NationStates Jolt Archive

(it's not an apple at all, it's just an unspecified fruit)

and see, that's where some christians fall down, seeing metaphors in everything.

i however do not, and I believe that the story is either literal or symbolic, but NOT metaphoric...


1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage" Shakespeare.
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: "Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven" Neal Gabler.

(it's not an apple at all, it's just an unspecified fruit)

and see, that's where some christians fall down, seeing metaphors in everything.

i however do not, and I believe that the story is either literal or symbolic, but NOT metaphoric...

What do you understand as being the difference - in this case - between symbolic and metaphorical?

The way I had this explained to me was that it was the folk tales of early judaism - I don't see how you can take it otherwise. Perhaps they _were_ divinely inspired folk tales, to illustrate a godly point, but they're not a _literal_ truth.

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage" Shakespeare.
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: "Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven" Neal Gabler.

mmm... i meant that in a different way.... but if that's the definition we're using, then I revoke my statement of "symbolic", and retain "literal"

(PS Kefren, please check your telegrams)

Dear lord I've argued religion way too many times to count.

End result: Me considering just saying that the end result is "FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE WRONG! *SMASH*" just to see the result of that, thereby uncovering the meaning of the universe, to result. To change. To exist, in different forms, over and over again.

I think science has a lot of merit to it; the whole "evidence" thing kinda helps. Just a bit. That doesn't mean there's no god. I believe in god. I don't believe in the church or the bible, but I believe there's a dude up there (being very general and metaphorical now) laughing his ass off at how seriously we take this life, and waiting for us to finish so we can start laughing at it with him.

mmm... i meant that in a different way.... but if that's the definition we're using, then I revoke my statement of "symbolic", and retain "literal"

(PS Kefren, please check your telegrams)

Well, if you take it litterally, how do you explain the contradictions in it?

Well, if you take it litterally, how do you explain the contradictions in it?

hmmmmm.... please do supply quotes, i'm interested...

however i am off to bed because it's 4:00am here :P

hmmmmm.... please do supply quotes, i'm interested...

however i am off to bed because it's 4:00am here :P


The bible states various things that are horrible. Such as: selling your daughter into slavery being okay, murdering those that sleep next to a woman having her period being okay, long hair being a shame unto men who bear it (Jesus?), and various other things I can't be labored to mention. The bible's not a very moral book, especially since it's been edited over and over again by man since it was originally "finished". Things put in, things taken out, things switched around.

If it ever was the word of god, there's no way it could even resemble that same word right now, not in any of the god-knows-how-many versions of it are out there, pun intended.

hmmmmm.... please do supply quotes, i'm interested...

however i am off to bed because it's 4:00am here :P

I was refurring this whole moral/good-evil thing with Adam & Eve in this particular case

ARGH! I already said this...

It's the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL....

not the tree of knowledge....

With no knowledge of good and evil could Eve and Adam understood the comsequences of eating the forbidden fruit? With no knowledge of good and evil how could they have known that eating this fruit was evil?

ummm... since when has the idea of hell/damnation been unsubstantiated by the bible, last thing I knew it was...

have you ever even read the bible...?

Fair enough. So... show us the scriptural hell and damnation?

ummm... if you have a witch for a wife, i sincerely doubt your christianity....

unless she became a wiccan after you knew her, of you became a christian after knowing her....

Perhaps you need to check your scripture... and maybe, you MIGHT want to look into the ACTUAL texts, not some weak English translation.

For example - the Hebrew 'witch' would be a diviner, who operated through interaction with the dead.... and the Greek 'witch' would be a poisoner.

It should be born in mind that, the word we use 'witch', is a relatively new invention... and has no necessary parallel to the scriptural MEANING.

If you read those parts of scripture in context, you may see that the wise people referred to in this case are those who think that they have everything worked out and know better than God. Thus, when God calls them wise, he doesn't really think that they have true wisdom, because the knowledge that they do have is preventing them from knowing God. It's a little like Jesus' comment about coming to rescue the sick, those who need a doctor, not the healthy. Nobody is really healthy, since all have sinned, but there are some who have convinced themselves that they are not sinners, and Jesus knew this. He also knew that such people who hold such 'knowledge' are the furtherest from God. Like I said before, not all knowledge is good and beneficial. In fact, anything that does hinder one from knowing God is not only worthless, it is tragic and a senseless waste. For example, if your understanding of science prevents you from believing in God, that knowledge will contribute to your destruction. However, there is nothing necessarily wrong with science, and knowledge is yet another good gift from God.....a gift that should not get in the way of more important things.
Whoa, a bit wishy-washy, but i guess it's all reconciled with spin.
Maybe you should post the text itself so a layperson won't be biased by an editorial on it, they might make up their own mind on it.
It's not that a person wouldn't be able to see things your way, mind you, it' about what is being attributed to "god"'s nature.

Believing that the myths of a bunch of 3,000 year old desert nomads explain the universe doesn't make you smarter. What it makes you is gullible.
A-f*cking-MEN.
*bows*

Science deals with the how religion with the why. The bible was never meant to be a science text book.

It's like you as a father finding your son playing with a power drill you never should have left out, blaming him for your mistake, throwing him out of the house, deliberately slamming your own hand in the car door in front of him and then telling him you'll let him back in if he spends the rest of his life telling you you're the best father ever for suffering so he didn't have to stay outside in the cold.







No, Jesus only died for those who would later accept him. Jesus would not have needed to exist if God didn't mean to use the whole thing as a reason to seperate people into those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. God could have forgiven all sin in the world with a single word, because he is God.



No, it's not. Hell is a pit of fire that burneth with brimstone, haven't you read Revelation? And since God designed humans to require the things you claim to be absent in Hell, it obviously was designed to torture people. That's like saying a decompression chamber wasn't designed to suffocate you, it's just a room where air is not. It's ridiculous.



That isn't free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice without conditions, not the ability to mindlessly obey or be subject to arbitary torture. If I say you can freely vote for Presidential elections but if you vote for the wrong candidate you'll be abducted in the night and tortured to death, that is not a free choice.



They were told they would 'surely die.' But death didn't exist, so how could Adam and Eve even understand the concept? Why did God put the tree or the serpent where they could get to it? Why did God need a tree of knowledge at all, since he had all knowledge already?
*FLORT*
This HAS to be one of the best posts i've ever seen here. And i've obviously seen a lot.
Worth seeing a second time. *bows*

Gymnospermic backup system? External hard-drive that you can decorate for holidays?

Seems like keeping an easily bite-accessed (bite chew, not bite 8-bits) database right in the habitat of people you don't want to have the information is like keeping your secret German fetish porn-stash in your new Mormon girlfriend's purse...
Yet ANOTHER most excellent post!

BTW - i just hit Miss Pacman Lover

ummm... since when has the idea of hell/damnation been unsubstantiated by the bible, last thing I knew it was...

have you ever even read the bible...?
Have you read all this thread?
I'll point out that you might not know who were the proponents for hell.
I'll also point out that Revelation itself was nothing more than "a vision" for which it clearly states at the beginning.
A fever vision while the fella was excised from society and things weren't going so well for him, i might add.

and I say again...

it's called devotion, faith, and love.

by your own logic if you have never been devoted to God, and have never had faith in him, then you cannot comprehend these facts, and hence, cannot continue on this train of dicussion.


as a side note, it's disobey not "disobay"

As it happens, I have 'been devoted', and 'had faith'.

Let US continue.

Your argument is hollow - because of several points:

1) The initial act of human disobedience, according to the story, was Eve... and Eve wasn't even MADE when god admonished Adam not to eat the fruit.

