so they have kids......so they had sex with each other to make more ?? and also for noah after the flood....did his kids do incest?
"God" is the first manifestation of a formless God. To Christians, you would see him as the creator. Adam, is the human spirit created by God. There's only one, but it has many faces. Eve, is the first manifestation of Adam. Created "of" Adam, it's the physical reality of this world and many others. "God" created Adam. "Adam" created Eve out of himself. "Eve" is the love of Adam's life. He cannot bare to leave her. So he stays here in this world, in love with what he has created. He fell from the heavens when Eve became more attractive than God. He couldn't keep his attention on both, so he had to make a decision. The apple was symbolic of the desire to let go of God and embrace Eve. A spiritual journey begins when your little piece of Adam gets tired of Eve, and desires a return to heaven. Point of origin. x
LOL ... well swap the names around then! makes no real difference. I like the interpretation of the story though xexon
If they really existed, then it is an important question. If they are metaphorical stories that explain humanity's relationship with God and eachother, then it does not matter.
don't tell it to me, tell it to the ones being sexist. double pfft! oh and regarding the story, the main point, I believe, is this: He couldn't keep his attention on both. And yet Jesus tells us to BE IN THIS WORLD BUT NOT OF IT. So the key isn't to reject the material world in favor of the spiritual, but to embrace and dwell in both.
I'm not acctually from Ukraine. My Dido emmigrated to Canada from "Czechoslovakia" in the mid-1920's and my Baba's Dido came back when Oleskow was still getting things off the ground. My mom's side is not Ukrainian what-so-ever. I think you comment to "dwell in both worlds" is interesting. I finished a course on contemporary (secular mainly) film and Christian values last semester in University. The first could lectures was about how Christ and culture interact (Christ accepting culture; rejecting culture; in paradox). There were five in all, but I can't remember them all. Point being is that there are many ways in which Christians react to the "outside". Richard Niebuhr wrote the book. Edit: http://regenerationayk.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/christ-and-culture-by-richard-niebuhr-book-summary/ Found a good summary if anyone is interested.
i think you wrong because god speaks of poor ppl telling them that a rich man wont get in to heaven but a poor person would and be king in heaven meaning that a ture person lives for family and god but not of earthly things. "be in this world but not of it" <--- you dnt understand but what he mean is porn, masterbatetion, sex, money, cars, drugs, music ,so forth...he wants us Spiritually! and NO NEED in things of the FRESH as i stated above.
Well i'm sure it was intended to come accross as sexist ... by that reckoning swap the names and it's still sexist right? Er Oh! You were kidding right? I guess i'll point out that none of us would be in the world at all without sex. And music?! What's wrong with music? To me, being in the world but not of it is just about a balance of physical and spiritual ... getting the subject/object relationship right. To be able to enjoy the FRESH but not need it ... to not define yourself by it, to not depend on it to be happy ... to realise it is just a skin, a veil, and a precious one for the short time that we have it.
well sex as in save it for marriage , which i find it hard and music as in satanic bands liek venom, mayhem or even jay z.... so on
Well in long form it would be "Ukrainian Canadian" even though I am not from there, that is the heritage I identify with.
As a Christian who belongs to a group who is invested in the sacraments (physical things that are means to and signs of God's grace) I do think that this world is something to dwell in, but not be controlled by. Are we supposed to abandon all of those who are "ungodly" because they are a "part of this world" (meaning the sin part)? Or are we supposed to throw ourselves in an try to change it? Does a well man need a doctor or does a sick man? Did Jesus reveal himself to the righteous or to the sinner? I agree that we should not let ourselves be controlled by the "desires of the flesh"; however, it isn't always easy to decide what is morally acceptable and what is not. For example, is the film No Country for Old Men an acceptable movie for Christians to see? It isn't about attacking "things" (i.e. the world, the flesh, music, media, movies, etc) but to attack sin. I like liquidlight's line about a proper object relationship.
OMG! Huge error there! Lets scrub out 'was' and replace with the intended 'wasn't'. Balance has been restored to the universe ... i can sleep now No don't attack sin either ... heal it. Attacking something just sets up resistance.
