NationStates Jolt Archive

The only problem with this idea that I can see is it implies that, having once eaten from the tree of life and been perfect and immortal, that eternal perfection can be undone with a simple sinful thought. Then it wasn't perfection, was it?


see, I don't think they were capable of a sinful thought, because they still did not know right from wrong. In order to sin you must know that what you do is wrong. (Though ignorance can be a sin if you purposely do not seek out knowledge so as to avoid being responsible)

see, I don't think they were capable of a sinful thought, because they still did not know right from wrong. In order to sin you must know that what you do is wrong. (Though ignorance can be a sin if you purposely do not seek out knowledge so as to avoid being responsible)
Agreed (I think)

Though from that arguement (ignorance as a sin) they would have been sinning by NOT eating the apple to learn right from wrong

Agreed (I think)

Though from that arguement (ignorance as a sin) they would have been sinning by NOT eating the apple to learn right from wrong


LOL

ok, let me rephrase. :)
Purposely avoiding it is bad. God telling you not to eat it and you not eating it is just doing what you are told. :)

The only problem with this idea that I can see is it implies that, having once eaten from the tree of life and been perfectly sinless and immortal, that eternal perfection can be undone with a simple sinful thought. Then it wasn't perfection, was it?

It was perfection. Only, the idea of imperfection was open to them, as God also implemented free-will within them. Free-will, while perfect in nature (as restricted will would be in essence robotic), does present the opportunity to reject God and His commandments.

God did not want robots mindlessly loving and worshipping him, nor did he want to love mindless drones in return. He wanted a creature on par to choose to love him. Adam, through both innocence and a natural drive to love, chose to love His Creator and Father. But, so he would have a fair choice, God presented to him and Eve the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The chance to disobey was allowed, although He in no means wanted them to disobey. He did it out of being fair to them. "You can love me, or you can choose not to." However, choosing to reject him would set them outside of his love and protection, as that is what sin's nature does. Outside would be death. It wasn't a "love me or die" as some would put it, it was "Love me and I can protect and cherish you. Reject me and I cannot."

Hopefully this makes sense?

It was perfection. Only, the idea of imperfection was open to them, as God also implemented free-will within them. Free-will, while perfect in nature (as restricted will would be in essence robotic), does present the opportunity to reject God and His commandments.

God did not want robots mindlessly loving and worshipping him, nor did he want to love mindless drones in return. He wanted a creature on par to choose to love him. Adam, through both innocence and a natural drive to love, chose to love His Creator and Father. But, so he would have a fair choice, God presented to him and Eve the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The chance to disobey was allowed, although He in no means wanted them to disobey. He did it out of being fair to them. "You can love me, or you can choose not to." However, choosing to reject him would set them outside of his love and protection, as that is what sin's nature does. Outside would be death. It wasn't a "love me or die" as some would put it, it was "Love me and I can protect and cherish you. Reject me and I cannot."

Hopefully this makes sense?

And yet with no knoledge of good and evil how could the possibly know it was good to follow god and evil to listen to the serpant?

see, I don't think they were capable of a sinful thought, because they still did not know right from wrong. In order to sin you must know that what you do is wrong. (Though ignorance can be a sin if you purposely do not seek out knowledge so as to avoid being responsible)

True. Sin is a choice, and must be known that what one is doing is not Holy in order to be considered sin. However, Adam and Eve, while perfect, were presented with the choice to disobey God. While they perhaps did not know that the act itself was wrong, they still went against God's Word. That in itself is the sin and not the eating from the tree. Or, put in another way, eating of the tree is synonymous with disobedience, which was the sin.

see, I don't think they were capable of a sinful thought, because they still did not know right from wrong. In order to sin you must know that what you do is wrong. (Though ignorance can be a sin if you purposely do not seek out knowledge so as to avoid being responsible)
Nevertheless, they were not perfect in sinlessness to begin with if they had the capacity to sin. The capacity to sin would be a flaw, and perfection is flawless. Perfection, by its very nature, is whole; it cannot be undone (this is why it is nothing more than an abstract concept).

Else, you are saying that it was not sin and they were unjustly punished.

LOL

ok, let me rephrase. :)
Purposely avoiding it is bad. God telling you not to eat it and you not eating it is just doing what you are told. :)
Exactly. Sin is in the purpose behind the act, the thought.

True. Sin is a choice, and must be known that what one is doing is not Holy in order to be considered sin. However, Adam and Eve, while perfect, were presented with the choice to disobey God. While they perhaps did not know that the act itself was wrong, they still went against God's Word. That in itself is the sin and not the eating from the tree. Or, put in another way, eating of the tree is synonymous with disobedience, which was the sin.
And how the hell (pun intended) where they suposed to know disobeying was bad with no knoledge of good and evil?

And how the hell (pun intended) where they suposed to know disobeying was bad with no knoledge of good and evil?

You're mistaking the tree as a fruit with the literal gifting of knowledge. The "knowledge" of good and evil comes with the sin. They disobeyed God, thus came the entrance of sin in their life, making them "knowledgable".

Adam and Eve were innocent people before the fall. They didn't have any knowledge of sin, but the serpant introduced it to them. He provided an outlet into disobedience. They wouldn't have even thought of touching the fruit had he not entered the scene. Remember how Eve at first tried to rebuke him, saying that she was commanded not to eat of it? It was through ignorance of sin that she was duped into disobeying God. She believed the serpant over the Lord, and acted accordingly. Adam followed suit.

They did not know the meaning of good and evil when they chose. Hence the use of the word transgression instead of sin in many modern texts.

They were as children. Desiring to do whatever their Father bid them.

The were perfect in that they had not defiled themselves yet. Christ had the ability to sin, but did not. Therein lied His perfection. Perfection can be destroyed. If you drew a perfect circle you could ruin it by ripping it in half.

They did not know the meaning of good and evil when they chose. Hence the use of the word transgression instead of sin in many modern texts.

They were as children. Desiring to do whatever their Father bid them.

The were perfect in that they had not defiled themselves yet. Christ had the ability to sin, but did not. Therein lied His perfection. Perfection can be destroyed. If you drew a perfect circle you could ruin it by ripping it in half.

Yuppers. :) I'd call that a bullseye.

You're mistaking the tree as a fruit with the literal gifting of knowledge. The "knowledge" of good and evil comes with the sin. They disobeyed God, thus came the entrance of sin in their life, making them "knowledgable".

