Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Original sin. Remember that teaching?

---

You don't really believe that, do you? Augustine taught that the sin is transmitted vie semen during intercourse. He never explained exactly how that works. Such a belief is worse than the "original" belief re the sin. Original sin at best represents those actions of humanity that society considers bad. To believe that babies are born with it is the worst kind of irrational theology.

Quote:

---

Even Freud had an opinion. During infancy, before the other components of personality begin to form, children are ruled entirely by the id ("self-servingness"). Demanding basic needs for food, drink, and comfort is of the utmost importance.

---

Freud certainly didn't classify the natural tendency of a new life to survive as sinful. If you needed food, drink, and comfort in order to survive, it would be of the utmost importance to you, too.

Quote:

---

Original sin at best represents those actions of humanity that society considers bad.

---

You plainly don't understand the concept.

Quote:

---

Jesus, like any good teacher, often told stories to illustrate the points He wanted to make or lessons He wanted to teach. The Flood story was only one He used effectively.

---

And again, there is no evidence at all that Jesus regarded the story of the flood, or any other OT account, to be allegorical. In fact He did not even use it in a way that was allegorical in the Luke 17 passage. To say he did is to reveal either an insane bias or a lack of understanding as to what an allegory is. Jesus was not teaching a moral message there. He was describing what His second coming would be like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

You don't really believe that, do you?

---

That's the teaching I grew up with, a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed. (I got an A on my original sin essay!)

Quote:

---

Freud certainly didn't classify the natural tendency of a new life to survive as sinful. If you needed food, drink, and comfort in order to survive, it would be of the utmpst importance to you, too.

---

No, Freud didn't call it original sin, but am guessing he was reframing Bible teachings with his id, ego, and superego.

I was told during my original sin learning period that Freud saw a crying, even screaming baby as a selfish little human, thinking only of itself, its own needs. Original sin personified!

Quote:

---

That's the teaching I grew up with, a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed.

---

An idea that can certainly be verified simply by observing human behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

God destroyed every (excluding Noah and fam) living sould.

---

That makes it OK to kill all the children?

Quote:

---

“God was sorry he made us. Since he made us in his image, what does that say about him?”

---

That he's an idiot.

Quote:

---

God owes you and I nothing. In fact, because we’re all sinners, the only thing he ‘owes’ us is instantly throwing us into Hell, to satisfy his justice.

---

You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.

Quote:

---

Consider that before demonizing him for slaying a generation of unrepentant sinners, because that should be us, every single day.

---

A new-born baby is an "unrepentant sinner"? A child? A good adult?

Quote:

---

You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you?

---

No, quite the opposite. Jesus endured Hell so we wouldn't have to. You don't have to be a slave to your unbelief (mind).
You don't know what I am talking about because you haven't experienced the Love of God. You are too smart for your own good. When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes in order that I might then become this person of faith? No, it does not.

This is the text in question from Matt. 24. "37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

1. What indication do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?

This is a similar text from Luke. "Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot-- they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Lk. 17:28-30). Please note that it is being used to make the exact same point about the revelation (coming) of the Son of Man. Coincidence??

1. What indication do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical, assuming that your personal bias is not a satisfactory answer?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in appealing to the judgment of God upon Sodom and it's relationship to His second coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

if you are correct, then why would Jesus have not simply pointed that out? "Hey guys. You all do realize this is not a real story but an allegory?"

---

People that tell stories do not go around saying "Hey, this is an allegory". Good grief.

Quote:

---

Now if you want to contend the flood is to be taken figuratively

---

Do you seriously believe the ENTIRE planet was flooded?

Quote:

---

you must still answer the question of it being figurative of what? Mercy and judgment? If so, then you have accomplished nothing.

---

I have certainly accomplished that an all-human life-ending planet-wide flood never happened.

Quote:

---

Even worse for your point, the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls indicate a much earlier date for the OT.

---

Oh, please - that has nothing - NADA - to do with Genesis. Stop lying - you're supposed to be a Christian.

Quote:

---

from Athos
According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus.

---

Quote:

---

Absolute lie. I've never said that.

---

You're the absolute liar here. You quoted many Bible verses saying unbelievers go to hell. Are you now denying that you did that? What, then, is your current belief on where unbelievers go after death?

Quote:

---

The remainder of your comments amount to a verification of the fact that you don't like God and don't believe the Bible. That has already been settled.

---

It's only been settled in your mind. We all notice how you prefer to disparage any who believe differently than you. Better you should just argue your point and leave it at that. Disparaging others doesn't make your weak points any less weak.

Quote:

---

That makes it OK to kill all the children?

---

First: You should understand, IT IS ALL DEATH!!! Everything you see, taste, smell, touch, own is going to pass away!
You love this life and this World, it will follow you to your grave. Die to self now, while there is still time.
God gives life. God gave you life, through your own initiative you seek death rather than Life. Don't worry about the wee ones, God has them covered. Keep your focus on the Cross and crucifixion of Jesus the Christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

You don't know what I am talking about because you haven't experienced the Love of God.