2) Adam and Eve did exactly what they were told. They did NOT eat the fruit... as god instructed..... then , they DID eat the fruit, as they were instructed.

With no knowledge of Good and Evil, they had no way to know that the SECOND set of instruction was 'bad'.

3) The ONLY entity with which Adam and Eve talked, in the Garden, was god. They were not even TOLD that there could BE another talking entity. Thus - when an entity talked to them through a serpent, it is only logical, that they should assume it was the voice of god.

4) If you look closely, the scriptural words given to the serpent, are actually true. Eve was not 'deceived', she was offered 'different' truth.

okay, for a start, it IS free will, we have been told the results of both sets of choices, and people pull the trigger on the gun to their own head (if you cant to put it that way)

Yes. God COULD have chosen to save everyone, but then where's the free will? and what use is us loving and worshipping him if we are forced to?

Also, God put the tree in the garden to give us free will, and his punishment is NOT unjust, because we KNEW what would happen.

although all those arguments require you to believe that we have free will, so if you don't, there's no point you even replying.
Why don't you use this line of reasoning in dealing with my post about Job, which i've obviously read from MORE THAN ONE bible?

*poke*

see? there's no point talking to you because your heart has been hardened, and you're too arrogant to be botherd trying to understand anyone else's opinions. hence, there's no point continuing this discussion, because you're never going to listen.
It isn't arrogant that he's pointing out the inconsistencies in your posts AND your source material, it's arrogant that you aren't considering the weight of statements for rational thought.
Maybe you should look that word up.

so why exactly are you even arguing with me?

If you are completely and utterly devoted to someone, and will do whatever they say, can you be said to know the difference between right and wrong? no...
So would you qualify yourself as UNKNOWING of the difference between right and wrong, being completely and utterly devoted to ... "god"?
Might mean you kinda disqualify yourself from rational debate.

it's called devotion, faith, and love.

by your own logic if you have never been devoted to God, and have never had faith in him, then you cannot comprehend these facts, and hence, cannot continue on this train of dicussion.
Ahhh, sagacious.
This post of yours qualifies my last post.
It'd be interesting to see your response, maybe you'll give one, per favore?

I say that god cannot be proven scientifically because god is a supernatural being and science examines the natural, not the supernatural.


well... how about the Alchemists?

well... how about the Alchemists?

Perhaps you can expand on this so that we know where you're going with it?

About the adam and eve thing.
One would theorize that what an omnipotent being tells you to do would take precedence over what some snake tells you to do.
Eve was told about it from adam, assumedly. She says some stuff about not being able to eat from the tree when the snake tells her to.

science absolutely does not explain everything. it, like christianity, is merely another theory to explain the beginning and intracate workings of this strange planet. science, without are minds and forms of communication/languages, would mean nothing. it all depends upon which theory you invest in. some people are brainwashed from a young age to invest in some higher power who promises "salvation". this is laughable at most and i personally chose to invest in science because although it is not exact, it is able to save my life and is the reason why i can speak in coherent sentences about the world around me. but, remember that no matter what, anything you can ever believe in is at best someone's perceptions of reality and may or may not be true-their is no way of knowing.

Well, science doesn't explain everything, but scientology DOES!!!

Haha...crack me up....

It's like you as a father finding your son playing with a power drill you never should have left out, blaming him for your mistake, throwing him out of the house, deliberately slamming your own hand in the car door in front of him and then telling him you'll let him back in if he spends the rest of his life telling you you're the best father ever for suffering so he didn't have to stay outside in the cold.

Firstly, its not like finding a power drill, as the fruit was not of itself dangerous. The reason it had consequences, was because of the command

Secondly, the fruit should have been there else otherwise Adam and Eve would have had no way of rejecting God and thus have been living in a dictatorship

Thirdly, it is not spending the rest of his life telling you you're the best father ever for suffering so he didn't have to stay outside in the cold. What it is is apologising for what you have done. People make the common mistake that becoming a Christian is somehow intrinsicly involved with worship. Worship is a response to who & what God is, a praising response. But becoming a Christian is about simply saying sorry.


No, Jesus only died for those who would later accept him.

Thats like saying "The flood will only kill those it will kill"


Jesus would not have needed to exist if God didn't mean to use the whole thing as a reason to seperate people into those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. God could have forgiven all sin in the world with a single word, because he is God.

God does indeed have the power to forgive with a single word but that would not have been fair. It would ignore the nature of sin.


No, it's not. Hell is a pit of fire that burneth with brimstone, haven't you read Revelation? And since God designed humans to require the things you claim to be absent in Hell, it obviously was designed to torture people. That's like saying a decompression chamber wasn't designed to suffocate you, it's just a room where air is not. It's ridiculous.

Look at the Bible. Hell was created to torture people who rebelled against God. It was orriginally created for Lucifer and his cohorts. God never wanted humans to go there.



That isn't free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice without conditions, not the ability to mindlessly obey or be subject to arbitary torture. If I say you can freely vote for Presidential elections but if you vote for the wrong candidate you'll be abducted in the night and tortured to death, that is not a free choice.

Thats incorrect. Free will is the ability to make a choice. Conditions or not. For example because you have free will you have the ability to murder, but that doesnt mean that you can ignore the consequences. In the same way God doesnt reveal himself to us completly because he wants us to make a choice. If he showed us to himself completely then we would have to accept him because we could see it. In this case, now, we have a choice.


They were told they would 'surely die.' But death didn't exist, so how could Adam and Eve even understand the concept?

Two things. Firstly, when the word die was used and the concept of death expressed, Adam and eve show no lack of understanding. They do not say that they didnt understand or that they wished to know more. Thus there is no evidence to suggest they didnt understand

Secondly, God didnt create them stupid. He gave them a level of knowledge.


Why did God put the tree or the serpent where they could get to it??

Because he wanted to give them a choice, and for them to hear an alternative view. That way they chould love him. You cant love someone without an element of choice. You cant force someone to love you


Why did God need a tree of knowledge at all, since he had all knowledge already?

It wasnt for him

Adam and eve show no lack of understanding. They do not say that they didnt understand or that they wished to know more. Thus there is no evidence to suggest they didnt understand

Secondly, God didnt create them stupid. He gave them a level of knowledge.



I'm amazed how many intelligent, seemingly educated people on these forums believe that the story in Genesis is _literally_ true that Adam and Eve were actual people. I've got a foot in each camp (atheist/christian), but no christian I've ever met thinks that all the bible is literally true. Sorry, it's just a real culture shock foro me!

Elgesh']... but no christian I've ever met thinks that all the bible is literally true. Sorry, it's just a real culture shock foro me!Heh, you aren't the only one. When I first came on here, I didn't realize people were serious...

Actually, I still can't really believe it.

Heh, you aren't the only one. When I first came on here, I didn't realize people were serious...

Actually, I still can't really believe it.

lol, cheers! Glad it's not just me :)

Elgesh']I'm amazed how many intelligent, seemingly educated people on these forums believe that the story in Genesis is _literally_ true that Adam and Eve were actual people. I've got a foot in each camp (atheist/christian), but no christian I've ever met thinks that all the bible is literally true. Sorry, it's just a real culture shock foro me!
Maybe they're just concerned about the meaning of the allegory, not strictly taking it as literal.

Maybe they're just concerned about the meaning of the allegory, not strictly taking it as literal.Try reading through the thread here.. There really isn't much question that a bunch of the people here are taking it litteraly

Try reading through the thread here.. There really isn't much question that a bunch of the people here are taking it litteraly
You want me to read 86 pages? I looked at the last few before I posted, sure people appeared to be taking it in terms of a literal stance, but that may simply be for the purpose of arguing the point of its allegory, not assuming it is literally true.