Adam and Eve were innocent people before the fall. They didn't have any knowledge of sin, but the serpant introduced it to them. He provided an outlet into disobedience. They wouldn't have even thought of touching the fruit had he not entered the scene. Remember how Eve at first tried to rebuke him, saying that she was commanded not to eat of it? It was through ignorance of sin that she was duped into disobeying God. She believed the serpant over the Lord, and acted accordingly. Adam followed suit.
And you think it is fair to punish inosents that had no concept of what they were being introduced to.

Her ignorance caused her to unknowingly commit what was a sin

Personaly i dont find it a just or loving god that punishes thoes that acted because they did not know any better

Personaly i dont find it a just or loving god that punishes thoes that acted because they did not know any better

ok, you keep going on with that same tune. A loving parent punishes their children if they do something wrong. Even if the child did not entirely understand beforehand. This is so the child will learn.

There was no harshness in the punishment here. mostly just consequence from a particular act. Then they had to be removed from the scene before they made the situation worse for themselves. That is all.

And you think it is fair to punish inosents that had no concept of what they were being introduced to.

Her ignorance caused her to unknowingly commit what was a sin

Personaly i dont find it a just or loving god that punishes thoes that acted because they did not know any better

You misread.

Adam and Eve, being perfect, already knew good. They knew that following God's commands was Good--if anything, it was the good to them. The serpent introduced "evil" to them, through convincing them that 1)they could disobey God without repercussion and 2)they could be better than God. (if you know the story of the fall of Morning Star (Satan), you'd see a frightening similarity here.) They believed him and went against that Good they knew to be the good. Again, they took the serpent's word over God's command. That in itself is a sin. They may not have known it was "evil" but they did realize that they were not doing what God instructed.

You misread.

Adam and Eve, being perfect, already knew good. They knew that following God's commands was Good--if anything, it was the good to them. The serpent introduced "evil" to them, through convincing them that 1)they could disobey God without repercussion and 2)they could be better than God. (if you know the story of the fall of Morning Star (Satan), you'd see a frightening similarity here.) They believed him and went against that Good they knew to be the good. Again, they took the serpent's word over God's command. That in itself is a sin. They may not have known it was "evil" but they did realize that they were not doing what God instructed.
And how did they know good without knowing evil ... by its very deffinition if they knew good they knew bad to be what was not good

There is NO way to know one without the other

And how did they know good without knowing evil ... by its very deffinition if they knew good they knew bad to be what was not good

There is NO way to know one without the other

Because they didn't know good as we know it. We know good as "not bad", as we know bad as "not good". We think of them as compliments. They knew good as "God". They thought of it as "eternal". God and his commandments were all that they knew... that is, until the serpent introduced to them otherwise.

No thank you, I respect your religious choice but I tried being christian and I really just could not beleive what I told myself.

-The High Preistess of The Free land of Brakenwood

No thank, the Religion I already am is quite fine.

But thank you ever so much for asking and being polite about it. You're obviously the sort of Christian whom I can admire for having a strong faith but being respectful of others. Given the tone of many posts by self-styled Christians on here, its a breath of fresh air.

Good luck and God Bless.

Well, as an atheist I have no religion, but I must agree with the downmarching void - thank goodness there are non-bible-bashing christians out there.

You're mistaking the tree as a fruit with the literal gifting of knowledge. The "knowledge" of good and evil comes with the sin. They disobeyed God, thus came the entrance of sin in their life, making them "knowledgable".

Adam and Eve were innocent people before the fall. They didn't have any knowledge of sin, but the serpant introduced it to them. He provided an outlet into disobedience. They wouldn't have even thought of touching the fruit had he not entered the scene. Remember how Eve at first tried to rebuke him, saying that she was commanded not to eat of it? It was through ignorance of sin that she was duped into disobeying God. She believed the serpant over the Lord, and acted accordingly. Adam followed suit.
I am walking down the street and a man offers to take me into a backroom. I am innocent of what will happen back there, and trustingly go with him. Bad stuff happens, la-de-da. Should I be punished for going with him?

I am walking down the street and a man offers to take me into a backroom. I am innocent of what will happen back there, and trustingly go with him. Bad stuff happens, la-de-da. Should I be punished for going with him?

Did your father tell you not to talk to strangers? If so you would be going into the backroom with him knowingly disobeying your father's command.

Because they didn't know good as we know it. We know good as "not bad", as we know bad as "not good". We think of them as compliments. They knew good as "God". They thought of it as "eternal". God and his commandments were all that they knew... that is, until the serpent introduced to them otherwise.
And therefore they knew bad as anything not god? well
if they knew good and bad why the hell did the tree change anything?

(Not to mention everything in the garden was "good" so why did they expect the serpent to be any difference)

Again we are getting so nitpicky ... I personally if I was in that situation would be upset with god for being such hard as rule follower ... his love should trump whatever accident those two (as G_N_I says)young idiots managed to stumble across

A good parent reprimands their kid and lets them learn from it ... god took a mistake that these two innocents made and not only sentenced them both to death but anyone that ever descended from them

Hardly just by my book

ok, you keep going on with that same tune. A loving parent punishes their children if they do something wrong. Even if the child did not entirely understand beforehand. This is so the child will learn.

There was no harshness in the punishment here. mostly just consequence from a particular act. Then they had to be removed from the scene before they made the situation worse for themselves. That is all.
The analogy does not work. The punishment God dished out was the harshest.

And how did they know good without knowing evil ... by its very deffinition if they knew good they knew bad to be what was not good

There is NO way to know one without the other

You didn't read the previous messages, I presume?

Good = obeying you Father, because you trust him. You trust him because you believe that he knows what's best for you.

Evil or sin = not obeying, because you don't put your trust in your father. Because you think you know everything better or because you think that you and the things you want are more important.

A child who is not obeying doesn't need to no know about evil or sin to disobey his/her father. Hence, Eve and Adam could do evil without realising that something was evil/sin. That's something everyone has to learn.

If they resisted Satan, they wouldn't be expelled from Paradise. So God sent someone else to correct for this: Jesus Christ, he didn't sin, so he corrected the mistake of the first Adam. And God gives us time to accept Jesus Christ as our saviour before he comes back.

So no one can afterwards say: "I didn't know". We told you. :)

Because they didn't know good as we know it. We know good as "not bad", as we know bad as "not good". We think of them as compliments. They knew good as "God". They thought of it as "eternal". God and his commandments were all that they knew... that is, until the serpent introduced to them otherwise.
If they didn't know good as we know it, then it wasn't good that they knew.

A child who is not obeying doesn't need to no know about evil or sin to disobey his/her father. Hence, Eve and Adam could do evil without realising that something was evil/sin. That's something everyone has to learn.

