Do you think that Adam had nipples?

As funny as it sounds, this is an honest question. The first man in the book of Genesis was named Adam and he was miraculously created out of dust [Genesis 2:7]. If the book of Genesis is true, do you think that God would've created Adam with parts of the body that were useless to him like nipples? Today we know that men have nipples because a fetus develops them before it develops genitals, but Adam was not born from a natural birth. Eve probably did have them because she would've breastfed her children.

I think that this is one of the problems that comes with the book of Genesis' creation story alongside modern biology. What do you guys think?

This seems to me to be kind of like asking whether one thinks that there are fish in the waters above the firmament. :P

I am unsure how to even approach this question.

This seems to me to be kind of like asking whether one thinks that there are fish in the waters above the firmament. :P

I am unsure how to even approach this question.

GabuEx

If you don't believe in the stuff from Genesis, it's hypothetical. Have I just stumped GabuEx? :o

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This seems to me to be kind of like asking whether one thinks that there are fish in the waters above the firmament. :P

I am unsure how to even approach this question.

dracula_16

If you don't believe in the stuff from Genesis, it's hypothetical. Have I just stumped GabuEx? :o

Well sure it's hypothetical, but given that the entire scenario is one big hypothesis, it seems to me that there really is not much real-world knowledge that one can apply in order to answer the question.  I mean once you get into the realm of "Poof!  God did it!", logic tends to go out the window.

So yes, I suppose you have stumped me by posing a question that in my evaluation isn't really even answerable. :P

Hmm, interesting question. It's much the same as asking whether or not Adam had a belly button, which is a particular issue that has sparked a big theological debate about a decieving God and false histories etc.

Reconciling the Genesis account with modern biology is a rather hopeless endeavour I must admit. From a literalist Christian perspective it might be said that every part of the human body, even the obviously vestigial bits, have a function of some sort. God therefore did create Adam with nipples for the purpose of........ um..hold on I'm thinking..... providing a fun erogenous zone for Eve to tickle and caress during foreplay.

Why else would God design men to inherit a pair of nipples before their sex is determined? And every other mammal on the planet earth for that matter.

Meh, sometimes I wish we had a regular YEC around here to give a decent perspective on these questions. Come on all you guys, you're welcome to post here.

God therefore did create Adam with nipples for the purpose of........ um..hold on I'm thinking..... providing a fun erogenous zone for Eve to tickle and caress during foreplay.domatron23

That will be my answer too!

 :lol: :P

Meh, sometimes I wish we had a regular YEC around here to give a decent perspective on these questions. Come on all you guys, you're welcome to post here.

domatron23

Well, my there-is-a-possibility-that-the-YEC-perspective-might-be-right self assumes that Adam would indeed have had nipples.  Granted, I do not have a legitimate argument for it however.  I probably would have made the argument based upon the foreknowledge of God.  I am thinking of other arguments in favor of it but I haven't found a way to word it just yet. lol

But to expand the question farther, would the pre-incarnate Christ have had them?  He's clearly seen in human form before his own birth.  If so, then Adam himself would have since he was made in the image of God (though fallen) would he not?

[QUOTE="domatron23"]God therefore did create Adam with nipples for the purpose of........ um..hold on I'm thinking..... providing a fun erogenous zone for Eve to tickle and caress during foreplay.Teenaged

That will be my answer too!

 :lol: :P

I admit that this did actually make me lol... 

[QUOTE="domatron23"]God therefore did create Adam with nipples for the purpose of........ um..hold on I'm thinking..... providing a fun erogenous zone for Eve to tickle and caress during foreplay.Teenaged

That will be my answer too!

 :lol: :P

Well, my there-is-a-possibility-that-the-YEC-perspective-might-be-right self assumes that Adam would indeed have had nipples. Granted, I do not have a legitimate argument for it however. I probably would have made the argument based upon the foreknowledge of God. I am thinking of other arguments in favor of it but I haven't found a way to word it just yet. lol

But to expand the question farther, would the pre-incarnate Christ have had them? He's clearly seen in human form before his own birth. If so, then Adam himself would have since he was made in the image of God (though fallen) would he not?mindstorm

Well, since Adam was made in the image of God, that means that God must have nipples if Adam does. That reminds me of the LDS view of God (that he's literally an old man).