Firstly, its not like finding a power drill, as the fruit was not of itself dangerous. The reason it had consequences, was because of the command
The implication of Adam and Eve being chucked out of paradise pretty much implies that they had no idea of the extent of the consequences of eating the apple. I know people can be hot-headed and stupid, but to willingly and knowingly give something like that up? I don't think so.


Secondly, the fruit should have been there else otherwise Adam and Eve would have had no way of rejecting God and thus have been living in a dictatorship


This implies that by eating the fruit they did it with the primary intention of rejecting god. As I recall, Eve was tempted into trying the apply and then giving it to Adam. With this in mind, and the subsequent consequences, it is in fact more like saying that they are living in a dictatorship.


Thirdly, it is not spending the rest of his life telling you you're the best father ever for suffering so he didn't have to stay outside in the cold. What it is is apologising for what you have done. People make the common mistake that becoming a Christian is somehow intrinsicly involved with worship. Worship is a response to who & what God is, a praising response. But becoming a Christian is about simply saying sorry.


For the most part I don't have so much problem with this, but I do have some general problems of an "apologist" approach to God, which I'll mention soon.


Thats like saying "The flood will only kill those it will kill"

But depending on the church that you go to it is still the case. I remember being in catholic school and being told the importance of baptism, as unbaptised children cannot accept God and are therefore going to Hell.


God does indeed have the power to forgive with a single word but that would not have been fair. It would ignore the nature of sin.


It would ignore the fact that sin has been committed with no wish for forgiveness, if forgiveness is asked then we are told that it will be forgiven. To me, one should not have to ask forgiveness from a divine being per sé, but know that one has done wrong, and feel remorse.


Look at the Bible. Hell was created to torture people who rebelled against God. It was orriginally created for Lucifer and his cohorts. God never wanted humans to go there.


Again, regardless of Gods intention, GMC is correct in stating that God has supplied mankind with instincts urges and desires that encourage their place where they shall have their butts eternally poked with pitchforks. I would put it to you that if God did not wish man to go there, why did he not create a place where mankind COULD go? Is it implied that because man was not meant to go there and did anyway, that he was too lazy to purposefully design a place for human purgatory? Or Hell was just conveniently perfect?


Thats incorrect. Free will is the ability to make a choice. Conditions or not. For example because you have free will you have the ability to murder, but that doesnt mean that you can ignore the consequences. In the same way God doesnt reveal himself to us completly because he wants us to make a choice. If he showed us to himself completely then we would have to accept him because we could see it. In this case, now, we have a choice.


We have a choice now, and even in human justice systems, punishments are designed to try and be proportionate. No matter what someone's crime, in the eyes of a "loving god" can eternal torment be deemed proportionate to sins such as getting drunk too much? Or eating too much? Or having an affair out of wedlock?


Two things. Firstly, when the word die was used and the concept of death expressed, Adam and eve show no lack of understanding. They do not say that they didnt understand or that they wished to know more. Thus there is no evidence to suggest they didnt understand


This could be perhaps more due to the shock of being thrown out of paradise for eating the apple? I don't know about you, but when I did something bad as a kid, the last thing I ended up doing was asking the details of the punishment?


Secondly, God didnt create them stupid. He gave them a level of knowledge.


On that note, I thought the apple itself gave them knowledge? Other than this, I see no reference to adam and eve being given any level of knowledge greater than that an uneducated orphan would have.


Because he wanted to give them a choice, and for them to hear an alternative view. That way they chould love him. You cant love someone without an element of choice. You cant force someone to love you


If the choice was truly free, then a benevolent God would surely not load that choice with the consequences of, A. Love me, live in paradise forever, never die, or B. Live in hardship and pain, Die and if you do anything to piss me off further, you're going to hell?

You want me to read 86 pages? I looked at the last few before I posted, sure people appeared to be taking it in terms of a literal stance, but that may simply be for the purpose of arguing the point of its allegory, not assuming it is literally true.
That's how I tend to interpret their stance, but with some it's hard to tell.

Firstly, its not like finding a power drill, as the fruit was not of itself dangerous.

You think being told you will 'surely die' if you eat a fruit doesn't imply it's dangerous?

Secondly, the fruit should have been there else otherwise Adam and Eve would have had no way of rejecting God and thus have been living in a dictatorship

Why did God want them to reject him if he loves them? Does a loving parent endlessly set up tests of their child's love for them and make them suffer pain and banishment if they fail them?

What it is is apologising for what you have done.

But I didn't do it. Nobody alive today did it. Our distant ancestors did it [according to a literal interpretation of Genesis], and God decided to hold a nonsensical grudge against the entire human race on that basis. I owe him no apology whatsoever.

Sorry for what, anyway? Sorry that God blames us for his own mistakes, and blames us for something our most distant ancestors are supposed to have done thousands of years ago?

Thats like saying "The flood will only kill those it will kill"

No, it's not. Jesus only died to save some people, because Hell exists for the rest. If Jesus had truly died to save everyone, he would have destroyed hell in the sight of man to show the end of God's grudge against humanity.

God does indeed have the power to forgive with a single word but that would not have been fair. It would ignore the nature of sin.

God decided we had sinned in the first place. God could choose to forgive all sin. God did not do so. You think torturing people for failing to acknowledge you is fair?

Look at the Bible. Hell was created to torture people who rebelled against God. It was orriginally created for Lucifer and his cohorts. God never wanted humans to go there.

You should probably look at the Bible yourself: 'Lucifer' is a mistranslation in the KJV, a word left in Latin applied to the pride of the King of Babylon . Lucifer, the day star, is actually [i]Jesus' name, not the devil's! The entire story of Lucifer as a fallen angel came significantly later than the Bible.

And if God doesn't want humans to go there, he can remove all the devil's power and not send any humans there. It is by his choice that humans are sentenced to hell.

Thats incorrect. Free will is the ability to make a choice. Conditions or not.

No, it's not. If you do something 'of your own free will' it means there was no coercion involved. An eternity of torture is, rather obviously, coercion.

Two things. Firstly, when the word die was used and the concept of death expressed, Adam and eve show no lack of understanding. They do not say that they didnt understand or that they wished to know more. Thus there is no evidence to suggest they didnt understand

There is also none to suggest they did. Maybe they just nodded their heads and said 'surely die, uh-huh, right' since they didn't know it was wrong not to pay attention.

Secondly, God didnt create them stupid. He gave them a level of knowledge.

Clearly, not enough to even know if they were wearing clothes or not. And not enough to know right from wrong.

Because he wanted to give them a choice, and for them to hear an alternative view. That way they chould love him. You cant love someone without an element of choice. You cant force someone to love you

So he decided the best way to make them love him would be to tell them they'd be harmed if they didn't? Stalin was well known for that kind of 'love,' too.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at allYou express some points. but you have to remember that there is No proof that there is a god. And if you go by the bible it would say that your god is the only god but you have to remember all the ancient civilization such as the egyptions. They all believed in DOZENS of gods. So for you to say that there is one god is highly unethicle.

Perhaps you need to check your scripture... and maybe, you MIGHT want to look into the ACTUAL texts, not some weak English translation.

For example - the Hebrew 'witch' would be a diviner, who operated through interaction with the dead.... and the Greek 'witch' would be a poisoner.

It should be born in mind that, the word we use 'witch', is a relatively new invention... and has no necessary parallel to the scriptural MEANING.

i never said the bible specifies witches, but are witches not UNBELIEVERS?

and christians "should not yoke [themselves] together with unbelievers"... which applies directly to marriage

it's arrogant that you aren't considering the weight of statements for rational thought.


