It is not necessary to form a belief simply because you have weighed evidence. What if you've only been presented poor evidences, or misleading evidences? One should not be encouraged by the assumed virtue of faith to think that remaining nuteral on issues isn't an option, that accepting things that aren't solidly grounded in authentic truth is a virtue.

Love and faith are completley different functions. Love justifies itself in the merits of it's work. Faith is a concept which can't justify itself, so.....justify it.

Actually, imo, it is 'super clear' that not only God exists, but that we are separated from God.
No Bible needed.
No special revelation needed.

The Word of God simply answers the apparent question, and bridges the gulf.

Therefore, I think you have things backwards.

Do you not think that what you see as clear may be a result of living in a westen world that has been systematically conditioned to beleieve that is a reasonable story?

I do mean systematic too. If you look at the Historical spread of Christianity through the world, you will see that it is hardly by virtue of it's apparent truth and very much a result of those who had the power to conquer and subdue people and lands bringing that faith with them.

I don't think that historical fact determines if Christianity is legit or not, however it should be observed as significant.

No. I believe it is what everybody arrives at naturally, through common intuition and basic philosophical work, and it is evidenced by the independent development of religion all over the world.

1. God exists.

2. Man is separated from God.

Myth...

Meet reality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

We can agree that the false promise of life after death helped promote the spread of Christianity.

When a religion cannot produce results in this life, they naturally resort to promises of life after death.

Intuition and creative philosophy don't show that God exists.
History and observation of religion througout the world proves that "God" is a common solution to our problem of existence, meaning etc. But the fact that it is a common conclusion doesn't mean it's factual. No more than millions of children's intuition that their father is the strongest person on the planet makes their father the strongest person on the planet, it's just what children are prone to think.

We've gotten off track. Your source isn't the only one that can be cited.
Insert "myth" followed by your article, followed by "meet reality" and any number of other books or articles to the contrary.

My point isn't to say Christianity is wong, but when your opinion is influneced by multiple one sided sources, and you deny what I said about the historical spread of Christianity, it's just evidence that your theological assumptions are probably one sided regurgitations which are of no interest to me.

You can hold your views, but to think they are "reality" makes a mockery of the word "reality".

I deny what you said because it is not historically accurate.

Because you wish something to be so, does not make it so.

I disagree with you, however I am not interested in discussing that, I am interested in the theological implications of rejecting the story of the fall of man in the Garden, and all other later mentions of it which would have been influneced by it.

Without the fall, why should I not reject the notion of a necessary sacrifice for my sins which Christ is the solution to?

My views on reality?

Reality itself is absurd and immensely mysterious.

How can I mock such a thing by proposing the most natural solutions?

I can assert that it is you who mocks reality, creating this caricature of reality where all is understood, all is explained, and everything makes coherent sense, when in fact, the exact opposite is true.

I believe that many of you have been anesthetized to this general revelation of our true condition and environment.

I won't list the reasons, but some should be obvious, and it would do a lot of you good to think of what they could be.

Also note that while the story of the Garden does give us some insight into the nature of humans, and why we COULD be seperated from a POSSIBLE God, I think the story fails to show that we would then somehow be responsible for that nature.

God, creates a being that has not only the capacity to be decieved and the lack of reasoning skills to know when he is being decieved, he places him unspervised in the garden with a deciever.

That sounds to me like a father setting his child down by a busy street and placing the blame on the kid for wandering out and getting hit.

to assume there is a God and that we are seperated from him, and to think that is more natural than any other thoughts on the subject is to make a mockery of the word "natural".

Besides For a child, the most "natural" thing to do is crap on itself when he needs to go, does this mean Crapping on ones self is the highest order possible as it pertains to going to the bathroom? No.

Conversations can only really be had when both people assume the most obvious meanings for commonly used words. You've demonstrated that isn't something you are interested in.

It isn't that one is demanded to think that christ is necessarily false, it is that if one takes this story to be metaphorical then there is almost no ability to ascertain what parts of it might or might not be a problem. Is original sin a metaphor or something legitimate that christ died to forgive? Who can say.