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]Well, my there-is-a-possibility-that-the-YEC-perspective-might-be-right self assumes that Adam would indeed have had nipples. Granted, I do not have a legitimate argument for it however. I probably would have made the argument based upon the foreknowledge of God. I am thinking of other arguments in favor of it but I haven't found a way to word it just yet. lol

But to expand the question farther, would the pre-incarnate Christ have had them? He's clearly seen in human form before his own birth. If so, then Adam himself would have since he was made in the image of God (though fallen) would he not?dracula_16

Well, since Adam was made in the image of God, that means that God must have nipples if Adam does. That reminds me of the LDS view of God (that he's literally an old man).

lol.

And there you have one of my biggest doctrinal issues with Mormonism: God the Father has nipples.  :shock:

Or rather, the invisible, omnipresent, Father God of universe who cannot be confined to space is confined to a physical body (of sorts).  That is, unless I completely missunderstand their (lack of) teaching regarding the Trinity.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Well, my there-is-a-possibility-that-the-YEC-perspective-might-be-right self assumes that Adam would indeed have had nipples. Granted, I do not have a legitimate argument for it however. I probably would have made the argument based upon the foreknowledge of God. I am thinking of other arguments in favor of it but I haven't found a way to word it just yet. lol

But to expand the question farther, would the pre-incarnate Christ have had them? He's clearly seen in human form before his own birth. If so, then Adam himself would have since he was made in the image of God (though fallen) would he not?mindstorm

Well, since Adam was made in the image of God, that means that God must have nipples if Adam does. That reminds me of the LDS view of God (that he's literally an old man).

lol.

And there you have one of my biggest doctrinal issues with Mormonism: God the Father has nipples.  :shock:

Or rather, the invisible, omnipresent, Father God of universe who cannot be confined to space is confined to a physical body (of sorts).  That is, unless I completely missunderstand their (lack of) teaching regarding the Trinity.

Maybe he invites people who come into heaven to give him a nipple tweak just to put them at ease and let them know that he's an OK guy. :P 

lol.

And there you have one of my biggest doctrinal issues with Mormonism: God the Father has nipples. :shock:

Or rather, the invisible, omnipresent, Father God of universe who cannot be confined to space is confined to a physical body (of sorts). That is, unless I completely missunderstand their (lack of) teaching regarding the Trinity.

mindstorm

I don't think they believe that he's invisible. If he is, he wouldn't be able to have meetings with the other gods. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 [mormon scripture] says "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwelll in us."

From this, we can discern that they believe that the Father takes up a finite amount of space and is therefore not omnipresent. They would probably say that the holy spirit is omnipresent, but they don't believe that the holy spirit is a physical creature, but rather, it is merely the power of God.

Or rather, the invisible, omnipresent, Father God of universe who cannot be confined to space is confined to a physical body (of sorts).

mindstorm

Hang on isn't that exactly what Christians claim God did with Jesus?

I'm not so good with the mystery of the trinity but having the Mormon God as an old man with nipples seems no different than having the Christian God as a young man with nipples.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Or rather, the invisible, omnipresent, Father God of universe who cannot be confined to space is confined to a physical body (of sorts).

domatron23

Hang on isn't that exactly what Christians claim God did with Jesus?

I'm not so good with the mystery of the trinity but having the Mormon God as an old man with nipples seems no different than having the Christian God as a young man with nipples.

Yes but Mormonism excludes Jesus from this picture.  It was the Word of God Jesus Christ who humbled himself to the form of a servant (John 1, Philippians 2, etc.) as you say, not God the Father as Mormons say.  According to every orthodox Christian tradition (Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) the only physical manifestation of the Father is the Son (and to an extent the Holy Spirit).

The confusion of this topic is why the conversation between Jesus and Philip took place in John 14:8-9, "Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered: 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Oh how topics change subjects so quickly. :P

Yes but Mormonism excludes Jesus from this picture.  It was the Word of God Jesus Christ who humbled himself to the form of a servant (John 1, Philippians 2, etc.) as you say, not God the Father as Mormons say.  According to every orthodox Christian tradition (Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) the only physical manifestation of the Father is the Son (and to an extent the Holy Spirit).