Do you realise how ignorant and self-absorbed you appear to be when you purport that belief is NOT rational thought?

I was refurring this whole moral/good-evil thing with Adam & Eve in this particular case

yes, but you can't just say there are contradictions in the bible, you need quotes, and arguable points...

Fair enough. So... show us the scriptural hell and damnation?

try revelation, where people are cast into the pit of burning sulphur...

yes, but you can't just say there are contradictions in the bible, you need quotes, and arguable points...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html

There you go.

You think being told you will 'surely die' if you eat a fruit doesn't imply it's dangerous?



Why did God want them to reject him if he loves them? Does a loving parent endlessly set up tests of their child's love for them and make them suffer pain and banishment if they fail them?



But I didn't do it. Nobody alive today did it. Our distant ancestors did it [according to a literal interpretation of Genesis], and God decided to hold a nonsensical grudge against the entire human race on that basis. I owe him no apology whatsoever.

Sorry for what, anyway? Sorry that God blames us for his own mistakes, and blames us for something our most distant ancestors are supposed to have done thousands of years ago?



No, it's not. Jesus only died to save some people, because Hell exists for the rest. If Jesus had truly died to save everyone, he would have destroyed hell in the sight of man to show the end of God's grudge against humanity.



God decided we had sinned in the first place. God could choose to forgive all sin. God did not do so. You think torturing people for failing to acknowledge you is fair?



You should probably look at the Bible yourself: 'Lucifer' is a mistranslation in the KJV, a word left in Latin applied to the pride of the King of Babylon . Lucifer, the day star, is actually [i]Jesus' name, not the devil's! The entire story of Lucifer as a fallen angel came significantly later than the Bible.

And if God doesn't want humans to go there, he can remove all the devil's power and not send any humans there. It is by his choice that humans are sentenced to hell.



No, it's not. If you do something 'of your own free will' it means there was no coercion involved. An eternity of torture is, rather obviously, coercion.



There is also none to suggest they did. Maybe they just nodded their heads and said 'surely die, uh-huh, right' since they didn't know it was wrong not to pay attention.



Clearly, not enough to even know if they were wearing clothes or not. And not enough to know right from wrong.



So he decided the best way to make them love him would be to tell them they'd be harmed if they didn't? Stalin was well known for that kind of 'love,' too.
I think it's safe to say you pretty much own this thread as far as reasoning goes.
This is another excellent post.

Do you realise how ignorant and self-absorbed you appear to be when you purport that belief is NOT rational thought?
Do you realize that you don't even understand what i said?
Try again. Or save yourself the time and go to some topic you're actually versed in so when you make errors in judgment there won't be a whole lot of embarassing facts to screw up your continuity.
And quit trying the personal attacks to avoid my points.
Deal with them. ANY of them.

Elgesh']I'm amazed how many intelligent, seemingly educated people on these forums believe that the story in Genesis is _literally_ true that Adam and Eve were actual people. I've got a foot in each camp (atheist/christian), but no christian I've ever met thinks that all the bible is literally true. Sorry, it's just a real culture shock foro me!

Yes, it was a shock to me also a LONG time ago. Hopefully this will prepare you for more shocks to come.

Do you realize that you don't even understand what i said?
Try again. Or save yourself the time and go to some topic you're actually versed in so when you make errors in judgment there won't be a whole lot of embarassing facts to screw up your continuity.
And quit trying the personal attacks to avoid my points.
Deal with them. ANY of them.
Note time passing, Zhantuu.
*taps foot*

You want me to read 86 pages? I looked at the last few before I posted, sure people appeared to be taking it in terms of a literal stance, but that may simply be for the purpose of arguing the point of its allegory, not assuming it is literally true.Nah, I don't want you to go blind, hehe. But don't be surprised when you run into some of the hardcore bible thumpers. There are quite a few of them around.

It's funny though. Most of the really really Christian people around here don't approve completely of God's soul policy. It took me a few pages, but somewhere in this thread, a handful of them admits that they wouldn't go around torturing people for eternity. Some of them, interestingly, were the same ones that postulate that God is the source of ethics.

Oh well.. I don't make sense half the time. I don't suppose it's all that fair of me to expect others to do it.

Nah, I don't want you to go blind, hehe. But don't be surprised when you run into some of the hardcore bible thumpers. There are quite a few of them around.

It's funny though. Most of the really really Christian people around here don't approve completely of God's soul policy. It took me a few pages, but somewhere in this thread, a handful of them admits that they wouldn't go around torturing people for eternity. Some of them, interestingly, were the same ones that postulate that God is the source of ethics.

Oh well.. I don't make sense half the time. I don't suppose it's all that fair of me to expect others to do it.
I'd say you do a pretty good job of it.
I'm wondering if the people you're talking about suppose that there is a discernment of ethics also as independent from sensible, reasoned thought.

I'd say you do a pretty good job of it.
I'm wondering if the people you're talking about suppose that there is a discernment of ethics also as independent from sensible, reasoned thought.Thank you :)

And that's a damn good question. It never really crossed my mind, as I haven't the slightest doubt that ethics stems from rational thought & observation/empathy.

... Yet maybe it did? - I shy away from the word 'moral' because it is so closely tied to religion, and by & large, I find religions do anything but promote ethical behaviour. Oh well..

Any fundie takers out there?

Thank you :)

And that's a damn good question. It never really crossed my mind, as I haven't the slightest doubt that ethics stems from rational thought & observation/empathy.

... Yet maybe it did? - I shy away from the word 'moral' because it is so closely tied to religion, and by & large, I find religions do anything but promote ethical behaviour. Oh well..
Thank you. *bows*

I've noted that when pressed, as is with the more fundamental/extreme forms of whatever main religion involved, most people back up to charging, "Who are we to question divine wisdom? Do we want to invoke holy wrath, as Job did? You're deceived." ... and the like.
Kinda like nazis and the whole, "just following orders" thing, IMO.



Any fundie takers out there?

Seconded.

Just like to say I <3 me some Straughn. I've been in his position before and, while still having won in the end, I didn't do nearly as good a job as he's done.

Firstly, its not like finding a power drill, as the fruit was not of itself dangerous. The reason it had consequences, was because of the command

Lack of moral sense of good & evil, right or wrong would be a problem when it comes to obaying a command...

Secondly, the fruit should have been there else otherwise Adam and Eve would have had no way of rejecting God and thus have been living in a dictatorship

They *WERE* living in a dictatorship, break the rules == you die

Thirdly, it is not spending the rest of his life telling you you're the best father ever for suffering so he didn't have to stay outside in the cold. What it is is apologising for what you have done. People make the common mistake that becoming a Christian is somehow intrinsicly involved with worship. Worship is a response to who & what God is, a praising response. But becoming a Christian is about simply saying sorry.

Saying sorry for what? For having fun? For boinking my girlfriend? I don't even know what you guys consider sins anyway

Thats like saying "The flood will only kill those it will kill"

Well, that is kinda sorta correct

God does indeed have the power to forgive with a single word but that would not have been fair. It would ignore the nature of sin.

Sin, wich he created :rolleyes:

Look at the Bible. Hell was created to torture people who rebelled against God. It was orriginally created for Lucifer and his cohorts. God never wanted humans to go there.

Hence, god is a dictator

Thats incorrect. Free will is the ability to make a choice. Conditions or not. For example because you have free will you have the ability to murder, but that doesnt mean that you can ignore the consequences. In the same way God doesnt reveal himself to us completly because he wants us to make a choice. If he showed us to himself completely then we would have to accept him because we could see it. In this case, now, we have a choice.

