Posted on 11/24/2009 1:46:39 PM PST by Steelfish
I need you to rephrase that, as I have no idea why you’re thinking I’m a materialist.
To elaborate...
If Genesis is history, Adam was a real person.
If Genesis is allegory, he’s a fictional character who has no business being referred to as the ancestor of a real person.
If Genesis is allegorical, as Buck says, what is he doing in a real person’s genealogy?
You don’t have to answer that, but that’s what he and I were discussing. I believe Genesis is history.
Meanwhile; back on topic:
Is Mormonism Christian?
- - - - - - -
The answer is still NO.
And the whole book at that.
For if one presumes that the creation account and the Flood are allegory, and therefore not true, actual factual events, then the same interpretation must be made of the entire book.
That means that Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Joseph are allegorical, as well, along with Egypt and Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain that archaeologists have found evidence for.
Ooops....
...all I am saying spirits always exist they never stop being!
________________________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Wonder where those there evil demonic spirsts that possessed Joey Smith went when he got his silly self killed in that jail break/shoot out in which he murdered 2 men....
When you stand before God on that judgement day - what will you say to justify your entrance into heaven?
- - - - - - — - -
He will probably say something like “Well, I didn’t believe the Bible and told others not to either. And I spent a lot of time insulting people.”
Is Mormonism Christian?
____________________________________
Nope..not in 200 years...
Meanwhile Christianity has been around for 2,000 years ..
on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
and nothing Joey Smith did or said ever prevailed against the church either...
thanks!:)
No, your assertion is that man can become a god. Spirits were not part of your comment.
Context in the scriptures is very important resty. If you cherry pick individual verses without taking context into account, you are in danger of being mislead.
SZ
For real? That is extremely petty! But then again, we’re dealing with petty folks, so it shouldn’t be surprising.
I might not let my wife know so when she goes to purchase items for any of her lessons I can snitch on her and that should solve my dilemma of how to get her out of the lds religion. (that’s sarcasm folks)
SZ
Dude, look at you knocking that strawman over like you're Bruce Lee! Hai-ya!
You can pretend all you want that believing Genesis is not an allegory is the same as believing there's no allegory or other non-literal contant in the Bible, but that will not make it true, nor will it make that the belief held by any creationist on FR or anywhere else.
Do you know why Buck keeps harping on the pi=3 horse hockey even after it's been thoroughly debunked, folks? Because it's all he's got. He can't really ask us about allegories and parables, or he will get a chorus of "Of course I don't believe there was really a Good Samaritan, it's a parable, not a history" and then his strawman would not be available. So he keeps returning (like a dog returns to its vomit) to the ludicrous idea that the human forearm is a precision measuring tool, so he can show us all up as fools when we don't hold it in high regard as a precision instrument.
Hey, Bruce Lee, where's the answer to the question I asked in post 1,024? Let's hear it.
Well, someone could believe there’s a point where the allegory stops and the history starts, but once you get into “This is phrased as history, but I don’t think it really is,” you get of in the weeds very quickly.
No sweat!
...all I am saying spirits always exist they never stop being!
And that definition alone is what I am referring too!
- - - - - - -
Sorry resty, but that simply isn’t true. In post #978 you said to me:
How condesending and haughty of you oh well small god!:) (resty)
You then said in the same post:
But the gods of which I speak of are children of the Most High (resty)
your post #834 to me stated:
There is only One God who is the Creator of all the rest who are small “g” many will not qualify to be joint heirs with the Savior the only begotten Son of Jesus Christ!
and to SZonian (post #721) you said:
look you are going to become some type of god when you leave this realm...
All of these statemenst show that you were referring to men becoming gods.
However, when caught, saying you meant something else, or changing the subject is standard LDS SOP.
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
- - - - - - -
So was Adam the “son” of God? Or God himself as Brigham Young taught?
And can Prophets (who will never lead the church astray) teach false doctrine?
(like a dog returns to its vomit
_______________________________________________
Ya know some decades ago I POed my English Lit Prof by informing him that Shakespeare didnt invent that phrase but copied it from the Bible...
As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly. Proverbs 26:11
Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” 2 Peter 2:22
Yeah. Apparently the guy’s bishop saw him going into a Christian bookstore in Utah and called a “court of love” accusing him of sympathizing with “apostates” and those who oppose the church.
Which is what happens. Genesis is written as a narrative account throughout, with no indication that there would be any reason for reading part of it as allegory and then for some reason, switching over in the middle of the book to reading it as a historical account.
From what I've seen, the usual reason for switching the way in which it's read is whether or not the passage is *realistic* in light of current scientific thinking.
If science says such and such could not have happened, they the passage is considered allegorical. Evos don't seem to have a problem accepting the historical reading as long as it poses no threat to any current scientific theories. So, while there is no change in the style of writing, somehow what happens after the Flood, or more specifically, after the lifespan of man shortens down close to present levels, is that there is no longer the demand that it be read as allegory, but as history even though in the literary elements there's no indication that it should change.
Interpreting Scripture in light of current scientific opinion and consensus is a pretty unreliable method, considering how scientific opinion changes with the wind, and is foolish at least.
Well you think that man is not the son of God of the Most High as I have said over and over....
As far as Brigham Young a theory is not scripture just one ponderings!
I remind all
a prophet was only a prophet when acting as such.
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.