---

No, the reason I don't know what you're talking about is because you're incoherent. Amazing how you people criticize any who disagree with you as being un-Godlike in one way or another. If you had a little intelligence, you would realize how that detracts from anything you say or promote.

Quote:

---

When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes

---

YES, that's it! That's exactly what it does! You're on the right path. Try to re-engage those thinking processes when you post something here.

Quote:

---

When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes
YES, that's it! That's exactly what it does! You're on the right path. Try to re-engage those thinking processes when you post something here

---

.The honest answer has to be no, it does not. In many cases, what it does is it causes me to think so deeply that we cannot quite unravel the jigsaw puzzle, that it introduces us to complexities that are metaphysical in their dimensions. And through it there runs a line, and that line is running historically, yes, and rationally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

1. What indication do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?

---

Jesus knew it was an oft-told story among the Jews. Jesus, being a consumate storyteller, used the idea of a major flood engulfing a id-obsessed humanity and the raining down of fire and brimstone on inhospitable city inhabitants as alerts to change their selfish ways and become more loving toward others.

Quote:

---

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?

---

Love God and each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

That's the teaching I grew up with,

---

Yes, we all did.

Quote:

---

a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed.

---

Not so solid when really considered. It's a dogma/doctrine/teaching that has as its source a story that never actually happened - an allegory. Adam and Eve didn't really exist. It's part of a creation myth. Every culture has one. Original sin assumes they DID exist.

Quote:

---

No, Freud didn't call it original sin, but am guessing he was reframing Bible teachings with his id, ego, and superego.

---

Replacing original sin with Freudian stuff? OK.

Quote:

---

I was told during my original sin learning period that Freud saw a crying, even screaming baby as a selfish little human, thinking only of itself, its own needs. Original sin personified!

---

If that were true of Freud, who we know had some strange ideas, then he totally missed the human instinct to survive. To call that natural instinct selfish, is to betray an ignorance so great that it makes me wonder just who told you that during your original sin learning.

What you find in the Gospels is historical.  I’ve always been intrigued by the way in which Luke begins chapter 3. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s not writing a history book. He’s not writing a biography, although there’s biographical material. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s writing good news. And this is how he starts his third chapter: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias [the] tetrarch of Abilene…" I won’t read any further on. What in the world are you doing here, Luke? He’s setting the reality and the truth of the Gospel within the historical context of the time. He’s reminding the reader—the thinking reader—that this is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air. These are real events, in real time, involving real people.

Same with Noah, and the Ark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You plainly don't understand the concept.

---

Explain it to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

First: You should understand, IT IS ALL DEATH!!! Everything you see, taste, smell, touch, own is going to pass away!
You love this life and this World, it will follow you to your grave. Die to self now, while there is still time.
God gives life. God gave you life, through your own initiative you seek death rather than Life. Don't worry about the wee ones, God has them covered. Keep your focus on the Cross and crucifixion of Jesus the Christ.

---

waltero, you are one sick puppy.

If you don't mind, I'll worry about the wee ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

.The honest answer has to be no, it does not. In many cases, what it does is it causes me to think so deeply that we cannot quite unravel the jigsaw puzzle, that it introduces us to complexities that are metaphysical in their dimensions. And through it there runs a line, and that line is running historically, yes, and rationally.

---

Huh? What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Do you seriously believe the ENTIRE planet was flooded?

I have certainly accomplished that an all-human life-ending planet-wide flood never happened.-

---

Noah, the main character in the Flood story, lived in Mesopotamia, an ancient region of West Asia. Mesopotamia can be hot and dry. However, ancient civilizations were able to flourish here because of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that overflowed their banks every year, enriching the soil and providing irrigation.

Terrific setting for a story about a flood!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

What you find in the Gospels is historical. I’ve always been intrigued by the way in which Luke begins chapter 3. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s not writing a history book. He’s not writing a biography, although there’s biographical material. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s writing good news. And this is how he starts his third chapter: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias [the] tetrarch of Abilene…" I won’t read any further on. What in the world are you doing here, Luke? He’s setting the reality and the truth of the Gospel within the historical context of the time. He’s reminding the reader—the thinking reader—that this is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air. These are real events, in real time, involving real people.

Same with Noah, and the Ark.

---

You're drifting, walter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Noah, the main character in the Flood story, lived in Mesopotamia, an ancient region of West Asia. Mesopotamia can be hot and dry. However, ancient civilizations were able to flourish here because of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that overflowed their banks every year, enriching the soil and providing irrigation.

Terrific setting for a story about a flood!

---

Yes, indeed. And note that Sumeria (Gilgamesh) was the first civilization to settle in that area - long before the Israelites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

it makes me wonder just who told you that during your original sin learning.

---

Of course, it was my church's spin to further confirm that original sin is a reality. Bad Adam and Eve for starting the ball rolling!

Quote:

---

You're drifting, walter.

---

Reading the Story about the Ark/flood, you will understand that it is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air.

Pointing out the incredible detail in which the building of the Ark has been described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

Reading the Story about the Ark/flood, you will understand that it is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air.

---

Nobody said it was "scrabbled together out of thin air". Now you've revealed that you don't understand what an allegory is. You're reading into these posts what you want to find, but isn't there.