padib said:
I appreciate the complement, but that's not a very nice thing to say. In my description I was careful to mention that it was a theological perspective to the article. I gave the most neutral opinion I could possibly give. I'd appreciate you not label my post as religiously biased. In other words, (I really wish you understand what I mean) if what the bible says is true, you have to take everything into account if your going for the biblical Adam and Eve (which is what the article was doing). If you want the Quranic Adam and Eve there would be an entirely different theology to it. I went with the events as stated in the bible and worked my way from there. Given that the garden of Eden is a biblical location, I found it suitable to take that route. Let me know if you have any better way to look at it. |
Oh no no no, I didn't mean that you are a "jesus-freak" and I was glad you didn't act like that towards me. I meant I'm glad you AREN'T a "jesus-freak" and you didn't give those "your going to hell comments". Instead you had arguments that you came to logically (in our message debate), and not the ones I'd attribute to "jesus-freaks" like pascals wager and science is a conspiracy etc.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
About this thread, I'm not too sure what you mean. Did you assume the bible was literally true for the sake of the article? Or is it what you personally believe? Or something else?