The confusion of this topic is why the conversation between Jesus and Philip took place in John 14:8-9, "Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered: 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Oh how topics change subjects so quickly. :P

mindstorm

Mmkay. Well the trinity is still a mystery for me lets just leave it at that.

Actually no hang on lets not leave it there quite yet. Talking about divine simplicity with WTF over at the Christian Union has had me thinking about the transitivity of identity. Isn't the trinity and diagrams such as these

a rather blatant violation of the transitivity of identity. That is, if the father, son and holy spirit really are God then how can they not also be each other? You would surely accept it as valid that if a=b and a=c then b=c right? Why is this not valid all of a sudden when applied to the trinity?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Yes but Mormonism excludes Jesus from this picture.  It was the Word of God Jesus Christ who humbled himself to the form of a servant (John 1, Philippians 2, etc.) as you say, not God the Father as Mormons say.  According to every orthodox Christian tradition (Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) the only physical manifestation of the Father is the Son (and to an extent the Holy Spirit).

The confusion of this topic is why the conversation between Jesus and Philip took place in John 14:8-9, "Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered: 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Oh how topics change subjects so quickly. :P

domatron23

Mmkay. Well the trinity is still a mystery for me lets just leave it at that.

Actually no hang on lets not leave it there quite yet. Talking about divine simplicity with WTF over at the Christian Union has had me thinking about the transitivity of identity. Isn't the trinity and diagrams such as these

a rather blatant violation of the transitivity of identity. That is, if the father, son and holy spirit really are God then how can they not also be each other? You would surely accept it as valid that if a=b and a=c then b=c right? Why is this not valid all of a sudden when applied to the trinity?

There exists only one God as seen clearly in Scripture indicates ("Here, O Israel: The Lord your God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).).  However, this God exists as three distinct persons in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  These three persons are said to be co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will; all unitedly one God. 

There are also distinctives between these persons.  Each have their own seperate role and express themselves differently.  As a practical example, when we pray we pray in the power of the Holy Spirit through the intercession of Jesus Christ to the Father.

If God is truly God then there should exist nothing like him within all of creation.  As such, there exists nothing within all of creation which has this trinitarian nature.  Some have tried to say that water has these characteristics; it can exist as a solid, liquid, and a gas while still being the same thing.  However, the analogy fails in that it cannot exists as all of these at the same time. 

One passage that immediately comes to mind that shows both the distinctives of the three and the similiaries is how John 1 explains who Jesus is.  John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  Here we see that Christ who is the Word of God is both with God and was God.  Essentially, he is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father but is still distinct from him.

The prayer of Gethsemane also gives evidence of their unitedness yet separatedness. The second person of the Trinity Jesus Christ prays to the first person of the Trinity for a united will.  Philippians 2:6 also gives evidence of this, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

Example non-trinitarian beliefs that have been viewed as "unorthodox" are Oneness Pentacostals (There is but one God with three titles, no distinctives, this would be a=b, a=c, and b=c), Arianism (Jesus as a created being), Adoptionism (Jesus was born unmiraculously as a simple human but was adopted into Sonship at his baptism), Mormonism (three completely distinct beings who are united in will as opposed to being united in substance, the nature of the Father is different, etc.), etc. etc.

Maybe he invites people who come into heaven to give him a nipple tweak just to put them at ease and let them know that he's an OK guy. :P

GabuEx

We used to call it giving someone a "purple-nurple" when i was at school - highly painful!

There exists only one God as seen clearly in Scripture indicates ("Here, O Israel: The Lord your God, the Lord is one" (Deut. 6:4).). However, this God exists as three distinct persons in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These three persons are said to be co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will; all unitedly one God.

There are also distinctives between these persons. Each have their own seperate role and express themselves differently. As a practical example, when we pray we pray in the power of the Holy Spirit through the intercession of Jesus Christ to the Father.

If God is truly God then there should exist nothing like him within all of creation. As such, there exists nothing within all of creation which has this trinitarian nature. Some have tried to say that water has these characteristics; it can exist as a solid, liquid, and a gas while still being the same thing. However, the analogy fails in that it cannot exists as all of these at the same time.

