Cain's wife

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Either would be nice.

What topic for you?

Originally posted by @moonbus
Thanks for the biblical quotes, Suzi.

Not to dispute your theology, but ...

If all humanity was in fact descended from only two people, whose immediate progeny mated with siblings, we wouldn't be here. As the following article shows, even with two original males instead of one, inbreeding leads to catastrophic (i.e., infertile) genetic defects after o ...[text shortened]... Confusing the two leads to nonsense, pseudo-science, and heretical religion.

Cheers,
moonbus

So, as I stated on the previous page, you are cherry picking the parts of the Bible that suit your specific belief. Why doubt the account that Suzianne provided? Because incest is not in line with YOUR belief?

You, like other people here, say that the Bible is true and should be taken literally, ONLY when you agree with it. But the parts you disagree with are only stories and metaphors. It's called 'cherry picking belief'.

Originally posted by @chaney3
So, as I stated on the previous page, you are cherry picking the parts of the Bible that suit your specific belief. Why doubt the account that Suzianne provided? Because incest is not in line with YOUR belief?

You, like other people here, say that the Bible is true and should be taken literally, ONLY when you agree with it. But the parts you disagree with are only stories and metaphors. It's called 'cherry picking belief'.

Incest? Who were the children of Adam and Eve supposed to marry?

Originally posted by @chaney3
So, as I stated on the previous page, you are cherry picking the parts of the Bible that suit your specific belief. Why doubt the account that Suzianne provided? Because incest is not in line with YOUR belief?

You, like other people here, say that the Bible is true and should be taken literally, ONLY when you agree with it. But the parts you disagree with are only stories and metaphors. It's called 'cherry picking belief'.

While the Bible contains truths, it should not be taken literally.

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is steeped in metaphor, is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best.

Originally posted by @eladar
Incest? Who were the children of Adam and Eve supposed to marry?

Ask moonbus and Suzianne.

Neither of them believe in the Adam and Eve 'story' as told in Genesis. But neither have provided an alternative explanation.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
While the Bible contains truths, it should not be taken literally.

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. As such, there is no alternative to picking and choosing what parts to believe. Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best.

This is exactly what pastors and priests do. They decide what parts they personally believe, form a sermon, and expect their congregation to believe in the same thing. This belief system varies from church to church.

That's why I take the 'lecture' given to me by moonbus as meaningless and not well thought out.....because he cherry picks his belief and Bible just like the pastors and priests.

Originally posted by @chaney3
This is exactly what pastors and priests do. They decide what parts they personally believe, form a sermon, and expect their congregation to believe in the same thing. This belief system varies from church to church.

That's why I take the 'lecture' given to me by moonbus as meaningless and not well thought out.....because he cherry picks his belief and Bible just like the pastors and priests.

A Moonbus lecture sir is never meaningless. You'd be well advised to give it careful consideration.

Originally posted by @chaney3
This is exactly what pastors and priests do. They decide what parts they personally believe, form a sermon, and expect their congregation to believe in the same thing. This belief system varies from church to church.

That's why I take the 'lecture' given to me by moonbus as meaningless and not well thought out.....because he cherry picks his belief and Bible just like the pastors and priests.

By and large, they all believe that they have received the Holy Spirit. yet the Holy Spirit seems to be telling them radically different things. It's interesting to say the least. You'd think they'd put two and two together.

The following from Moonbus' post literally raised my eyebrows - especially the part in bold:

If you are serious about becoming a Christian, you should get yourself to a mainstream church and let yourself be instructed. Preferably by a bishop who can trace his line, through the laying on of hands, back to one of the Apostles; that's how the glad tidings are passed on in true Christianity. DIY Christianity doesn't work.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
A Moonbus lecture sir is never meaningless. You'd be well advised to give it careful consideration.

You Ghost, have read and studied the Bible....and reject it, and reject God.

Do you think that going to a bishop to have him lay his hands on you will change that? Will a bishop convince you that God is real? And that 'parts' of the Bible are real?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The following from Moonbus' post literally raised my eyebrows - especially the part in bold:
[quote]If you are serious about becoming a Christian, you should get yourself to a mainstream church and let yourself be instructed. [b]Preferably by a bishop who can trace his line, through the laying on of hands, back to one of the Apostles; that's how the gla ...[text shortened]... y Spirit seems to be telling them radically different things. It's interesting to say the least.

Agreed.

Originally posted by @chaney3
You Ghost, have read and studied the Bible....and reject it, and reject God.

Do you think that going to a bishop to have him lay his hands on you will change that? Will a bishop convince you that God is real? And that 'parts' of the Bible are real?

I referred to the main bulk of his 'lecture':

'Having read a number of your posts spanning a number of threads, it is my considered and genuinely well-meant opinion that you should stop reading the Bible; it is doing you more harm than good. Not the Bible is doing you harm, but your reading of it. Your take on things you read there is bizarre, doctrinally untenable, and the issues you find troubling about the Bible indicate a thorough-going misreading of what is going on there.'

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I referred to the main bulk of his 'lecture':

'Having read a number of your posts spanning a number of threads, it is my considered and genuinely well-meant opinion that you should stop reading the Bible; it is doing you more harm than good. Not the Bible is doing you harm, but your reading of it. Your take on things you read there is bizarre, do ...[text shortened]... find troubling about the Bible indicate a thorough-going misreading of what is going on there.'

This is nonsense. The stories should be studied and questioned.

For example, Rajk999 thinks that it's possible for you to reach the Kingdom of God, where others say that an atheist can do NO such thing.

Everyone gets their opinion here. Including me!!

Originally posted by @chaney3
You Ghost, have read and studied the Bible....and reject it, and reject God.

Do you think that going to a bishop to have him lay his hands on you will change that? Will a bishop convince you that God is real? And that 'parts' of the Bible are real?

You don't seem to understand what moonbus was saying about the "laying on of hands".

What he seemed to have in mind is the concept of Apostolic Succession.

Here's a description of that concept:

The belief that bishops are the successors to the apostles and that episcopal authority is derived from the apostles by an unbroken succession in the ministry. This authority is specifically derived through the laying on of hands for the ordination of bishops in lineal sequence from the apostles, through their performing the ministry of the apostles, and through their succession in episcopal sees traced back to the apostles.

https://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/apostolic-succession

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You don't seem to understand what moonbus was saying about the "laying on of hands".

What he seemed to have in mind is the concept of Apostolic Succession.

Here's a description of that concept:

The belief that bishops are the successors to the apostles and that episcopal authority is derived from the apostles by an unbroken succession in th ...[text shortened]... the apostles.

https://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/apostolic-succession

Okay, thanks for the information. Although I find it completely absurd, lol. These bishops are acting like pharaohs.

Either way, my point was that a bishop is likely not going to change the mind of Ghost.

Originally posted by @chaney3
Okay, thanks for the information. Although I find it completely absurd, lol. These bishops are acting like pharaohs.

Either way, my point was that a bishop is likely not going to change the mind of Ghost.

What I can't understand is that if you believe that so much of the Bible is absurd, why don't you simply embrace the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth and pitch the rest? I don't recall you having taken issue with what He taught.