in the end times of a Creation that was conceived about 6000 years ago and the next cycle is birthed out of the ashes of the old. As it goes into further death and decay, this clears away the rubble and makes way for a new convention to take place and for a new blueprint for a new Creation to be organized by the power of the words of those attending the convention. Then, subsequent to that, it all plays out just as they have fore-ordained, because it is the DNA of that Creation that the constitutional convention forms. Just as our bodies play out as our DNA formed at our conception does.
Barrackubus
Residential Occultist
If it's okay not to take the Genesis account literally, then as previously asked what other accounts in thr book can be dismissed as an unliteral writing, who gets to pick and choose those things, to me it would seem pointless to not try and liberally unliteralize the whole book. This type of thinking if widespread enough and with enough time will cause Christianity to be absorbed by Paganism. If the message of the book isn't absolute, then the truth it is supposed to impart then isn't either...
I agree. This is why it is helpful to know the underlying landscape of the symbol sets it makes use of and the limited context that it applies to. Once this is accomplished, then you can take it quite seriously.
bigjimslade1000
Member
The other woman.... Is it possible that the faith is based on a lack of historic understanding? Who the hell know's where our derivation lies? We're just as confused as they were. Evolution is the best answer for me and creatioist belief and science both break down, concerning our beginnings. Before written records, we have no way of telling and some written systems are more confused than the myriad of modern conventional theories.
I'm starting to feel like the ignored kid who might just have to start jumping up and down and yelling to get some attention. Oh, wait, I just did that.
Seriously, what I put in my answer shows a way the creation narrative can be understood such that science fits right in nicely.
Is anyone going to respond to my attempt to contribute here?
I can understand where your original question comes from. It is stunning that otherwise rational people can consider Genesis literally... particularly as it includes two conflicting creation stories. But, having made your point that Genesis can't be literally true, the rest is unnecessary. The stories in Genesis are clearly meant to be metaphorical and poetic.
Who wrote the creation story? Adam? Eve? Cain? Cain's son or daughter? It was verbal but it had to came from them right? So generation after generation people told each other a creation story and then one day Moses wrote it down?
Or, perhaps a child asked his father where they came from and the imaginative father said, "sit down and let me tell you a story" and it was invented that night.
One hell of a story actually and it has a moral in it. Adam and Eve should have obeyed God and you my child who asked for this bed time story should obey me.
Or, perhaps a child asked his father where they came from and the imaginative father said, "sit down and let me tell you a story" and it was invented that night.
One hell of a story actually and it has a moral in it. Adam and Eve should have obeyed God and you my child who asked for this bed time story should obey me.