How can any knowledgeable person make this choice? Wich god to believe in, wich religion is the one true faith?

Two things. Firstly, when the word die was used and the concept of death expressed, Adam and eve show no lack of understanding. They do not say that they didnt understand or that they wished to know more. Thus there is no evidence to suggest they didnt understand

There is no evidence that suggests that the Adam & Eve story is real neighter.
Do you think a species can survive from just the decendents of 1 male & 1 female?

Secondly, God didnt create them stupid. He gave them a level of knowledge.

Well, yea, he potty trained them :rolleyes:

Because he wanted to give them a choice, and for them to hear an alternative view. That way they chould love him. You cant love someone without an element of choice. You cant force someone to love you

Sounds more to me that he was looking for a reason to smite them

It wasnt for him

Hmm... Isn't that called intrapment?

Just like to say I <3 me some Straughn. I've been in his position before and, while still having won in the end, I didn't do nearly as good a job as he's done.
Wow, thank you! *bows*
I'm certain i've never been complimented that way before.
To be fair, there are people on this thread to whom i owe props, GMC Military Arms, The Similized world and Kefren for example ... and from the get-go, Grave_n_Idle.
These guys do better, IMO, than myself.

i never said the bible specifies witches, but are witches not UNBELIEVERS?

and christians "should not yoke [themselves] together with unbelievers"... which applies directly to marriage

Wich is very discrimatory at the least

Do you realise how ignorant and self-absorbed you appear to be when you purport that belief is NOT rational thought?

Religion by it's very definition isn't rational

yes, but you can't just say there are contradictions in the bible, you need quotes, and arguable points...

That would imply i actually start digging through the bible to prove my point, i find it much more entertaining to disect quotes presented to me, such as the one you made saying christians shouldn't fall in love with unbelievers.

If you meet a girl & you really dig her, she's everything you could hope for, into the same kinky sex you are (if that's your thing ;) ) and just about the perfect mate for you, but she's of a different belief then you, don't you think that rule is then hindering you to live your life to the fullest? Afterall, you aren't allowed to fall in love with said person

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html

There you go.

*saves bookmark* :p

*saves bookmark* :p

I can't remember which thread I said this in, but basically my belief is that god's using us as entertainment. Not to say that he's a sadistic bastard, which he may or may not be, but I suppose (after deciding that there's no such thing as hell and the reward for living through life and entertaining him is eternal heaven) he thinks that instant and everlasting heaven and complete happiness forever would make up for any pain caused on Earth, which would seem to be just a speck in the life of a person who's lived for eternity in heaven.

I would describe it more like... if christians are slaves to faith, therefore self-proclaimed slaves of god, then they'd be out there in the fields; God being inside the mansion, not actually forcing them to do anything, with open doors waiting for them to come in. Muslims could be seen as people looking at the christians in the field while hiding in the forest nearby. Jews being in a different field, one which requires much more care and attention. Deists (Deism [day-ism] being the given name of my religion) would be, in this metaphor, people sitting in the mansion with god, hanging out.

I wouldn't like to be god's slave. I'd like for him to be my friend, and I'd even make him a sandwich.

Its true that the belief in the existance or non existance of God are both acts of faith.
I choose to not beleive in God for the pragmatic reason that looking for 'rational' causes for phenomina is normally more helpful that simply accepting them as 'God's will'.

Its true that the belief in the existance or non existance of God are both acts of faith.
I choose to not beleive in God for the pragmatic reason that looking for 'rational' causes for phenomina is normally more helpful that simply accepting them as 'God's will'.

Not believing in something for which there is no scientific evidence is not an act of faith.

About the adam and eve thing.
One would theorize that what an omnipotent being tells you to do would take precedence over what some snake tells you to do.


Although - of course - if you know animals can't talk, and you know there is only ONE other entity, aprat from you and your partner, in this garden...

You can be forgiven for not understanding that 'god' has actually allowed in another sentient creature.

Indeed.... since your entire world knowledge consists of animals, yourselves, and 'god'... when an animal talks to you, you have to ASSUME, it's god, right?


Eve was told about it from adam, assumedly.


Your assumption is very nice, but it isn't scriptural.

I 'assume' Jesus was homosexual (after all, he doesn't complain when Judas slips him the tongue...), but it isn't SCRIPTURAL, so assumption is worth nothing, right?

Even if Adam DID tell Eve... are we now accepting Adam as EQUAL to god? If not... then why should Eve accept everything HE says as divine?


She says some stuff about not being able to eat from the tree when the snake tells her to.

I also know what she told the serpent... but 'god' didn't tell me, either... I heard it second-hand... just as she did.

What she points out, is that 'god' said they would surely die, if they ate the fruit of that tree. The 'serpent' points out that this is not true - making 'god' the liar in Genesis.... and it's only chapter 3.

Maybe they're just concerned about the meaning of the allegory, not strictly taking it as literal.

Apparently, most of the Bible Belt seems to believe that the WHOLE book, is ENTIRELY literally true.

i never said the bible specifies witches, but are witches not UNBELIEVERS?

and christians "should not yoke [themselves] together with unbelievers"... which applies directly to marriage

And yet, it IS 'better to marry, than burn'... so, there is something of a hierarchy.

Indeed... being objective, you shouldn't be on the forum at all, because Christians are supposed to be a 'separate' people... but then, if they DO remain separate, how can they bear testimony?

You have to weigh the relative importance and relevence of the verse, my friend.

I'll solve this everyone;

I AM GOD!

Because Science can't prove everything, you can't prove that I'm not, and because science logically needs evidence, here I am!

try revelation, where people are cast into the pit of burning sulphur...

Specific verses, at all?

Do you mean the "Lake of Fire"? No mention of burning sulphur here...

Also, of course, it specifically says that those who are judged here, are judged 'according to works'...

And, of course... there is some debate about the "Book of Life"... since it occurs nowhere else in scripture, apart from a fleeting reference in Daniel.

So - what is this hell and damnation? Burning in eternal flames? Absence from god? Torture by demons?

What is the 'hell' you are trying to sell?

Wow, thank you! *bows*
I'm certain i've never been complimented that way before.
To be fair, there are people on this thread to whom i owe props, GMC Military Arms, The Similized world and Kefren for example ... and from the get-go, Grave_n_Idle.
These guys do better, IMO, than myself.

:D My thanks, friend.

You are certainly one of the vanguard of Soldiers of Truth. :)

Apparently, most of the Bible Belt seems to believe that the WHOLE book, is ENTIRELY literally true.
And that's the kind of thing that puts suffrage into perspective (not specifically male/female)
Hell, it even qualifies (to some degree) the electoral college.

Religion by it's very definition isn't rational
Religion, by its definition, is no more or less rational than the human beings who create it.

Religion, by its definition, is no more or less rational than the human beings who create it.
...and the ones that endorse it.

...and the ones that endorse it.
Aye; the endorsement isn't rational, as religion is (should be) a personal thing.

Aye; the endorsement isn't rational, as religion is (should be) a personal thing.
Amen to that.
To be fair, wouldn't that just make it faith though, in the broader sense of the term?

Amen to that.
To be fair, wouldn't that just make it faith though, in the broader sense of the term?
Faith, rite, ritual, communion, etc. It wouldn't eliminate teaching and tradition, but put them in context: not the concrete word to be followed, but the fluid word to be grasped and understood in a personal manner.

Faith, rite, ritual, communion, etc. It wouldn't eliminate teaching and tradition, but put them in context: not the concrete word to be followed, but the fluid word to be grasped and understood in a personal manner.
Well said. *bows*

So in the days of the OT if you ignored god's warnings he killed you, and yet nowadays people ignore 'the word of god' and manage to avoid the wholesale destruction of the area in which they live...