As you said they could sin without knowing it but I dont find it just nor loving to sentance my kid and all his decendance to death and possible hell when they had no idea they were sinning

I would find that sort of act dispicable in a fellow human being much less an "all loving" deity

The analogy does not work. The punishment God dished out was the harshest.

The punishment God "dished out" was the most just. He and sin are not compatable. Meaning He cannot be within the presence of sin, as sin cannot be in his presence. The only choice he had was to separate himself from the now sinful man.

You didn't read the previous messages, I presume?

Good = obeying you Father, because you trust him. You trust him because you believe that he knows what's best for you.

Evil or sin = not obeying, because you don't put your trust in your father. Because you think you know everything better or because you think that you and the things you want are more important.

A child who is not obeying doesn't need to no know about evil or sin to disobey his/her father. Hence, Eve and Adam could do evil without realising that something was evil/sin. That's something everyone has to learn.

If they resisted Satan, they wouldn't be expelled from Paradise. So God sent someone else to correct for this: Jesus Christ, he didn't sin, so he corrected the mistake of the first Adam. And God gives us time to accept Jesus Christ as our saviour before he comes back.

So no one can afterwards say: "I didn't know". We told you. :)
You've just redefined "good" to suit your argument. "Good" is doing what is best for yourself and others. By your argument, evil is good.

(Note: I don't believe in "evil".)

The punishment God "dished out" was the most just. He and sin are not compatable. Meaning He cannot be within the presence of sin, as sin cannot be in his presence. The only choice he had was to separate himself from the now sinful man.
?? If "sin" is being "without God" then I would hope he would be incompatible with the lack of himself.

If they didn't know good as we know it, then it wasn't good that they knew.

It was good. If you read a book, can you not proclaim it good without reading a "bad" book to compare? They knew God and His creation. To them, that was "good". They perhaps didn't see it as good--at least good as we know it, but that's irrelevant. They saw God and His creation, and that's all that mattered to them. They were happy and content. It was the serpent, who also knew evil, that deceived them into seeing otherwise. And yes, to answer a previous question, the serpent was God's creation, and most likely seen as "good" to Eve and Adam. Although this serpent was Satan in a guise, so he decieved them into thinking he was this "good" creation.

It was good. If you read a book, can you not proclaim it good without reading a "bad" book to compare? They knew God and His creation. To them, that was "good". They perhaps didn't see it as good--at least good as we know it, but that's irrelevant. They saw God and His creation, and that's all that mattered to them. They were happy and content. It was the serpent, who also knew evil, that deceived them into seeing otherwise. And yes, to answer a previous question, the serpent was God's creation, and most likely seen as "good" to Eve and Adam. Although this serpent was Satan in a guise, so he decieved them into thinking he was this "good" creation.
Unlike them we have a whole history of comparison

And he decived these inosents and god punished them and everyone that comes after them with death desiese and famine

What a loving guy

Question: In your version, does the serpent have "free will"?

You've just redefined "good" to suit your argument. "Good" is doing what is best for yourself and others. By your argument, evil is good.

(Note: I don't believe in "evil".)

He's defining good by what Scripture teaches us. Perhaps it would be better if we replaced the word "good" with "Holy" and "evil" with "Unholy"?

Adam and Eve were holy. They disobeyed God, and in this nature became unholy.

I'll be one if ya pay me

Unlike them we have a whole history of comparison

And he decived these inosents and god punished them and everyone that comes after them with death desiese and famine

What a loving guy

You keep going on like God had any choice over the punishment he carried out. He did what was necessary. He did what was just. Sin needs to be separated from His presence and attoned for. That's what he did. Nothing more, nothing less.

Death and Hell were not some creation of his to threaten man with should they not obey him. They were natural results of disobedience and sin, and they are the opposite of Him, as they are out of his Holy presence. Death and Hell are natural, but unholy.

You keep going on like God had any choice over the punishment he carried out. He did what was necessary. He did what was just. Sin needs to be separated from His presence and attoned for. That's what he did. Nothing more, nothing less.

Death and Hell were not some creation of his to threaten man with should they not obey him. They were natural results of disobedience and sin, and they are the opposite of Him, as they are out of his Holy presence. Death and Hell are natural, but unholy.
God had a choice ... he is omni potent ... I dont find his actions just OR loving.
By my morals punishing inosents like that is NOT just nor does it show love for his creations

He seperated them and the billions that came after them that had NO choice but to be born into sin I dont find that just either

Question: In your version, does the serpent have "free will"?

No, Morning Star, along with every other angel, had no free will. At least, not in the sense that we have. That is why we were special to the Lord, as we had a choice in loving him (which has far much more worth than a mindless drone bowing before him).

Morning star came to the conclusion that he could become better than the Almighty, and acted upon it. It's not my belief that He lost any love of the Father, but he gained more love for himself. Envy and Pride are what caused him to lose his wings, so to speak. There was perhaps some choice to it, but he is in no means on par with us when it comes to free will.

God had a choice ... he is omni potent ... I dont find his actions just OR loving.
By my morals punishing inosents like that is NOT just nor does it show love for his creations

He seperated them and the billions that came after them that had NO choice but to be born into sin I dont find that just either

You're equating omnipotence with the capability of acting under Himself. Justice needed to be carried out. They were no longer innocent. They sinned. They sinned knowing that they disobeyed their Father. If the serpent surprised them and shoved the fruit down their throat, forcing them to swallow it, then perhaps we'd have a different story. But they willfully ate something they knew not to eat. In other words, they willfully disobeyed God.

God, being completely and unfathomably Holy, cannot and will not tolerate sin. He can and would tolerate sinners, which is why he did not outright smite them into oblivion and start over. He loved them too much, and gave them a chance outside of the garden and his presence to start afresh and make better of themselves. Of course their sin would bring repercussions. "You reap what you sow." They sowed disobedience and reaped the consequences of sin. And that is death. There's no going around it. It's the consquence of all sin, as all sin separates from God. He didn't decide the consequence, it's the natural order of it.

No, Morning Star, along with every other angel, had no free will. At least, not in the sense that we have. That is why we were special to the Lord, as we had a choice in loving him (which has far much more worth than a mindless drone bowing before him).

Morning star came to the conclusion that he could become better than the Almighty, and acted upon it. It's not my belief that He lost any love of the Father, but he gained more love for himself. Envy and Pride are what caused him to lose his wings, so to speak. There was perhaps some choice to it, but he is in no means on par with us when it comes to free will.
Then was it right for God to punish the serpent? It had no choice but to do what it did.

