Amos

. . . and is why sexual taboos are found in every mythology. Furthermore, if the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only sexual taboos are very suitable areas to provoke sin and so lead more people towards salvation. Would you agree with this, Diana, or am I wrong someplace?

Amos

On second thought, we should all be gratefull for the Tree of Knowledge and also the OT writers because without either one of them there would be no sex. Firstly, the TOK is what makes you woman and me human with man being the neuter form to which we (no personal intent here) return after the moment of extacy. Second, the OT writers knew that absense makes the heart grow fonder and would it not be a sad day when male and female would sleep together as if they were a lamb and lion without any feelings to prompt further action.

Mad Kally

I missed you!

Nurse Kally

Amos

Hi Kally, are you still the resident nurse? I have had a good summer and just could not resist peeking in.

diana

Hi Amos! Welcome home.

Are you saying that sexual taboos are there for the express purpose of provoking people to have sex, and therefore...let me see...ok...you lost me on the bit where the sin itself leads people toward salvation. I was under the impression that sin led people away from salvation.

I don't know if taboos are in place so people will break them, but I do know they have that effect.

d

excreationist

diana:
Sin creates a need for salvation... I mean what's the point of salvation if there isn't any problem that needs fixing?

GeoTheo

I think this site should be <a href="http://www.antifundamentalists.org" target="_blank">www.antifundamentalists.org</a> (not a real link).
Only the interpretation of the narrowist forms of Christian fundamentalism are considered in all matters of Biblical interpretation.
Is that because they are the easiest to ridicule?
Or does any one really want to know what Christians in general draw from these passages?
I think it is interesting that there are only two groups of people who think Christianity cannot function from anything other a completely literal interpretation of the first 4 chapters of Genesis:
Atheists and Fundamentalists.

daemon

This is primarily because we look at Genesis (and the vast majority of the Bible) as mythological stories rather than obfuscated truths or parables. Given this, I'm not particularly interested in how Christians interpret this passage, as most modern Christians' exegetical techniques are concerned with making them meaningful.

ansarthemystic

I am very interested in knowing what all christians think!

Why don't you give us your personal opinion though?

peace and blessings

diana

While they are more blatantly ridiculous, I wouldn't say we mock them because they're easier to ridicule.

I'm actually quite fascinated with the reasoning of the non-literalist who admits certain bits are obvious myth but still thinks other bits contain truth, and that he knows which bits are true and which aren't.

To me, this is far more ridiculous than straight fundamentalism. For all I mock fundies, I will say this for them: they don't put themselves in the position of having to explain why one part is divine and another isn't, and how they "know" how to interpret this one "figurative" passage while that one "obviously" means exactly what it says. They are, for all their shortcomings, fairly consistent.

Or does any one really want to know what Christians in general draw from these passages?

I'm quite interested, actually. I'm also intrigued by how you know one part is true and another false (or, if you prefer, "literal" and "figurative").

While it doesn't make sense to me that God would give us a rule book that is so obviously fictional if it is taken literally, it makes no more sense that he'd give us a rule book that, if the liberal interpreters are to be believed, can only be understood by those with a classical education.

It seems to me that the idea of an all-powerful loving being is inconsistent with a liberal interpretation of the bible, whose writers apparently weren't capable of simply saying what they meant.

d