Are you an objective thinker, sir, do you know what objectivity is?
Yes, I am a Christian Scientist, but you knew that didn't you? What
type of scientist are you?
Hurling insults only reveals your unwillingness to think things
through objectively, and belies your own frustration at not being
able to comprehend an alternate, and yes, perhaps radical, concept.
Of course they all thought Copernicus was nuts even when he
demonstrated that the earth was not at the centre of the universe.
Now, who do you think is laughing.
Don't be so swift to discount a novel idea or different
interpretation of things, you might miss the boat. Truth is rarely
easily discerned, that's one of the reasons we have science. Jesus
was greatly misunderstood, he still is, but we all would be pretty
lost without him. That's the way it is for all trailblazers and
pathfinders, they are mostly misunderstood and castigated for their
radical views but later are revered and exalted. Why? Because they
challenge the status quo, they demand the need to go deeper and
forego preconceived ideas in order to understand their meaning and
reap the benefits of a better and perhaps truer understanding of
reality. If you read the Bible literally, you will get one meaning,
but there are intelligent ways to read it which may reveal a whole
new universe of ideas, if you have an open mind. If you have a closed
mind, it only gets closed tighter in the end. That's the way
intelligence works. You have to think things through, or you don't
get !
it.
Sorry, I don't make the rules, that's just the way it is.
Try to keep up.
The King James version of the Bible in 1 Cor 15:45-47; Paul states in
verse 46 "Howbeit that (Adam, from verse 45) was not first (ie Gen 1)
which is spiritual (God's true man, or Christ), but that which is
natural (Adam, made from the dust, after the first creation); and
afterward that which is spiritual (Christ Jesus, or the Word (Christ)
made flesh (Jesus). Remember that Jesus declared, 'before Abraham
was, I am'. Since Jesus (the man) wasn't around back then, he must
have been referring to something else. His immortal spiritual nature
perhaps, the one he refers to when he said "Lo, I am with you alway".
In my religion, this eternal immortal spiritual idea is revealed to
be the 'Christ', or God's true spiritual idea, or creation, the true
spiritual nature of Jesus, and of all creation, everyone, for we are
all 'heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ' (Rom 8:14-17, pretty
important stuff)
There's no dyslexia here, quite the opposite, should you find
yourself 'led by the Spirit of God' .
As for the juxtaposition, I quite clearly stated that scholarly
research has revealed that Gen 2 was written some 500 years after Gen
1. So they are 2 different accounts, obviously, and they are placed
together for a reason. I simply suggest an explanation for that.
There are all kinds of conflicting scriptures throughout the Bible.
Remember how Jesus declares that the Old testament said "an eye for
an eye" and then he refuted that by saying, "love your enemies".
Many ideas in the Scriptures, particularly from the OT, are
constantly challenged by Jesus, and his followers. That's why it's
called the New Testament. The New Testament sheds light on the Old,
and 'makes all things new'. Christ is the light, 'he that followeth
me (Christ, seeing how Jesus is not around any more) shall not walk
in darkness, but shall have the light of life.' 'As in Adam all die,
even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'
Gen,1- Christ, Gen 2 _Adam
Christ -first- spiritual; Adam -second- natural or material.
Christ- immortal, eternal, Adam- mortal, temporal
Christ is eternal and immortal, Adam is temporal and mortal. God
raised Christ Jesus up from mortality, and his entire mission was to
reveal the immortality and unimpaired eternal state of being, not
just his own, but everyones', as he demonstrated by restoring
physical, mental, and moral health to the multitudes. He rose people
up from the dead. And he taught his disciples how to do the same
works as him. Furthermore, he challenged all his followers to do the
same works as he did, and greater works.This is no joke, sir. No
laughing matter at all.
Christian Science has been restoring that lost healing element to
Christianity for over 125 years now. There have been tens of
thousands of truly remarkable and fully verified healings that have
been effected through devout prayer by consecrated Christian
Scientists. And yes, sir, there have been several instances of people
being brought back to life after death had found them, through this
same scientific approach to prayer. So don't be so quick to discount
something you unfortuntely have very little understanding of. The
legacy of naysayers and doubters is a long one, just ask Copernicus.
If you really consider yourself a scientific and objective thinker,
you have to go a littler deeper to get to what's real.
By the way, you should really look up the meaning of the word 'cult'
in a good dictionary. And while you are at it you might check on the
definition of 'tolerance' as well.
Also, unless you are prepared to have a civil, intelligent, and
mature discussion of this topic, please refreain from replying. There
are all kinds of sites designed for rants and myopic criticism. This
isn't one of them.
Stuart Kirkley
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:06:52
MikeSatterlee wrote:
>Stucandu wrote: In 1 Cor 15:45-47 we find an explanation for the 2 different
>accounts
>of creation in Genesis.
>
>We do?
>
>Stu wrote: Of prime importance is Paul's statement in verse 46, that the
>first man (first account) is spiritual, and then 'that which is natural'.
>
>Verse 46 in my Bible says that the natural man came first and then the
>spiritual. What Bible are you reading?
>
>Stu wrote: [Paul] quite clearly states that Adam was not first, but that the
>spiritual creation is first.
>
>Stu, you wouldn't by any chance be dyslexic, would you?
>
>Stu wrote: They [the two creation accounts supposedly here referred to by
>Paul] are juxtaposed to reveal the distinction between the 'earthy' man and
>the 'heavenly' man.
>
>Who says they are "juxtaposed"?
>
>Stu wrote: the spiritual creation in Gen 1 is the true creation and the
>material account (Gen 2) is the false account.
>
>A "false account" in scripture? Hmmmmmmm. Stu, you wouldn't by any chance be
>a Christian Scientist or a member of some other Bible mangling cult, would
>you?
>
>Stu wrote: You can choose either account to believe as being true, but only
>one really is true.
>
>Sorry, Stu, I choose to believe that all of God's word is true. In spite of
>whatever Mary Baker Eddy or Rev. Moon or whoever else you may be listening to
>has told you.
>
>Mike
>
See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 25 2002 - 18:37:03 EDT