Not every person who is heading for destruction gets to experience a taste of that destruction in this life. Perhaps only a small fraction. (The Biblical story of the great flood would be an exception.) When you take into account that most of the people of the OT did NOT see the wholesale destruction that they apparently deserved, but rather only the people that belonged to that particular generation, e.g. the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. God's justice would take into account the punishment due to each generation in the afterlife, so that those who didn't get slaughtered by the Babylonians would have to face the music somewhere else. Same goes for people living today, if the warnings of Jesus are anything to go by.


Not sure what this has to do with my question :confused:


I thought you were initially contrasting the God of the NT and the God of the OT and arguing that they could not be one and the same. I was trying to show you the bigger picture as part of my attempt to explain how they can be the same, but each seen from a different perspective. I guess I failed in my attempt.


So to be loved by god is to be punished?


Yes, in the same way that you wouldn't let your 2 year old little boy get away with yanking his sisters' hair out. If he never learns how to treat his sister with respect at that age, what will he be like with the ladies as a man? I don't even want to imagine that one.


And again the only point I see you making is that to accept god's love is to suffer, now that's a strong point for conversion :rolleyes:


I am slightly surprised that you seemed to have understood me right (for once). Yes, to accept God's love is to submit to his discipline, and yes, if you want to avoid suffering, don't ever follow Christ. Better to run the other way (until you learn that there is simply no way to avoid suffering, with or without God, and that once you get to know God, even His discipline becomes a precious thing that you would not trade for the world). On the other hand, suffering without God is bitter and meaningless, and will always eventually make the temporal pleasures totally worthless. Jesus never went for cheap conversions. He took only those who were ready to accept Him as Lord of their lives, no conditions attached.



Also all this begs the question of...
If god is omnipotent, why is it that the only way he can show his 'love' for mankind is to make them suffer?
Which, by the way, is the same thing you're saying will happen if we don't accept his love.

I think you need to balance that against all the good things in your life that you don't thank God for, but which He gives freely to you anyway. If you see that pleasures are all ultimately gifts from God, you would see just how much of his 'love' comes our way, regardless of what we believe.

At any rate, your complaints against God and they way he set up the world don't make a lot of sense. It reminds me of my boyhood days in Australia, when I often used to go swimming in the lakes and rivers etc., with my brothers (sometimes all five of them) and my cousins and friends. Sometimes, when the water was a little cold, the complainers would stand on the bank and whine about how cold it was. The others would jump right in and yell about how great it was. Sure, the first sensation was a little shocking, but afterwards, you realized just how much better it was to get in and enjoy the swim than to stand around on the bank slapping at the mosquitoes, and trying not to get too sunburnt.

It may be that those who have 'jumped in' into God's way of living can see how much more sense it makes, and how sitting around on the outside making up excuses is the least logical thing to do. It may be that the closest thing God has come to making an error was to give people an intellect strong enough to think up enough excuses and complaints about how badly a mess God has made of things, particularly if such excuses prevent them from 'jumping in'.

No, you're not. Paul's interpretation of the Jesus story makes no sense: God decides humans [who he created] should be punished for listening to a serpent [which he created] and eating fruit from a tree [which he created]. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the entire episode was due to his error of putting the tree and the serpent in the garden, God blamed us, threw us out of the garden of Eden, and bought death, disease and suffering into the world in case that wasn't enough.


That is certainly one way of looking at things. I suppose you are right to say that God is responsible for a lot of the above. But are you trying to clear humans of any responsibility at all? If you consider the pains God went to in order to provide a way for us to be saved, and how it much easier our path is (to believe) than his path (death on a cross), you can see how God does seemed to have played us fair, or if anything, he seems to have gone the extra mile more than us. No matter what you say, you cannot ignore the fact that man is responsible for his own sin. Nobody makes you and I do what is wrong or what is right. We do have a choice. Thus, Paul's interpretation (and that of the other writers, e.g. Peter) does make a lot of sense.


God then comes to Earth in a superpowered body, and gets us to nail it to a cross. Through that he admits the commandments he gave to Moses were ridiculous, and that we can only get to heaven by a combination of good works, and accepting that he killed a human-shaped avatar of himself because apologising for his unending grudge against us over a victimless crime he created every detail of was too damn difficult for him.


Actually, it wasn't superpowered. He got tired and upset and hungry like the rest of us. He did not say that the commandments he gave to Moses were ridiculous, but that he came, not to do away with the law, but to fulfill the law, every part of it. It was the apostles who later recognised that only through Jesus does God consider humans capable of fulfilling the law. By themselves, they cannot.
If you mean the commandments that the scribes and Pharisees gave as being ridiculously inadequate to make one righteous in God's sight, then yes, Jesus didn't go along with those.

The death of Jesus was not an apology, it was a rescue mission. The way in which we get rescued is to believe in Him. Salvation is a gift of God, that he gives freely to those who believe in Him. We are, however, judged according to our works, because good works are the fruit of a genuine faith. We are not saved by our works, nor our faith. We are saved by Christ if we have faith.



It's like you as a father finding your son playing with a power drill you never should have left out, blaming him for your mistake, throwing him out of the house, deliberately slamming your own hand in the car door in front of him and then telling him you'll let him back in if he spends the rest of his life telling you you're the best father ever for suffering so he didn't have to stay outside in the cold.


Except that Adam and Eve were adults, not children, possibly more intelligent than us, and they should have listened to God. Thus they were not innocent. And you simply cannot place all the blame on God. You have to take some of it too.

And that when someone does decide to get to know God, the rewards are far outweighing the suffering, and in some strange way, the love makes the suffering not so much a pain, but an honour--providing the knowledge of God is genuine, and not just a bunch of stuffy religious rituals and regulations.


Where does any of that appear in the Bible? Again, you're thinking backwards, starting from the assumption that there must have been a good reason and trying to think of excuses. The rub is you can find an excuse for anything if one of your initial assumptions was that the wronged party must have had it coming to them, or that the person wronging them must have been acting in their best interest.


It is quite reasonable to begin a process of deduction with God, and to assume that He is good, as it is claimed in the Bible. This sort of reasoning is used by the writers of the Bible itself. If you call that backwards, then perhaps it is your applying your idea of a nasty unfair God (your source seems to be your own particular way of looking at the world) to deduct the particular details of such a story that is quite backward. Which way is more reasonable? Your prejudice, or mine? At least mine is based on what the Bible says, e.g., that God is good. I am not making up excuses. I am interpreting what I find in the Bible consistently with the whole message of the Bible, i.e., God loves us.


No, Jesus only died for those who would later accept him. Jesus would not have needed to exist if God didn't mean to use the whole thing as a reason to seperate people into those who go to heaven and those who go to hell. God could have forgiven all sin in the world with a single word, because he is God.


There are two ways of looking at that. Jesus did ask God to forgive them, for they didn't know what they were doing. I suppose he meant those who were directly responsible for putting him on a cross. He wanted his Father to forgive them. One could argue that Jesus, therefor, had the interests of the whole world in mind when he went to the cross, particularly if he wanted forgiveness for even those who put him there. However, his death on a cross doesn't do any good for those who refuse to put their faith in him. Thus, in one sense, you are right to say that Jesus only died for those who accepted him. But then you argue that God uses this to separate people into 'sheep' and 'goats', so to say. Those going to heaven and those to hell. Where to you find the basis for that assertion?
I see Jesus as bringing division, that same sort of division of which you speak. But the division is decided based on our reaction to Jesus. The thing is, the sin of the whole world is already forgiven, including yours. You simply have to believe in Jesus to receive it.


