Jesus not son of God = more meaning

[ForEverAfter]

So homosexuality didn't exist during particular periods of history?
Or did guys just fuck each other in secret?

it seems to me it was pretty much impossible to have any other​ view of how to have a relationship with God for an extended period.

Any outspoken view or any view?

When you kill them it does.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Ninae]

I didn't mean there were nothing else, but there was so little of it, it doesn't really matter.

Most people were illiterate for most of the centuries it was a dominant religion. If they weren't they couldn't afford to buy any books. And if they did there was nothing else available. The little that was, were underground movements but that made up a very small percentage of the population, and it was very dangerous to be involved in them. The old pagan religion always existed underground. Some could get away with it, some couldn't.

So the average person didn't really have much choice. Either they would be non-believers (although that was also hard) or they would embrace Christianity. The only exception would have been genuine mystics and people with paranormal skills, but there are always people like that and they don't really represent the norm.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You ignored these questions:

...are they (the modern "channelers") consistent?
(Note: I'm going to prove that they're not.)

And if not, how do you know which "channeler" is telling the truth?

... ?

 

[Ninae]

It's a personal experience, you can't prove to anyone a channeler is telling the truth. When it comes to priviate channelers I usually rely on the ones who know much about my private life they should have no way of knowing AND are consistent. Otherwise, it's a bit hard to explain.

 

[methamaniac]

How does it = more meaning for Jesus not be the very nature of God manifest in the flesh?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Because it is metaphorical / allegorical.
To take it literally, means you lose the metaphorical / allegorical meaning.
Literal allegories are miracles. Miracles are meaningless, philosophically.

To believe literally in the story of Adam & Eve, means that you're not interpreting it as it was intended to be interpreted.
The origin of Adam & Eve, in the epic of Gilgamesh, is very clearly about evolution.
It is the same story, essentially, but is less prone to misinterpretation.

In Gilgamesh, there is a Tarzan-like ape-man who is humanized through repeated sexual intercourse.
The story is about our evolutionary departure from nature.

In Genesis, there is no obvious ape-man because Adam & Eve represent both sides.
Before they eat the fruit, they are the ape-men from Gilgamesh, but it isn't clear.
So people (especially those who aren't very skilled at interpreting literature) tend to take it literally and believe there was actually a woman named Eve who talked to a snake.
It's not impossible to both literally believe something and understand the symbolic significance of it (I learn from life, as I do from stories) but it is difficult.

If it was widely understood by Christians that the Bible is an anthology of philosophical writings and mythologies, there would be less confusion.
(This might be difficult for you to understand / accept, since you are in the confused category.)

...

How about I ask you the reverse question:

How does it = more meaning for Jesus to be the very nature of God manifest in the flesh?
(Perhaps you could attempt to explain for us, what literalism adds to the Bible?)

 

[methamaniac]

Because it is metaphorical / allegorical.
To take it literally, means you lose the metaphorical / allegorical meaning.

Absolutely not!
I don't lose anything if I believe literally in this or any story in bible. That's the beatuy of it.
But sadly, you may be missing out if you don't believe in this one literally.

To believe literally in the story of Adam & Eve, means that you're not interpreting it as it was intended to be interpreted.
The origin of Adam & Eve, in the epic of Gilgamesh, is very clearly about evolution.
It is the same story, essentially, but is less prone to misinterpretation.

I don't miss anything in respect. God does things for a purpose and puts meaning in everything he does.
When things are literal or figurative
It's all his story.
Every story in the bible pratically points to revelation of God and his plan for man's salvation from sin.

Adam and Eve's fall from grace and
God sacrificing an animal to provide Adam and Eve clothing to cover their nakedness/sin is obviously forshadowing God coming in the flesh to sacrifice himself for the damage of mankind's love of sin. To redeem those who want redemption.

Whether or not I believe in this paticular story literally or not doesn't mean I miss anything about the meaning.

Do you think nothing in the bible is to be took literally?
Do you see the symbolism in the seven Jewish feast? I'm sure you do you seem to know bible well.
Does believing they are literal feast change their meaning?

How does it = more meaning for Jesus to be the very nature of God manifest in the flesh?
(Perhaps you could attempt to explain for us, what literalism adds to the Bible?)

The meaning is God is the one who provides the sacrifice and not man.
The point/meaning is no man is worthy of sacrifice/substitute for sin and thus can save himself/herself. Only God is good.
Only God can provide atonement.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I don't lose anything if I believe literally in this or any story in bible.

Because you literally believing in the creation mythology of the Bible, you don't believe in evolution.
You can't literally believe in Genesis and evolution. They're incompatible.
Adam & Eve is a story about the latter stages of evolution.
Therefore, you lose the meaning of Genesis.

As I said, it is often possible to believe in something literally and understand the meaning of it.
With Genesis, and other passages, it is not.

Do you think nothing in the bible is to be took literally?

It doesn't serve any purpose to interpret anything in the Bible literally, so - no - I don't think there's any point in literalism.

You're yet to explain what literalism adds to the Bible... Your response, above, didn't make any sense to me...

 

[methamaniac]

They miss out because they are not asking God for revelation.
Being studious of the bible will only get you so far.

I think we both agree on that.

 

[methamaniac]

Because you literally believing in the creation mythology of the Bible, you don't believe in evolution.
You can't literally believe in Genesis and evolution. They're incompatible.
Adam & Eve is a story about the latter stages of evolution.
You lose the meaning of Genesis.

Exactly how am I losing meaning?

PsThat's not the meaning I get from it.

How we were made is not as important as why we were made. We were not created to wallow in sin.