By the way, what you describe in the second paragraph is the serpent exercising free will.

He's defining good by what Scripture teaches us. Perhaps it would be better if we replaced the word "good" with "Holy" and "evil" with "Unholy"?

Adam and Eve were holy. They disobeyed God, and in this nature became unholy.
I have no problem with "good" and "evil", as long as you recognize that you are using non-literal interpretations of those terms.

You keep going on like God had any choice over the punishment he carried out. He did what was necessary. He did what was just. Sin needs to be separated from His presence and attoned for. That's what he did. Nothing more, nothing less.

Death and Hell were not some creation of his to threaten man with should they not obey him. They were natural results of disobedience and sin, and they are the opposite of Him, as they are out of his Holy presence. Death and Hell are natural, but unholy.
Okay, does God have free will? If he did, then he had a choice.

Your version of the truth is not the truth. The default of truth is the objective viewpoint, not the subjective one. "Your version of the truth" is from the subjective perspective, but "the truth" is from the objective one. So "your truth" is always "your version of the truth", and that's the truth.

PS: I'm agreeing with you, so don't get angry. ;)

The opposite of a Great Truth is another Great Truth.

There is no Truth.

Romanore...

I'd be highly interested to hear where you are getting this info re: "Morning Star". Is this what you have deduced by reading the scriptures and struggling through the issues, or did you read this by some other author?

You seem to have answers that go beyond the text. You know, sometimes its ok to just say "we dont know". I dont think anyone can believe in a religion that man insists he knows all the answers about. The nature and actions of God wont always be understandable to us.

So Morning Star sources?

Too late. I'm already a proud believer! :D I shal believe until I die, and I will never convert to being a heathen.

Then was it right for God to punish the serpent? It had no choice but to do what it did.

By the way, what you describe in the second paragraph is the serpent exercising free will.

There was choice, but I also said they don't have free will as we know it. Think of it as this: they have the natural tendency to worship the Lord. There's no going about it. However, scripture is vague when it comes to why or how Morning Star and the other third of the Host fell. All I can do is speculate about it, but that wouldn't get us very far without any scripture to back me up. However, if you want to read of Morning Star's rebellion, look in Isaiah 14:12-23:

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."

15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
"Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,

17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?"

18 All the kings of the nations lie in state,
each in his own tomb.

19 But you are cast out of your tomb
like a rejected branch;
you are covered with the slain,
with those pierced by the sword,
those who descend to the stones of the pit.
Like a corpse trampled underfoot,

20 you will not join them in burial,
for you have destroyed your land
and killed your people.
The offspring of the wicked
will never be mentioned again.

21 Prepare a place to slaughter his sons
for the sins of their forefathers;
they are not to rise to inherit the land
and cover the earth with their cities.

22 "I will rise up against them,"
declares the LORD Almighty.
"I will cut off from Babylon her name and survivors,
her offspring and descendants,"
declares the LORD.

23 "I will turn her into a place for owls
and into swampland;
I will sweep her with the broom of destruction,"
declares the LORD Almighty.

To spare any possible confusion whilst reading, the context involves Babylon and its criticism, but points out its original fault with Morning Star and his fall from holiness.

You're equating omnipotence with the capability of acting under Himself. Justice needed to be carried out. They were no longer innocent. They sinned. They sinned knowing that they disobeyed their Father. If the serpent surprised them and shoved the fruit down their throat, forcing them to swallow it, then perhaps we'd have a different story. But they willfully ate something they knew not to eat. In other words, they willfully disobeyed God.

God, being completely and unfathomably Holy, cannot and will not tolerate sin. He can and would tolerate sinners, which is why he did not outright smite them into oblivion and start over. He loved them too much, and gave them a chance outside of the garden and his presence to start afresh and make better of themselves. Of course their sin would bring repercussions. "You reap what you sow." They sowed disobedience and reaped the consequences of sin. And that is death. There's no going around it. It's the consquence of all sin, as all sin separates from God. He didn't decide the consequence, it's the natural order of it.
This is good. God has no free will; this is in line with the mythology as I have seen it laid out. God is as God does.

I think you need to reread the scriptures. I wont argue theology...its pointless. But please, do read the text with some measure of comprehension. People created their own gods. But there is one God. (please note capitals, there is mucho significance in that. God is the name of one being, god is a thing. People created idols, false gods, these are referred to in the Bible. But there is only one God.

Then why pray tell did these aledgedly false gods (whom I worship and I would thank you not to refer to them as false, as I do not call yours false) exist PRIOR to Judeism and the first mention of your god? (note I use the lower case because I am not using that as a name as Christians do I am referencing him as one god of many).

There was choice, but I also said they don't have free will as we know it. Think of it as this: they have the natural tendency to worship the Lord. There's no going about it. However, scripture is vague when it comes to why or how Morning Star and the other third of the Host fell. All I can do is speculate about it, but that wouldn't get us very far without any scripture to back me up. However, if you want to read of Morning Star's rebellion, look in Isaiah 14:12-23:

To spare any possible confusion whilst reading, the context involves Babylon and its criticism, but points out its original fault with Morning Star and his fall from holiness.
*shakes her head* Oy vey! Again with this redefining of terms "as we know them".

Will is will. There is no redefining this one, and getting away with it. Without will, there is no ability to make a choice. Will is a consciousness asserting itself to cause things--thoughts, actions, etc. Free will is the concept of doing that freely, as opposed to God having predestined all the choices. If choice is done by the serpent, then it is done freely.

Self-causation is what makes for responsibility and blame. Else it is God who is to blame.

I just wanted to comment on something my fellow GPer Rightwing Conspirators said.

There is no middleman between God and the sinner. The Bible does not support such a claim. Rather, the Bible supports the idea that we are commanded to preach, and God WILL OPEN the hearts of those whom he has decided shall be saved. We have no power in the salvation of others, nor ourselves. Else, there would be no need for Jesus. At the fall, man became totally depraved and therefore UNABLE to choose God. If he were able to choose, he would be able to save himself. A part of being a Christian is recognizing God's sovreignty in the salvation of sinners.

However, my friend RWC seems to be espousing a hyper-Calvinist point of view. We are commanded to preach and spread the word to others. It is necessary to gain knowledge of Christ.

Thats all.

Okay, does God have free will? If he did, then he had a choice.

Again. I cannot answer that fully as scripture doesn't come right out and say it. However, I can tell you that He does to his greatest extent what is Just, Holy, and Loving. Whether that is choice, compelling, or a mix of the two, I don't know. What I do know though is that he has promised never to do evil. Should he do this, he would no longer be who he is. He wouldn't be God any longer.