No, it's not. Hell is a pit of fire that burneth with brimstone, haven't you read Revelation? And since God designed humans to require the things you claim to be absent in Hell, it obviously was designed to torture people. That's like saying a decompression chamber wasn't designed to suffocate you, it's just a room where air is not. It's ridiculous.


Yes, I have read Revelations, and I came to the conclusion that it was irrelevant whether it was full of the elemental forms of sulfur or not. (How would you describe it to people who had no understanding of science?) The main point is that God was not there, and none of his good gifts are either, and that it was the most terrible place one could possible imagine, and them a good deal more. Yes, it is a place of torture, but only because that is reality without God. It isn't ridiculous, it is horrible.


That isn't free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice without conditions, not the ability to mindlessly obey or be subject to arbitary torture. If I say you can freely vote for Presidential elections but if you vote for the wrong candidate you'll be abducted in the night and tortured to death, that is not a free choice.


Free will does not mean free of limitations. We are limited to atmospheres containing oxygen. We need sleep. We need human company. We need. We are full of limitations. Even God has his limitations. For example, he gave us a limited choice, and will not take it away from us, not even to pull us out of hell. If you don't like the options that you got, go ahead and complain away. But I reckon it is a good deal better to 'jump in' and enjoy it. It all looks and feels so much better on the other side.


They were told they would 'surely die.' But death didn't exist, so how could Adam and Eve even understand the concept? Why did God put the tree or the serpent where they could get to it? Why did God need a tree of knowledge at all, since he had all knowledge already?

It is true that God may not have explained death to them, and they may not have understood exactly what it meant. But I reckon God was intelligent enough to know exactly how to communicate the gravity of such a choice to the beings that he had just finished making. If you understand something about love, you will see that it always involves choice. You cannot have love unless there is a choice. Hence the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I'm not sure why it was a tree. Perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps the tree represents something else that we are not in a position to understand. Whether it was a tree or something else is not relevent to the truth that lies behind the story. (I like to think it was a tree, however, and will continue thinking it was a tree until I find a very good reason to think otherwise.)

That is certainly one way of looking at things. I suppose you are right to say that God is responsible for a lot of the above. But are you trying to clear humans of any responsibility at all? If you consider the pains God went to in order to provide a way for us to be saved, and how it much easier our path is (to believe) than his path (death on a cross), you can see how God does seemed to have played us fair, or if anything, he seems to have gone the extra mile more than us. No matter what you say, you cannot ignore the fact that man is responsible for his own sin. Nobody makes you and I do what is wrong or what is right. We do have a choice. Thus, Paul's interpretation (and that of the other writers, e.g. Peter) does make a lot of sense.

So let me get this straight:

A loving, capable parent has two new children. He places them in a beautiful playroom that is filled with joyful and wonderful things. He surrounds them with goodness, and has them live in a perfect enclave where no pain or wickedness can ever enter.

Then, one day, the loving parent decides to install a working stove in the playroom. He tells the kids not to touch it, but he also puts a magical elf in the room who will encourage the kids to touch the stove. Having no understanding of pain, wickedness, or badness, and knowing that everything their parent has put in their playroom is good and wonderful, the children decide to touch the stove. The loving parent logically responds to this transgression by beating the children, throwing them out on the street, and disowning them for all time.

Christians immediately name the loving parent "Father Of The Eon."

Forgive me, but I hold parents to a much higher standard of conduct (even parents who aren't all-knowing and all-powerful). Are the children responsible for touching the stove, despite the parent's instructions not to? Yes, in so far as children must be taught to be responsible for their actions so they will grow into responsible adults. Did the parent in this situation demonstrate acceptable, reasonable, or even practical parenting? Hell no. Is the parent to blame for constructing a stupid and dangerous situation? Hell yes. Is the parent to blame for utterly failing in his role as guide and nurturer? Hell yes. Was his response to the children's infraction in any way appropriate? Hell no.

It is quite reasonable to begin a process of deduction with God, and to assume that He is good, as it is claimed in the Bible. This sort of reasoning is used by the writers of the Bible itself. If you call that backwards, then perhaps it is your applying your idea of a nasty unfair God (your source seems to be your own particular way of looking at the world) to deduct the particular details of such a story that is quite backward. Which way is more reasonable? Your prejudice, or mine? At least mine is based on what the Bible says, e.g., that God is good. I am not making up excuses. I am interpreting what I find in the Bible consistently with the whole message of the Bible, i.e., God loves us.


Well, what you're doing is circular reasoning and with that logic, you can prove anything - so it's not a very reasonable tool to begin with.

Why not try the following? The only one who claims that the christian god is omni-everything is god himself. So let's be a bit sceptical and simply compare his words with his deeds. Without the assumption that god is omnipotent or all-benevolent, there is little to suggest that he in is. He kills almost the whole mankind with the flood, sends his son on a kamikaze mission, does a little bit of genocide here and there and plans to sentence 2/3 of manking for eternal damnation.

Apart from the fact that an omnipotent being should be able to come up with better ideas than killing people all the time, it doesn't give his claims of benevolence very much credibility.

Well, what you're doing is circular reasoning and with that logic, you can prove anything - so it's not a very reasonable tool to begin with.

Why not try the following? The only one who claims that the christian god is omni-everything is god himself. So let's be a bit sceptical and simply compare his words with his deeds. Without the assumption that god is omnipotent or all-benevolent, there is little to suggest that he in is. He kills almost the whole mankind with the flood, sends his son on a kamikaze mission, does a little bit of genocide here and there and plans to sentence 2/3 of manking for eternal damnation.

Apart from the fact that an omnipotent being should be able to come up with better ideas than killing people all the time, it doesn't give his claims of benevolence very much credibility.

Good job, you've just literalised mythology and legend!
Written by a barbaric and ruthless people in a barbaric and ruthless time!
You're no better than some jackass creationist!
You shouldn't be allowed to read fairy tales!

Good job, you've just literalised mythology and legend!
Written by a barbaric and ruthless people in a barbaric and ruthless time!
You're no better than some jackass creationist!
You shouldn't be allowed to read fairy tales!

Am I missing a joke or something? :confused:

When discussing the logic of a literal interpretation of the bible, then I have to use a literal interpretation, don't I?

God didn't want them to reject him. He wanted them to have the ability to reject him. That way they could genuinely love him. You cant force someone to love you because thats not what love means.
Having the potential to reject or hate someone is not what makes for love, either.

Love is inherent in being (spiritual existence). The humans did not need a choice in order to have it, either in the garden or after.

The fruit was not what was dangerous. Eating the fruit did nothing to them. It was not a posionous fruit or any kind of dangerous fruit. What was dangerous was breaking the command God gave them. It could of been "dont pick that flower" or "dont bathe in that river" etc. All that mattered was the command.
Sorry if I'm destroying the flow of debate here, but I feel that word highlights everything I hate about many religions - command. So God creates us, yes? And, since he created everything about us, he must have given us free will and hence the desire to explore, define new boundaries for ourselves; in essence, to learn. So why does he feel the urge to control us, as though we were his toys? Yes, if he did create us I can understand why many should and would be grateful to him - after all, our entire existence is defined by his actions - but why does he need to lay down barriers to our own development? Why the hell does he make us simple in the first place?

It's as though he were setting us up for a fall; "I'm going to give you burning desires to discover and explore, but don't touch that tree over there because I don't want you to" is simply asking for trouble. Did God want us to fail to show that we are 'less' than him, or that we didn't 'love' him enough? I feel, and have felt for some time, that this whole section of Genesis is analagous to a drunken father trying to find a reason to beat his child.

