sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
pizzahut451 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Well, no. That was just my way of saying that I never bought into the Bible, or even the idea of a personal God, full stop.
I mean fair enough you can say "Oh it's allegorical, you aren't supposed to take it literally, you are supposed to see it as symbolic" and I can see where a non-literalist will see the flaw in my reasoning with the examples I've given. But some things that I find unbelievable have to be accepted under the definition of a practising Christian, such as a personal God being the sole creator of the Universe, or Jesus being the son of this personal God.
Literalists and non-literalists alike have to accept these as a pillars of Christianity, they are Universal, and these too are things that I find unbelievable.
|
may i ask why?
|
If you mean the first half of my last paragraph, it's because that's the way a theism works. People can be literalists or non-literalists on the same theism, but they still have the same core beliefs.
If you mean the latter half of my last paragraph, it's always struck me that the idea of a personal God is fairly absurd in my opinion. There's so many that I think none of them can be correct. I guess by that I fit the definition of "most people are atheists to all Gods but one, but some of us just go one God further".
That and I see the idea of a God at all being full of endless paradoxes.
|
But all people believe in the same God. (im talking about 3 major non-pagan religions) They just have diffrent cultures and diffrent book and worhsip him in the other way. Muslims call him ''Allah'', Christians simply call him God, I dont know how Jews call it lol. But its basiclly the same God. They just have diffrent stories
|
The Jews call him Yahweh. I knew mandatory religious classes at school would come in handy one day, LOL.
|
i knew it was something like that, i just didnt want to type it becase i was affraid i was gonna spell it wromg