I'm sorry, I really would like to answer this in full to you, but I can't without stepping on scripture's toes.

Oh, also, that Morningstar thing. In the newer translations, what should read as "Satan" is translated as "Morning Star". Christ is the Morningstar, and this is a confusion and mistranslation done by these newer Bible creators.

For my money, I stick to the KJV.

Then why pray tell did these aledgedly false gods (whom I worship and I would thank you not to refer to them as false, as I do not call yours false) exist PRIOR to Judeism and the first mention of your god? (note I use the lower case because I am not using that as a name as Christians do I am referencing him as one god of many).[/QUOTE]

Sorry, did not mean to offend you. We were discussing Christianity, so in that context, false would be the only word to use. But trying to look beyond that... I dont quite know how to respond to your question. God (the one I believe in) is eternal, and so existed before anything (please can we not start this conversation again). I really hav eno idea where you are coming from. So.....in Christianity, and in the universe I exist in, He is the only living GOd, everything else has been made up by man. If there is only one living God....and the others were made up- wouldnt that make them false? Or at least, would they not lack any actual power beyond what man gives them?

so as you see, Im not trying to diminish your beliefs, but in a discussion about Christianity and being a true believer, I cant acknowledge what you want me to. I just dont believe it.

*shakes her head* Oy vey! Again with this redefining of terms "as we know them".

Will is will. There is no redefining this one, and getting away with it. Without will, there is no ability to make a choice. Will is a consciousness asserting itself to cause things--thoughts, actions, etc. Free will is the concept of doing that freely, as opposed to God having predestined all the choices. If choice is done by the serpent, then it is done freely.

Self-causation is what makes for responsibility and blame. Else it is God who is to blame.

I don't redefine, but merely point out that 1)I don't have the full knowledge of what happened, thus I cannot tell you precisely what was going on in the Morning Star's mind as he rebelled and 2)our mines a horridly finite, as compared to the Lord's infinite wisdom. We cannot fathom, or begin to fathom what the Lord does and why He does it, which is why we much accept his Word that He does what He does through Justice, Holiness, and Love, and all of which to their fullest extent.

Then why pray tell did these aledgedly false gods (whom I worship and I would thank you not to refer to them as false, as I do not call yours false) exist PRIOR to Judeism and the first mention of your god? (note I use the lower case because I am not using that as a name as Christians do I am referencing him as one god of many).

Sorry, did not mean to offend you. We were discussing Christianity, so in that context, false would be the only word to use. But trying to look beyond that... I dont quite know how to respond to your question. God (the one I believe in) is eternal, and so existed before anything (please can we not start this conversation again). I really hav eno idea where you are coming from.

Let me rephrase then. There were gods that were worshiped BEFORE the people of Aberham came to exist and worshiped the god you worship now. If they were false and yours is the one and only why do they predate his worship?

Oh, also, that Morningstar thing. In the newer translations, what should read as "Satan" is translated as "Morning Star". Christ is the Morningstar, and this is a confusion and mistranslation done by these newer Bible creators.

For my money, I stick to the KJV.

Actually, I view the KJV as the most skewed version. King James was a Puritan, as was England at the time of the translation. They, in the lack of a better phrase, cleaned up the muck they thought was too harsh or too "impure". Take for instance the story of Lazarus. In the KJV, it says that Jesus was "deeply moved" upon hearing that Lazarus had died. The original Greek word, (which at the moment I forget, but I will assure you that I'll post it upon finding it), meant "to snort as a horse". In other words, he was furious.

But the Puritans didn't want to see Jesus angry, as they thought anger to be a sin. So they changed it to "deeply moved".

I have a NIV bible which has both the Greek text and the Hebrew text when available in separate columns alongside the English. Very helpful.

EDIT: Also, "Satan" is just another word for "devil". That's not his true name, nor is this context speaking of the Messiah. If so... O.o

let me rephrase then. There were gods that were worshiped BEFORE the people of Aberham came to exist and worshiped the god you worship now. If they were false and yours is the one and only why do they predate his worship?[/QUOTE]

Ok...so the people of Abraham are direct decendants of the first people on the planet, Adam and Eve, who did follow my God. DO you understand why I cant answer your question now?

[/COLOR]



Let me rephrase then. There were gods that were worshiped BEFORE the people of Aberham came to exist and worshiped the god you worship now. If they were false and yours is the one and only why do they predate his worship?

We don't know that for sure. The written text of the Old Testament, as well as the spoken text, didn't originate until well into Egyptian rule over the Hebrews. However, if we as believers are to take the Bible at its word, then all other religion would be a skewering of the original belief in YHWH. The Hebrews were created out of the Mesopotamians, yes, but we're lead to believe that they were an answer to the decline of belief in God, not that they created their own in order to rule themselves.

Oh, also, that Morningstar thing. In the newer translations, what should read as "Satan" is translated as "Morning Star". Christ is the Morningstar, and this is a confusion and mistranslation done by these newer Bible creators.

For my money, I stick to the KJV.
Lucifer is the Morning Star, also.

Oh, and Innana/Ishtar was the Morning Star.

As a side note, is it just me, or does anyone else think "Stan" when they see "Satan"?

I must watch too much Family Guy...

Lucifer is the Morning Star, also.
No, Lucifer was the "Morning Star". He decided he was greater than God, and paid the price.

No, Lucifer was the "Morning Star". He decided he was greater than God, and paid the price.

*nod* His original Hebrew name meant "Morning Star" or "Star of the Morning". However, Latin translators didn't have an equivalent so they made him "Child of Light" or "Lightbringer", which is Lucifer.

And now you know...

And knowing is half the battle!

EDIT: By the way, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer) may help for those who want to know more about the name Lucifer and its origins.

I will not be a christian, because i believe humans have a right to chose thier own religions. i declare war on christianity!

:mp5:

I will not be a christian, because i believe humans have a right to chose thier own religions. i declare war on christianity!

:mp5:

Flamebaiting a bit? ;)

I will not be a christian, because i believe humans have a right to chose thier own religions. i declare war on christianity!

:mp5:
And when did anyone force christianity upon you? This topic was made by an individual who was offering, not forcing.

Thanks, Sparkbomb. ;)

Still, if Lucifer is a "was" he must be gone from the world, eh?

Well, I'm off to work now unfortunately (or fortunately for some, whichever). I won't be back until late, so please.. do try to refrain from debating too much when I'm gone. Okay?

*gives everyone celebratory cookies* Thanks to everyone for keeping their cool in this debate. It's wonderful to debate in a calm and healthy manner. I do hope we can keep it up like this.