One passage that immediately comes to mind that shows both the distinctives of the three and the similiaries is how John 1 explains who Jesus is. John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here we see that Christ who is the Word of God is both with God and was God. Essentially, he is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father but is still distinct from him.

The prayer of Gethsemane also gives evidence of their unitedness yet separatedness. The second person of the Trinity Jesus Christ prays to the first person of the Trinity for a united will. Philippians 2:6 also gives evidence of this, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

Example non-trinitarian beliefs that have been viewed as "unorthodox" are Oneness Pentacostals (There is but one God with three titles, no distinctives, this would be a=b, a=c, and b=c), Arianism (Jesus as a created being), Adoptionism (Jesus was born unmiraculously as a simple human but was adopted into Sonship at his baptism), Mormonism (three completely distinct beings who are united in will as opposed to being united in substance, the nature of the Father is different, etc.), etc. etc.

mindstorm

Even if you do only restrict yourself to Christian scripture as far as your one-Godness goes, your interpretation of the trinity is just as valid and meaningful as the unitarians or other faiths you name. Effectively, you interpret that God is his own dad, not based on on Paul's teachings, but on some 4th century Tertullian changes to the doctrine instead. Corinthains 14:33 springs to mind over all these different, yet equally baffling Christian interpretations.

Who has ascribed the "unorthodox" lable to the other Christian religions you list, and what value does it place on them? I personally would have thought the "happy clappy" reletavist Christian belief is unorthodox. But so what?

Even if you do only restrict yourself to Christian scripture as far as your one-Godness goes, your interpretation of the trinity is just as valid and meaningful as the unitarians or other faiths you name. Effectively, you interpret that God is his own dad, not based on on Paul's teachings, but on some 4th century Tertullian changes to the doctrine instead. Corinthains 14:33 springs to mind over all these different, yet equally baffling Christian interpretations.

Who has ascribed the "unorthodox" lable to the other Christian religions you list, and what value does it place on them? I personally would have thought the "happy clappy" reletavist Christian belief is unorthodox. But so what?

RationalAtheist

This is indeed something I've been trying to figure out for myself so I cannot yet come to a complete answer.  I'm especially addressing the question regarding when doctrine is decided upon by a person's individual interpretation of Scripture or the church itself.  On one end you have the Roman Catholic view and on the other the view of many Protestants.  I'm actually trying to come to a middle ground being that both the church's and the individual's doctrine can become easily corrupted.

As far as the reasons why I accept Tertullian's view of the Trinity: 1. I find it to be more biblical than any other model (with the understanding that my own understanding can be corrupt).  2. The vast majority of the church has considered it orthodox (though the church itself can be corrupt). 3. Those within the Christian faith who have most immulated Christ have also held to this view (though they themselves can become corrupt, a godly life should not be ignored).  While these three reasons when said alone is not completely sufficient, when held together they hold more sway.

At the end of the day, all I can do is do as the Scriptures says most clearly: Love God, repent before him, and love others. However, Paul in his letter to pastor-in-training Timothy states, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16).  Scripture also tells of false doctrines that can turn one's eyes off of Christ and the ramifications of that turning away.  Believing and teaching right doctrine is important.  If it is this important, I can only assume these important doctrines are clearly seen in Scripture (which I certainly believe is the case).  I say this with the assumption that the vast majority of what the church argues over is irrelevant to the central teachings of Scripture - Christ's crucifixion and resurrection to bring reconciliation between God and man.  Much of the debating within the church is over less important matters.

This is indeed something I've been trying to figure out for myself so I cannot yet come to a complete answer. I'm especially addressing the question regarding when doctrine is decided upon by a person's individual interpretation of Scripture or the church itself. On one end you have the Roman Catholic view and on the other the view of many Protestants. I'm actually trying to come to a middle ground being that both the church's and the individual's doctrine can become easily corrupted.

As far as the reasons why I accept Tertullian's view of the Trinity: 1. I find it to be more biblical than any other model (with the understanding that my own understanding can be corrupt). 2. The vast majority of the church has considered it orthodox (though the church itself can be corrupt). 3. Those within the Christian faith who have most immulated Christ have also held to this view (though they themselves can become corrupt, a godly life should not be ignored). While these three reasons when said alone is not completely sufficient, when held together they hold more sway.