 

[ForEverAfter]

If you believe Genisis is about "the latter stage of evolution" maybe yes.
That's not the meaning I get from it.

Exactly my point.

You're yet to explain what literalism adds to the Bible...

 

[methamaniac]

Exactly my point.

What is your point?

You're yet to explain what literalism adds to the Bible..

Trust in God's word.

 

[ForEverAfter]

What is your point?

I'm not going to repeat myself.

rick may be willing to endlessly debate things with you, for weeks on end, but I have better things to do.

You're yet to explain what literalism adds to the Bible..

Trust in God's word.

It adds nothing, then.

(I don't have to interpret something literally to trust it.)

 

[methamaniac]

I'm not going to repeat myself.

rick may be willing to endlessly debate things with you, for weeks on end, but I have better things to do.





It adds nothing, then.

(I don't have to interpret something literally to trust it.)

lol im not trying to get you to do Jack Johnson.

You can stop replying anytime my dear friend.
I was intially responding to OP.
You decided to hit me with questions. ......
I graciously replied.

I didnt say you had to interpret anything literally....
I was explaining my view.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Let me ask you this: Do you believe, literally, in the Epic of Gilgamesh?

If not, why not? (Since that is - unquestionably - where the Adam & Eve myth originated.)

 

[methamaniac]

Let me ask you this: Do you believe, literally, in the Epic of Gilgamesh?

If not, why not? (Since that is - unquestionably - where the Adam & Eve myth originated.)

Are you saying it is impossible for the epic of Gilgamesh to be based on story of Genesis?
I don't see the revelance as the epic of Gilgamesh is not in bible.

Let me ask you something in return,
Do you consider yourself a deist or theist?
Answer any way you like.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Okay, you haven't been paying attention again.
So *sigh* I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Please pay attention this time.

...

There are three biblical stories that can be traced back to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

1. The flood narrative. (Which you've already said you literally believe.)
2. Adam & Eve.
3. Samson & Delilah.

The Epic of Gilgamesh cannot be based on the story of Genesis, because it predates the OT by centuries.

It is illogical to accept the aforementioned stories as "the word of God", unless you also accept Gilgamesh - in it's entirety - as the word of God.
Since you believe the word of God is literal, Gilgamesh must also be literal... Unless I'm missing something?

Let me ask you something in return,
Do you consider yourself deist or theist?

I am a non-specific theist. (I am a student of all religions.)

 

[methamaniac]

Okay, you haven't been paying attention again.
So *sigh* I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Please pay attention this time.

...

There are three biblical stories that can be traced back to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

1. The flood narrative. (Which you've already said you literally believe.)
2. Adam & Eve.
3. Samson & Delilah.

The Epic of Gilgamesh cannot be based on the story of Genesis, because it predates the OT by centuries.

It is illogical to accept the aforementioned stories as "the word of God", unless you also accept Gilgamesh - in it's entirety - as the word of God.
Since you believe the word of God is literal, Gilgamesh must also be literal... Unless I'm missing something?



I am a non-specific theist. (I am a student of all religions.)

im paying attention intelligent aleck.
I'm saying Epic of Gilgamesh could be based on the same account that Genesis gives.
The EOG could have very easily been influenced/corrupted by paganism.
The accounts Moses compiled are no less valid because they were were wrote down at a later date
if in fact EOG was written down first.

Again, I do not in any way have to believe in EOG whatsoever.

Exactly what is a "non-specific theist" suppose to mean?
Can you recieve revelations from God?

 

[ForEverAfter]

The accounts Moses compiled are no less valid because they were were wrote down at a later date
if in fact EOG was written down first.

Moses was born - if indeed he was born - some 600 years after the oldest surviving copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh. And, I'm not invalidating Adam & Eve. You're not paying attention, yet again. I'm not suggesting, and I never have, that either story is more or less valid than the other.

I do not in any way have to believe in EOG whatsoever.

If you acknowledge that the Epic of Gilgamesh was written centuries before the stories of Moses (which - by the way - were not written by Moses), and that it contains some of the stories from the OT, you must - given that you believe literally in the entirety of the OT - also believe literally in the entirety of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Otherwise, how do you explain the word of God existing within a text some 600 years before the OT?

Whoever wrote the flood narrative and the Adam & Eve story in Epic of Gilgamesh, they were writing the word of God right?
So why would the text be selectively authentic?

Exactly what is a "non-specific theist" suppose to mean?

I've already explained that: I am a student of all religions.

Can you recieve revelations from God?

Can't everyone?

 

[methamaniac]

Moses was born - if indeed he was born - some 600 years after the oldest surviving copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh. And, I'm not invalidating Adam & Eve. You're not paying attention, yet again. I'm not suggesting, and I never have, that either story is more or less valid than the other.



If you acknowledge that the Epic of Gilgamesh was written centuries before the stories of Moses (which - by the way - were not written by Moses), and that it contains some of the stories from the OT, you must - given that you believe literally in the entirety of the OT - also believe literally in the entirety of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Otherwise, how do you explain the word of God existing within a text some 600 years before the OT?

Whoever wrote the flood narrative and the Adam & Eve story in Epic of Gilgamesh, they were writing the word of God right?
So why would the text be selectively authentic?



I've already explained that: I am a student of all religions.



Can't everyone?

You're beginning with a fallacy.
First I don't know when the epic of Gilgamesh was written. Nobody does. Same for Genisis.
But if EOG was in writing before Genesis ( btw I stated comprised by Moses) was in writing
it doesn't make it the inspired and approved word of God.
For the third time now dude.......
I don't have to accept it as true word of God.
Which makes question of "what is true word of God doing in EOG"? ----based on a fallacy