*waves*

Thanks, Sparkbomb. ;)

Still, if Lucifer is a "was" he must be gone from the world, eh?

Or it could be that the name "Lucifer" no longer applies to the fallen angel that once was he...

;)

*gives another cookie, then really heads off to work*

I will not be a christian, because i believe humans have a right to chose thier own religions. i declare war on christianity!

:mp5:

Of course you have a right to choose religions. Just like Christians and Catholics have that same right, and use it.

So you're declaring war on christianity AGAIN Osama?

Grow up.

The punishment God dished out was the harshest.

Unlike them we have a whole history of comparison
And he decived these inosents and god punished them and everyone that comes after them with death desiese and famine
What a loving guy


ok, I think part of the problem here is the misunderstanding of the whole death thing. Death is not a BAD thing, in and of itself. Death is just part of the whole getting back to God thing. We could not live again with him if we didn't die, because when we die we are able to be ressurected. I can understand how a person who thinks death is the end of everything could consider this a harsh move. But it is not the end. This life is not the purpose. It is but a step in the ladder of eternity.



Question: In your version, does the serpent have "free will"?


Yes. Everyone has free will. Satan was free to be good, but he chose evil.

God created a perfect creation, but in order to give us the opportunity to grow we had to leave His presence and make mistakes. He knew this. It was part of His plan from the begining. Satan thought he was ruining God's plan by making Adam and Eve mortal. But instead he played right into God's hand. (He knew that was how it would play out). The had to Fall so God prepared a Savior to lift them back up again when they had learned all they could on this earth.

This may be true, but according to Catholicism Lucifer is the name of Satan (Which I believe only occurred in the new testament as being his actual name), when in fact it Lucifer was an Italian Sun God.
I have never been told, by my local priests, that Lucifer was the actual name of Satan. It was actually a Catholic priest that told me how the name came into use in the Bible.

Just like Christians and Catholics
I'm getting tired of people saying this. It's like saying Christians and Protestants...Protestants wouldn't like that, but it is actually more correct since Catholics and Christian Orthodoxy came before any Protestant religion.
[Keep in mind that I don't think like that, I like to view all of us Christians as "Christians".]

I have never been told, by my local priests, that Lucifer was the actual name of Satan. It was actually a Catholic priest that told me how the name came into use in the Bible.

Lucifer is what God's name for Satan was, before he rebelled. The name is found in the Old testament (Isaiah I believe).

A lot of people don't want to believe in Christianity because it means they would have to give up guilty pleasures in their lives. They don't want to deal with the guilt that they're leading a sinful life. Don't get me wrong we're all sinners, no human being is ever perfect, but a lot of people don't want to bother making a sacrifice with something in their lives. Christianity doesn't ask you to give up your friends, family or possessions. All it asks of you is to give you heart to God and let him lead the way. But you can't expect God to just answer you when you're not even listening or believing in him to begin with.

I havn't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, so somebody may have already addressed this, but I had to say something. I went to a Catholic primary school, where we sang hymns on a daily basis. Hymns which I can still remember. One of them, entitled "Follow Me", told the story of Jesus 'recruiting' (for lack of a better word :rolleyes: ) his disciples. The refrain was as follows;

Follow me, follow me,
Leave your homes and families,
Leave your fishing nets and boats upon the shore.
Leave the seeds that you have sown,
Leave the crops that you have grown,
Leave the people you have known and follow me.

Would you care to reconcile these two vastly different viewpoints of the same faith?

I am not interested, but thanks for asking... I was a Christian once... It didn't work out for me, but I respect those it does work out for!

Blessings!

Aldonis of Spiritsage

You know something Upward, you're not being open minded. You're expecting an immediate answer. It doesn't happen like that. You lack faith. You're stuck in the mold of today's society of I want it, and I want it now. There is a reason Patience is a virtue.

A lot of people don't want to believe in Christianity because it means they would have to give up guilty pleasures in their lives. They don't want to deal with the guilt that they're leading a sinful life. Don't get me wrong we're all sinners, no human being is ever perfect, but a lot of people don't want to bother making a sacrifice with something in their lives. Christianity doesn't ask you to give up your friends, family or possessions. All it asks of you is to give you heart to God and let him lead the way. But you can't expect God to just answer you when you're not even listening or believing in him to begin with.
Emphasis most definitely mine. You write this, and you dare to accuse others of being close-minded?

let me rephrase then. There were gods that were worshiped BEFORE the people of Aberham came to exist and worshiped the god you worship now. If they were false and yours is the one and only why do they predate his worship?

Ok...so the people of Abraham are direct decendants of the first people on the planet, Adam and Eve, who did follow my God. DO you understand why I cant answer your question now?

Two problems one historical one biblical. The historical problem is that there is proof that the Semetic peoples who became the Jews were once polytheistic and the god you now worship was a relitivly MINOR god of storms and war. The Biblical problem is that when Cain was cast out he went to live among OTHER people. By your veiw there shouldn't have BEEN any other people.

[/COLOR]

Two problems one historical one biblical. The historical problem is that there is proof that the Semetic peoples who became the Jews were once polytheistic and the god you now worship was a relitivly MINOR god of storms and war. The Biblical problem is that when Cain was cast out he went to live among OTHER people. By your veiw there shouldn't have BEEN any other people.

Again, the Hebrews, namely Abram, came from the Mesopotamian culture. There's no disputing that. Even the Bible says he was pulled from Ur, which was heavily influenced by polytheism. But scripture goes on to say that he was pulled because God wanted to form a nation that would stand out from the other nations who have forgotten the Lord, and set itself as His example. The Hebrews weren't the first culture. They just picked up the torch which had been dropped for a long while.

As for the historical proof of YHWH being derived from the god of storms and war, that's only and still a speculation. There hasn't been any hard evidence about that, and I doubt there will be.

EDIT: Sorry I didn't touch this in the original. When it comes to Cain's exile, scripture doesn't state that, after Abel's death, there were only three people on the Earth. In fact, it says he went on to marry one of his sisters, implying that there was more than one of them.

Also, there is no set time length between the births of Cain and Abel and Cain's exile. It could have been a many number of years--plenty long enough for Adam and Eve to further reproduce.

I havn't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, so somebody may have already addressed this, but I had to say something. I went to a Catholic primary school, where we sang hymns on a daily basis. Hymns which I can still remember. One of them, entitled "Follow Me", told the story of Jesus 'recruiting' (for lack of a better word :rolleyes: ) his disciples. The refrain was as follows;

Follow me, follow me,
Leave your homes and families,
Leave your fishing nets and boats upon the shore.
Leave the seeds that you have sown,
Leave the crops that you have grown,
Leave the people you have known and follow me.