At the end of the day, all I can do is do as the Scriptures says most clearly: Love God, repent before him, and love others. However, Paul in his letter to pastor-in-training Timothy states, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16). Scripture also tells of false doctrines that can turn one's eyes off of Christ and the ramifications of that turning away. Believing and teaching right doctrine is important. If it is this important, I can only assume these important doctrines are clearly seen in Scripture (which I certainly believe is the case). I say this with the assumption that the vast majority of what the church argues over is irrelevant to the central teachings of Scripture - Christ's crucifixion and resurrection to bring reconciliation between God and man. Much of the debating within the church is over less important matters.

mindstorm

I'm not sure there are only the two ends to Christianity. I think of it as more of a pom-pom of a faith, with a central mass and all sorts of bits of string poping out from all sides (representing the many differing voices within the faith(s)).

Your three reasons: No 1 refers to something being more "biblical" than something else - a subjective, interprative and somewhat meaningless evaluation. Nos 2 and 3 seem to be the same arguments ad populem as each other.

I'm glad you seem to say the bible is unclear on many things (unlike my Corinthians verse states). Also, is there reconsilliation between a Christian God and man, or only between a Christian God and Christians?

I'm not sure there are only the two ends to Christianity. I think of it as more of a pom-pom of a faith, with a central mass and all sorts of bits of string poping out from all sides (representing the many differing voices within the faith(s)).

Your three reasons: No 1 refers to something being more "biblical" than something else - a subjective, interprative and somewhat meaningless evaluation.

RationalAtheist

I think to say that all Scriptural interpretation is subjective and that there is no findable single true meaning might be an over-correction from the idea that some things are unclear.  The original authors had an intentional meaning behind the text and despite the different historical contexts, I certainly do believe the core message still translates rather well.

To quote Søren Kierkegaard, "The Bible is very easy to understand. But we as Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined."

Nos 2 and 3 seem to be the same arguments ad populem as each other.

I'm glad you seem to say the bible is unclear on many things (unlike my Corinthians verse states). Also, is there reconsilliation between a Christian God and man, or only between a Christian God and Christians?

 

RationalAtheist

The central teachings of Scripture being that Christ's crucifixion and resurrection bring reconciliation between the one and true living God and all those who repent under Christ's everlasting Lordship.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I'm not sure there are only the two ends to Christianity. I think of it as more of a pom-pom of a faith, with a central mass and all sorts of bits of string poping out from all sides (representing the many differing voices within the faith(s)).

Your three reasons: No 1 refers to something being more "biblical" than something else - a subjective, interprative and somewhat meaningless evaluation.

mindstorm

I think to say that all Scriptural interpretation is subjective and that there is no findable single true meaning might be an over-correction from the idea that some things are unclear. The original authors had an intentional meaning behind the text and despite the different historical contexts, I certainly do believe the core message still translates rather well.

To quote Søren Kierkegaard, "The Bible is very easy to understand. But we as Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined."

That's exactly what my pom-pom analogy points out. There is a central ball of consistency. But how fluffy and furry the pom-pom is would be the difference in our subjective impressions.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Nos 2 and 3 seem to be the same arguments ad populem as each other.

I'm glad you seem to say the bible is unclear on many things (unlike my Corinthians verse states). Also, is there reconciliation between a Christian God and man, or only between a Christian God and Christians?

mindstorm

The central teachings of Scripture being that Christ's crucifixion and resurrection bring reconciliation between the one and true living God and all those who repent under Christ's everlasting Lordship.

You're only looking at a particular Christian scripture "pom-pom core" and missing all the other religious strands that (arguably) do exist within "Christianity". Far more importantly, there is no accounting of the many, many other existing huge balls of fluff that pre-date and supersede it, as religions to be believed.

If I may say, that message from the central teachings makes faith sound like a repressive cycle of guilt. The vagueness of the terms (reconciliation, living God, repent, under, everlasting, Lordship) remind me of the times I spent playing "wink-word bingo" (or was it "blank-word bingo?), during office technology meetings with suits. I've found it a particularly difficult obstacle to overcome when "brain-storming" (bingo!) with people of faith, or with management consultants.