You base conclusions on all the available evidence, not just on what others happen to present. It could be that the most relevant evidence needs to be found yourself.

Faith is a virtue on the basis of necessity alone. As for beliefs that are solidly grounded in authentic truth, all of one's beliefs are grounded in arbitrary (from the point of view of reason) premises, including the solid truths you accidentally (from the point of view of reason, once you include the arbitrariness of premises) happen to believe in.

Faith is also justified through works. Plus, it is favored by God. Justifications enough.

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

and later

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Can't have one without the other ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬

Because you aren't stupid and I don't think my energy would be wasted, consider this the next time you say "God says" as a justification.

If the Bible is true, and everything in there Is said by God, those things aren't true because God said them. They are true because there is justification for him saying them.

If you are asked by a child, "why shouldn't two men have sex" the answer is not "because the Bible says" or "because God says". The actual answer is that which justifies God saying it. If in response to questions, you simply say "God says" and that is justification enough, you are no more human than a computer that endlessly responds to the way it was programed. Even if the program tells itself to do something illogical. IE: "2+2 = 4, computer, compute until 2 + 2 = 5". A computer would compute forever because it was told to, a human would realize that the rule 2+2=4 doesn't allow for it to ever equal 5, so they go eat pizza instead.

My point is that if something is justifiable, it is logically explainable. It is the logic behind it which organizes it in such a way that the truthfulness of a statement is made obvious.

You saying "God says" means you're an echo, not a voice.

Yup. Those are the exact verses that I can't reconcile.

Could you be explicit about the point you're trying to make?

This lecture which you have been gracious enough to deliver has no apparent logical connection to the post it quotes. Also, I can't find much structure to it. The bolded seems to be the punch line, but it is neither obvious nor established by the rest of what you said.

CS Lewis, author of "Mere Christianity" and "Chronicles of Narnia"
did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

If it is favored by God, you should be able to explain why. My point is you offered nothing in your response aside from paraphrasing from the source in question.

If I have a blender box and it says "Best blender in the universe" I'm justified in asking for more proof it is than "the makers of the product found the concept of it being the best blender in the universe favorable".

If my lesson was not necessary it was because your Quoted sentence represented the fact that you didnt know the material I covered.

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
and later

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Can't have one without the other ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬


Paul uses these verses to link Adam in the Garden to Christ. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to see what he is implying.

Christ = propitiation for Fallout from Garden.
No Garden = Propitiation Now questionble as necessary.

If the garden story were a metaphor, then what was it a metaphor for?

If to teach the concept that man has fallen, then .....what has changed?

Still, if all men were condemned from the action of one man, is Paul saying all men will be saved (by this new Adam)?

I think its a good catch on your part, not to question Jesus (in light of everything else), but to question the author of Romans.

(didn't read thread fwiw, just last 2 posts)
edit again-hmm, I see what has changed, now I have to find a metaphor reciprocal (does this word work?) for this one man taking everyone down also, meh, I think the account is real fwiw, and the author of Romans was pretty bad

Okay, I think I get your meaning better. Except you still haven't made the bolded claim into a conclusion that follows from a logical argument. The motives of God, whom I accept as the highest moral authority, are anything but self-evident. Simply stating that I should be able to explain them doesn't work.

The purpose, or one of the main ones, of the garden story is to explain the essentials of how Adam brought corruption on himself and his earthly legacy. Not to record all the details.

Something like that. Paul is saying all were made corruptible by one man (the first Adam), and now all have access to incorruption again by one man (the second Adam, Jesus).

I deduct this from the belief that you aren't a total thoughtless clown, that you don't by practice simply believe everything in the Bible because "God says". If you -- as fond of logic that flows systematically as you seem to be -- believe that faith is a virtue, or anything else the Bible says, it is not simply "Because the Bible says".

If I am correct, you can do better to answer the question I posed about faith than saying "God favors it". The why he favors it is important. I want to know the reason faith is a virtue, in your opinion.