Would you care to reconcile these two vastly different viewpoints of the same faith?

I won't speak on his behalf, but I can say that yes, you are right. Accepting the Lord means placing Him above all else. However, it does not mean that once you accept Him, He will demand that you strip yourself of all that you love and care about. It may happen, or it may not (generally not, although). It depends greatly on where the (wo)man's heart lies. Would they truly worship Him if all they had was Him, or are they attempting to use Him as a crutch, holding onto Him to further benefit their life and not His glory?

I can say that the apostles and disciples were very high in the exception. Jesus instructed them to leave their old lives behind in order to learn from him and advance the church once they were ready. <speculation>It seems to me that they needed to rid themselves of all other things that held their attention and solely focus on the Lord in order to truly learn and value what he preached. Had they not, the chance would have been greater that they might not have held him closest and without fail.</speculation>

I have a question...doesnt necessarily pertain to the last discussion on the thread though...but this thread has got me thinking about this:

If you could change one thing about Christian's behavior, what would it be? Im not talking our way of thinking but more our actions. What is the most offensive thing?

Is it tv religious personalities that get your back up? Is it people you personally know? Or is it fellows Nation Statesmen that you interact with on the message boards?

I have a question...doesnt necessarily pertain to the last discussion on the thread though...but this thread has got me thinking about this:

If you could change one thing about Christian's behavior, what would it be? Im not talking our way of thinking but more our actions. What is the most offensive thing?

Is it tv religious personalities that get your back up? Is it people you personally know? Or is it fellows Nation Statesmen that you interact with on the message boards?
I'd simply change it so that all Christians understand and value their mythology.

I'd simply change it so that all Christians understand and value their mythology.

Do you mean becoming more knowledgeable about the history of it, understand the true meanings of its teachings (or different interpretations, depending on how you look at it), and come to hold and honor those beliefs more closely?

I have a question...doesnt necessarily pertain to the last discussion on the thread though...but this thread has got me thinking about this:

If you could change one thing about Christian's behavior, what would it be? Im not talking our way of thinking but more our actions. What is the most offensive thing?

Is it tv religious personalities that get your back up? Is it people you personally know? Or is it fellows Nation Statesmen that you interact with on the message boards?

I'd make it clear to them that religion is a (not the) path to truth, not truth itself.

Do you mean becoming more knowledgeable about the history of it, understand the true meanings of its teachings (or different interpretations, depending on how you look at it), and come to hold and honor those beliefs more closely?
Yes. (except the "true" part, which implies there is only one meaning.)

Ok again, not how we think....but what is it that Christians DO that offends you? And who is the offender?

I find often that the world in general has its back up about the Christian beliefs. But the same people who are taking offense, are actually the same people who speak passionately about freedom of speech and beliefs. That doesnt make sense.

In my books, what a person believes shouldnt be so offensive, but I can totally understand taking offense to what people DO, because that effects us all.

So what do we do that bothers you?

ok, I think part of the problem here is the misunderstanding of the whole death thing. Death is not a BAD thing, in and of itself. Death is just part of the whole getting back to God thing. We could not live again with him if we didn't die, because when we die we are able to be ressurected. I can understand how a person who thinks death is the end of everything could consider this a harsh move. But it is not the end. This life is not the purpose. It is but a step in the ladder of eternity.


Actually, death is a rather poor word to describe anything spiritual. The word really only makes sense, in so far as souls are concerned, in saying that God is Life, and therefore separation from Life can only be death. I think the more appropriate image is the Renaissance thought of a sort of "music of the spheres" (yeah, I know that geocentricism isn't true, but so far as theology goes, their images tend to work out better than our lack of imaginative terms) - that Hell is completely muted spiritually, and, therefore, we exist but are not capable of "listening" to any higher force. So far as the body is concerned, death just the precursor to the deliverance of justice - I still am baffled as to why so many Christians could ever fear death, but to each their own fears...

Now, a comment on free will and an interjection of partial Calvinism: there's nothing to say that there aren't certain divine interventions into the pathways of fate (considering that a Being existant outside of time and space could certainly manipulate that time and that space), although, yes, I do agree with the nature of free will in the decisions that would drive spiritual sanctity and holiness.

This business of absolutes must be addressed, because Christianity doesn't make any sense if it isn't absolute. Essentially, religion is a set of laws that govern existence, correct? Now, each person can have their laws, therefore, if we can assume that this sort of law and resultant justice is limited to that one person. However, if each religion were true, we would exist in a place with countless realities occuring in the same plane and at the same time - right to some would literally be wrong to others. Individual opinions would govern EVERYTHING. We do not live in this society. We accept the general concept of a natural truth - our government is founded upon it, everything we know as "usual" is founded upon that concept. One can argue that science, even, though never nominally, accepts a certain number of absolutes (gravity, et cetera). I understand that an argument then comes up, "gravity's only a theory - its just that it hasn't been disproven yet". Honestly, do you think we're ever going to disprove gravity? Right. Therefore, humanity comes across religion. If a faith cannot say that it is absolute in its purpose and execution, then it's not a faith, it's a hypothesis. You'd be following a philosophy, not a religion. After all, the free will aspect of religion is essentially our ability to discern what we feel is rational. Therefore, Christians accept that the essentially theological principles of Christianity are natural truths, their revelation found naturally and supernaturally (and some speculate supranaturally, but that's up for debate if there's any evidence). Christians have the right to say that they're faith and beliefs are just as absolute as any one else - don't forget that freedom of religion goes both ways.
Do I think it's right that they impose certain "Christian" values on government policies? So long as we can agree that these policies aren't only "Christian", then I don't see any violation of church and state - I think it's just a case in which the Christians are the loudest, largest, and most well-established of all groups fighting for their view of righteous legislation, and therefore everyone points to them when something is perceived as "fundamentalist".

Ok again, not how we think....but what is it that Christians DO that offends you? And who is the offender?

I find often that the world in general has its back up about the Christian beliefs. But the same people who are taking offense, are actually the same people who speak passionately about freedom of speech and beliefs. That doesnt make sense.

In my books, what a person believes shouldnt be so offensive, but I can totally understand taking offense to what people DO, because that effects us all.

So what do we do that bothers you?

Have you ever realised that Christians are anything but a homogenic group? And some Christians give the whole group a bad name.