I'd welcome someone religious who could speak in plain terms and let go of the fancy religious pomp surrounding its understanding. (Here's how its done) Perhaps that clarity would only serve to divide the faith further, and woolliness is comfortable.

You're only looking at a particular Christian scripture "pom-pom core" and missing all the other religious strands that (arguably) do exist within "Christianity". Far more importantly, there is no accounting of the many, many other existing huge balls of fluff that pre-date and supersede it, as religions to be believed.

If I may say, that message from the central teachings makes faith sound like a repressive cycle of guilt. The vagueness of the terms (reconciliation, living God, repent, under, everlasting, Lordship) remind me of the times I spent playing "wink-word bingo" (or was it "blank-word bingo?), during office technology meetings with suits. I've found it a particularly difficult obstacle to overcome when "brain-storming" (bingo!) with people of faith, or with management consultants.

I'd welcome someone religious who could speak in plain terms and let go of the fancy religious pomp surrounding its understanding. (Here's how its done) Perhaps that clarity would only serve to divide the faith further, and woolliness is comfortable.

 

RationalAtheist

Oh I'm very well aware of the topic of hermeneutics.  The hardest (and most rewarding) c|ass I have ever taken was on the topic of hermeneutics.  I was very much taught how to let go of my presumptions, understand the historical context, and understand the literary contexts.  That c|ass dramatically helped my understanding of how to approach and appreciate Scripture.

As far as the terms I used, I'm not so sure it can be taken wrongly.  As an example, in using the phrase "Living God" this points towards the fact that he is the only one not dead and false, he is very much alive and well.  There was nothing metaphorical about that. :P

And with the idea that the message is about being repressed into an endless cycle of guilt, how far from the truth!  While the Law of the Old Testament was designed to show us that we are indeed guilty, our response is to seek God's grace.  In fleeing the bondage of sin and guilt we gain the freedom of God's grace and mercy.  As we increase in faith we feel more grace, not guilt.  Any guilt that does come about by one who has experienced God's grace is placing his faith in his own ability to save himself, not God's ability to save.

Oh I'm very well aware of the topic of hermeneutics. The hardest (and most rewarding) c|ass I have ever taken was on the topic of hermeneutics. I was very much taught how to let go of my presumptions, understand the historical context, and understand the literary contexts. That c|ass dramatically helped my understanding of how to approach and appreciate Scripture.

As far as the terms I used, I'm not so sure it can be taken wrongly. As an example, in using the phrase "Living God" this points towards the fact that he is the only one not dead and false, he is very much alive and well. There was nothing metaphorical about that. :P

And with the idea that the message is about being repressed into an endless cycle of guilt, how far from the truth! While the Law of the Old Testament was designed to show us that we are indeed guilty, our response is to seek God's grace. In fleeing the bondage of sin and guilt we gain the freedom of God's grace and mercy. As we increase in faith we feel more grace, not guilt. Any guilt that does come about by one who has experienced God's grace is placing his faith in his own ability to save himself, not God's ability to save.

mindstorm

I guess you didn't get the irony there. My link to hermeneutics (the basis of Christian exegesis) shows that its a mess of often conflicting and often arbitrary criteria. There is no simple and easy entirely holistic sense of understanding the bible, since its not a complete end-to-end holistic document. That bit on Trajectory hermeneutics, (as a reference for post-modern Christianity) just goes to show that most any ideas are welcome, under the guise of "scholarly exegesis".

Those terms you used, i.e. "Living God": How is God's living comparable to any other "living" thing. Will God die? Or Age? Why even use the term living, unless to couch your sentiment in an air of intreague and mystery? See what I mean?

How far from your truth is my statement? You didn't say (Freud would chuckle.)

You say we are born into sin. I say that's where you get your source of repression from. You say your response is to seek God's grace. I say a sinner would not respond that way - they'd continue sinning. I also have no idea what you mean by "grace". It's another "bingo" word for me.

You are not fleeing from your guilt since you are (constantly) acknowledging it and thanking a benefactor from saving you from the sins you say you inherited. That does not seem like freedom to me, but more like a circle of repression and needless, unquestioning subservience.

If and when people do loose their faith, do you think their guilt levels rise?

Do people with more faith sin less?