How does God bring good out of evil: When a 5 year old girl is raped and murdered?

[StAugustine]

??? The anthropomorphic understanding is the literal interpretation because it squared with the rest of scripture in conveying the fullest sense.

Apparently you’re confused, let me enlighten you-

“It’s raining cats and dogs.”

Literal meaning- It is raining very hard.

Literalistic meaning- Cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

 

[Rabbi]

Why are there sex slaves? Why do people die? Why do you stub your toe at night? Why do people steal my mail?

We could ask all sorts of questions like these, the important part is to understand that G-d made evil to test our loyalty (Isaiah 45:7), and that no matter what, life is a free gift, and that we should strive to make it better every minute of every day regardless of our troubles. We get the chance to help someone, we should take that chance.

In so many ways, that is more important than faith itself.

 

[Rabbi]

The reason we Jews and Catholics have an oral tradition is for that very reason! Look at the Protestant movement, each member if his or her own church! It’d be like playing ball without an umpire to call the strikes. Oral tradition keeps us in check while also offering some felixibilty.

 

[AlNg]

That’s correct.
What is bothering you about it?

Why are some stories in Genesis “almost laughable”, but others must be taken very, very seriously?

 

[AlNg]

Oral tradition keeps us in check while also offering some felixibilty.

What is the tradition of Judaism on original sin? Do you believe that all humans have it from birth and if so, can it be washed away somehow?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I was talking about the logic you used but you managed to not see that.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s sad really, but it does tend to keep them out of trouble, so it’s best just to tolerate them, and keep the pedophiles in the churches where they belong

What does this have to do with what’s being discussed?

 

[goout]

goout:

That’s correct.
What is bothering you about it?

Why are some stories in Genesis “almost laughable”, but others must be taken very, very seriously?

Why would you think that some parts of scripture are laughable? Someone referred to an example of yours as laughable. Perhaps you are confusing some things.

 

[Rabbi]

There is no original sin in Judaism. Man is judged by his actions alone in a given lifetime. In Judaism, no one needs “washed” of any sins committed before birth.

 

[AlNg]

Why would you think that some parts of scripture are laughable?

I don’t. This refers to a comment by someone else.

Those examples about movement are almost laughable

The examples referred to were:
Genesis 3: 8.
Genesis 5: 22, 24.
Genesis 6: 9.

 

[goout]

goout:

Why would you think that some parts of scripture are laughable?

I don’t. This refers to a comment by someone else.

Those examples about movement are almost laughable

The examples referred to were:
Genesis 3: 8.
Genesis 5: 22, 24.
Genesis 6: 9.

He was referring to your use of them. You cherry picked his quote and left this out:

Those examples about movement are almost laughable, but I can’t tell if you are serious or not.

Context is everything.
Why did you leave the second part out and misrepresent his comment?

 

[pacloc]

Do Jews believe that they are born without any adverse effect from the sin of Adam and Eve? If not, then it makes sense that you could call this “sin” in the sense of being less than what we would have been and will be once we are in communion with God again. How do Jews understand the Holy King David when he says that “I was conceived in iniquity and in sin did my mother bear me”?

I agree that we do not really need to be washed clean of this sin, but rather of personal sins, but as a Christian, I believe the water of Baptism has greater meaning than only the forgiveness of sin, but a Re-Creation or Re-Birth and going into the water 3 times symbolizes us joining Christ who went into the Earth for 3 days so that we can also rise with him in the future.

 

[AlNg]

Why did you leave the second part out and misrepresent his comment?

It was your question about almost laughable that I was responding to. I don’t think that the following examples are almost laughable.
Genesis 3: 8.
Genesis 5: 22, 24.
Genesis 6: 9.

 

[goout]

goout:

Why did you leave the second part out and misrepresent his comment?

It was your question about almost laughable that I was responding to. I don’t think that the following examples are almost laughable.
Genesis 3: 8.
Genesis 5: 22, 24.
Genesis 6: 9.

Ok, great. I appreciate the truth in those passages also.

Didn’t realize we were on the same page.

 

[AlNg]

Didn’t realize we were on the same page.

I am not sure we are on the same page on those passages. It is just that I do not think that those examples are almost laughable. That was someone else who used that expression and I was referring to his use of the expression. in view of the fact that there are those who have implied here that Genesis is to be taken literally, I do find those passages difficult to understand, as I have already tried to indicate. It seems like there might be a problem of consistency when in Genesis certain passages are taken in a literal sense, but other passages are not.

1. Story of original sin - this is taken literally. Is that correct?
2. Story of God walking on earth - this is not taken literally. Is that correct?

 

[AlNg]

I agree that we do not really need to be washed clean of this sin

How would you interpret: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[goout]

goout:

Didn’t realize we were on the same page.

I am not sure we are on the same page on those passages. It is just that I do not think that those examples are almost laughable. That was someone else who used that expression and I was referring to his use of the expression. in view of the fact that there are those who have implied here that Genesis is to be taken literally, I do find those passages difficult to understand, as I have already tried to indicate. It seems like there might be a problem of consistency when in Genesis certain passages are taken in a literal sense, but other passages are not.

1. Story of original sin - this is taken literally. Is that correct?

Sure, we hold the doctrine of original sin. Whether there was really and materially a fruit tree is secondary to the Truth of original sin.

1. Story of God walking on earth - this is not taken literally. Is that correct?

Correct, we don’t believe God walked the earth in Genesis in size eleven feet or whatever.

The Catholic Church does not read the bible like fundamentalist literalists.

My grandmother was a really good person. She showed it by baking for everyone. She used to make cherry cheesecake with extra cool whip for us. Except my brother says it wasn’t cool whip it was whipped yogurt.

Does it matter that I just wrote cool whip? NO, that’s not the inspired truth that is conveyed.

 

[AlNg]

Whether there was really and materially a fruit tree is secondary to the Truth of original sin.

However, there really was a sin of Adam and Eve which was passed on as original sin, is that correct? The fact that they committed a sin of disobedience, is that not to be taken literally and not in a figurative sense?

 

[goout]

goout:

Whether there was really and materially a fruit tree is secondary to the Truth of original sin.

However, there really was a sin of Adam and Eve which was passed on as original sin, is that correct? The fact that they committed a sin of disobedience, is that not to be taken literally and not in a figurative sense?

Yes.
We are united as human beings. The good of one is the good of all and vice versa. We share in their disobedience and the consequences that flow from it.

 

[pacloc]

As Baptism into Christ. We are reborn and recreated as members of Christ. We were descendants of Adam and were under death’s dominion, but we are offered to become descendants of Christ who conquered death by His Holy Death in the flesh, since death and Satan had no hold on Him.

In the quote you have from me, it is taken out of context. I was expressing the idea that we need our sins washed clean, and that just being born with the passions that were passed onto us that make it difficult to live a Holy life, don’t necessarily fall into the same idea of being washed clean. We need rebirth for that. The scripture you quoted actually goes very well with what I was saying.