I hate the fact that I am regarded as incredibly naive when I say that I'm Christian, because people will assume that I defend creationism and hate homosexuals.
I also find it hard to say that I' Catholic because people will start questioning me about the pope and how I can possibly believe that Mary was a virgin.

I don't believe in ANY of these, but that's the label I'm given thanks to some loud-mouthed, attention-seeking, meddling, evangelising, braindead, fanatic, fundamendalist lunatics.

That's what I hate about some Christians.

Actually, death is a rather poor word to describe anything spiritual. The word really only makes sense, in so far as souls are concerned, in saying that God is Life, and therefore separation from Life can only be death. I think the more appropriate image is the Renaissance thought of a sort of "music of the spheres" (yeah, I know that geocentricism isn't true, but so far as theology goes, their images tend to work out better than our lack of imaginative terms) - that Hell is completely muted spiritually, and, therefore, we exist but are not capable of "listening" to any higher force. So far as the body is concerned, death just the precursor to the deliverance of justice - I still am baffled as to why so many Christians could ever fear death, but to each their own fears...

Now, a comment on free will and an interjection of partial Calvinism: there's nothing to say that there aren't certain divine interventions into the pathways of fate (considering that a Being existant outside of time and space could certainly manipulate that time and that space), although, yes, I do agree with the nature of free will in the decisions that would drive spiritual sanctity and holiness.

This business of absolutes must be addressed, because Christianity doesn't make any sense if it isn't absolute. Essentially, religion is a set of laws that govern existence, correct? Now, each person can have their laws, therefore, if we can assume that this sort of law and resultant justice is limited to that one person. However, if each religion were true, we would exist in a place with countless realities occuring in the same plane and at the same time - right to some would literally be wrong to others. Individual opinions would govern EVERYTHING. We do not live in this society. We accept the general concept of a natural truth - our government is founded upon it, everything we know as "usual" is founded upon that concept. One can argue that science, even, though never nominally, accepts a certain number of absolutes (gravity, et cetera). I understand that an argument then comes up, "gravity's only a theory - its just that it hasn't been disproven yet". Honestly, do you think we're ever going to disprove gravity? Right. Therefore, humanity comes across religion. If a faith cannot say that it is absolute in its purpose and execution, then it's not a faith, it's a hypothesis. You'd be following a philosophy, not a religion. After all, the free will aspect of religion is essentially our ability to discern what we feel is rational. Therefore, Christians accept that the essentially theological principles of Christianity are natural truths, their revelation found naturally and supernaturally (and some speculate supranaturally, but that's up for debate if there's any evidence). Christians have the right to say that they're faith and beliefs are just as absolute as any one else - don't forget that freedom of religion goes both ways.
Do I think it's right that they impose certain "Christian" values on government policies? So long as we can agree that these policies aren't only "Christian", then I don't see any violation of church and state - I think it's just a case in which the Christians are the loudest, largest, and most well-established of all groups fighting for their view of righteous legislation, and therefore everyone points to them when something is perceived as "fundamentalist".

*gives you a cookie*

You, sir (or miss), are to be commended. Well done in your explanation! :)

Now, a comment on free will and an interjection of partial Calvinism: there's nothing to say that there aren't certain divine interventions into the pathways of fate (considering that a Being existant outside of time and space could certainly manipulate that time and that space), although, yes, I do agree with the nature of free will in the decisions that would drive spiritual sanctity and holiness.
:eek: How's that? If it's a certain thing, then there must be a specific, known methodology to it.

I won't speak on his behalf, but I can say that yes, you are right. Accepting the Lord means placing Him above all else. However, it does not mean that once you accept Him, He will demand that you strip yourself of all that you love and care about. It may happen, or it may not (generally not, although). It depends greatly on where the (wo)man's heart lies. Would they truly worship Him if all they had was Him, or are they attempting to use Him as a crutch, holding onto Him to further benefit their life and not His glory?

I can say that the apostles and disciples were very high in the exception. Jesus instructed them to leave their old lives behind in order to learn from him and advance the church once they were ready. <speculation>It seems to me that they needed to rid themselves of all other things that held their attention and solely focus on the Lord in order to truly learn and value what he preached. Had they not, the chance would have been greater that they might not have held him closest and without fail.</speculation>


Thank you. That's my view of Christianity, that once you bring God into your life He gets placed above all else. One of my best friends has recently found herself spiritually and is having trouble coming to terms with the 'fact' (to her) that the majority of her friends are going to hell. In my eyes she's making one hell (if you see a pun there, please forgive me :rolleyes: ) of a sacrifice for her faith, and I have the utmost respect for her for that (even if I am one of the hellbound ;) ).

What annoyed me about the post was that the person who wrote it obviously does not have a particularly good understanding of the religion he/she subscribes to - or, if (s)he does, they don't do a very good job of conveying that. And that, at a very very basic is one of the main factors that contributed to my disillusionment with Roman Catholicism (I won't say Christianity, because I don't come from a Christian background - I come from a Catholic one) - i've never seen any evidence that Catholics encourage you to question your beliefs and grow spiritually as you find answers. Instead, they tell you that "this is what is true" and everything else is false (despite professing that we should respect other people's religions, however wrong they may be - don't get me started on that one. That's one thing my tutors all failed to practice). To me, religion is intensely personal, and people should be encouraged to question every facet of their beliefs to fully understand themselves. If you make no attempt to understand your religion, you have no right to group yourself with those who truly seek enlightenment.

Obviously, though, that is just my opinion, and many of you may disagree with me. If i've offended anybody I apologise profusely - recently i've made some posts that i'm not proud of, and i'm attempting to think out everything I write more fully. If you disagree with me, tell me so - i'm more than happy to debate this. Civilly.

:eek: How's that? If it's a certain thing, then there must be a specific, known methodology to it.

There is a known method to God's divine intervention - if we knew it as we know everything else, it's questionable if we would still be "humans". Now, some argue that Judas had full knowledge of what he was doing and, therefore, was judged much more harshly for it. Dante isn't considered Christian canon, but he demonstrates the idea of a traitor's punishment quite well by placing Judas in the mouth of Satan. It's my personal belief that we can, through prayer and study of history, discern probable shifts in world/national/personal affairs. Again, this is a personal belief and I'm not talking about any superpowers or anything like that - I'm talking about doing the mundane research and praying for the right reception and materials in regards to the product. Again, a personal opinion of mine is that God influences the great poets and writers (whether they believe or not).

snip!


actually, I was trying to address the difficulty an athiest could encounter when trying to understand how God could "punish" Adam and Eve with death.
They tend not to see how a loving God could do that.

But good explaination none the less :)