You think being told you will 'surely die' if you eat a fruit doesn't imply it's dangerous?.

The fruit was not what was dangerous. Eating the fruit did nothing to them. It was not a posionous fruit or any kind of dangerous fruit. What was dangerous was breaking the command God gave them. It could of been "dont pick that flower" or "dont bathe in that river" etc. All that mattered was the command.


Why did God want them to reject him if he loves them? Does a loving parent endlessly set up tests of their child's love for them and make them suffer pain and banishment if they fail them?

God didn't want them to reject him. He wanted them to have the ability to reject him. That way they could genuinely love him. You cant force someone to love you because thats not what love means.


But I didn't do it. Nobody alive today did it. Our distant ancestors did it [according to a literal interpretation of Genesis], and God decided to hold a nonsensical grudge against the entire human race on that basis. I owe him no apology whatsoever.

Have you never sinned? And by sin I mean the Christian definiton of the word so dont go "I dont believe in sin therefore I havent sinned".


Sorry for what, anyway? Sorry that God blames us for his own mistakes, and blames us for something our most distant ancestors are supposed to have done thousands of years ago?

See above. You have sinned. I have sinned. We have all sinned


No, it's not. Jesus only died to save some people, because Hell exists for the rest. If Jesus had truly died to save everyone, he would have destroyed hell in the sight of man to show the end of God's grudge against humanity.

Jesus died to give everyone the option of being saved. Not everyone will be saved, but everyone can be saved. Everyone has the ability to be


God decided we had sinned in the first place. God could choose to forgive all sin. God did not do so. You think torturing people for failing to acknowledge you is fair?

For forgiveness to work, the person who is being forgiven needs to accept that they have done something wrong. God can forgive all sin, but you need to ask for that forgiveness. Otherwise you are just perpetuating the barrier between you and God by pretending there is nothing wrong


You should probably look at the Bible yourself: 'Lucifer' is a mistranslation in the KJV, a word left in Latin applied to the pride of the King of Babylon . Lucifer, the day star, is actually [i]Jesus' name, not the devil's! The entire story of Lucifer as a fallen angel came significantly later than the Bible.

And if God doesn't want humans to go there, he can remove all the devil's power and not send any humans there. It is by his choice that humans are sentenced to hell.

Hell was created as a place for all those who rebell against God. If God made that punishment for lucifer and not humans then he would not be just. God doesnt want us to go there but to be just he must let us if we ignore sin.


No, it's not. If you do something 'of your own free will' it means there was no coercion involved. An eternity of torture is, rather obviously, coercion.

Hell is punishment, not coercion. In the same way prison is punishment.


There is also none to suggest they did. Maybe they just nodded their heads and said 'surely die, uh-huh, right' since they didn't know it was wrong not to pay attention.

Well since they asked no questions and demonstrated no lack of understanding it is logical to assume they knew what they were doing. Eve herself used the word to the serpent. She wouldnt have used it if she didnt know what it ment


Clearly, not enough to even know if they were wearing clothes or not. And not enough to know right from wrong.

They did not have the burden of understanding morals, only of obedience. Once they understood morals they understood shame and modesty about their bodies


So he decided the best way to make them love him would be to tell them they'd be harmed if they didn't? Stalin was well known for that kind of 'love,' too.

The system was the same as current governments. You are free to do as you wish except...(list of crimes)

Sorry if I'm destroying the flow of debate here, but I feel that word highlights everything I hate about many religions - command. So God creates us, yes? And, since he created everything about us, he must have given us free will and hence the desire to explore, define new boundaries for ourselves; in essence, to learn. So why does he feel the urge to control us, as though we were his toys? Yes, if he did create us I can understand why many should and would be grateful to him - after all, our entire existence is defined by his actions - but why does he need to lay down barriers to our own development? Why the hell does he make us simple in the first place?

It's as though he were setting us up for a fall; "I'm going to give you burning desires to discover and explore, but don't touch that tree over there because I don't want you to" is simply asking for trouble. Did God want us to fail to show that we are 'less' than him, or that we didn't 'love' him enough? I feel, and have felt for some time, that this whole section of Genesis is analagous to a drunken father trying to find a reason to beat his child.

It is questionable as to whether those desires came about as part of our creation or after the fall. Eden is also comparable to any other government at present, where the goverment says "You are free to do as you want except (list of criminal offences)".

It is questionable as to whether those desires came about as part of our creation or after the fall. Eden is also comparable to any other government at present, where the goverment says "You are free to do as you want except (list of criminal offences)".
Yes, but at least those criminal offences follow some sort of logic-based system of morality. All God supposedly said was "You're free to do whatever, but don't touch that arbitrary tree over there because it's full of knowledge and eeevil."

The system was the same as current governments. You are free to do as you wish except...(list of crimes)

But only under a dictator do those laws not require justification.

Why the hell is this thread still around?

Why the hell is this thread still around?
Bastardo! You took the leet post. For this you shall pay...

And yeah, I thought I'd posted in this thread aaages ago. :confused:

Bastardo! You took the leet post.
Should we point and laugh now?

Should we point and laugh now?
Sorry, what? I was too busy signifying with my finger and guffawing.

Faith, rite, ritual, communion, etc. It wouldn't eliminate teaching and tradition, but put them in context: not the concrete word to be followed, but the fluid word to be grasped and understood in a personal manner.

Aye, i can fully agree with that!

Not every person who is heading for destruction gets to experience a taste of that destruction in this life. Perhaps only a small fraction. (The Biblical story of the great flood would be an exception.) When you take into account that most of the people of the OT did NOT see the wholesale destruction that they apparently deserved, but rather only the people that belonged to that particular generation, e.g. the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. God's justice would take into account the punishment due to each generation in the afterlife, so that those who didn't get slaughtered by the Babylonians would have to face the music somewhere else. Same goes for people living today, if the warnings of Jesus are anything to go by.

Warnings? *looks arround*

I thought you were initially contrasting the God of the NT and the God of the OT and arguing that they could not be one and the same. I was trying to show you the bigger picture as part of my attempt to explain how they can be the same, but each seen from a different perspective. I guess I failed in my attempt.

I don't think they are the same, the god referenced in the OT seems to be of a whole different nature (and mythological) background then the dude in the NT

Yes, in the same way that you wouldn't let your 2 year old little boy get away with yanking his sisters' hair out. If he never learns how to treat his sister with respect at that age, what will he be like with the ladies as a man? I don't even want to imagine that one.

Well, you don't smite your 2 year old *AND* his brothers for this i hope :p
The idea that those punishments were to teach us a lesson is silly, because, unless he repeats the lesson at regular intervals, mankind tends to forget history.

I am slightly surprised that you seemed to have understood me right (for once). Yes, to accept God's love is to submit to his discipline, and yes, if you want to avoid suffering, don't ever follow Christ. Better to run the other way (until you learn that there is simply no way to avoid suffering, with or without God, and that once you get to know God, even His discipline becomes a precious thing that you would not trade for the world). On the other hand, suffering without God is bitter and meaningless, and will always eventually make the temporal pleasures totally worthless. Jesus never went for cheap conversions. He took only those who were ready to accept Him as Lord of their lives, no conditions attached.

Like i said in previous posts, it's throughout suffering that you realise that you're alive. That doesn't imply i think it's a god distributing the suffering tho, i think mankind is more then capable of doing that to himself

I think you need to balance that against all the good things in your life that you don't thank God for, but which He gives freely to you anyway. If you see that pleasures are all ultimately gifts from God, you would see just how much of his 'love' comes our way, regardless of what we believe.

This would require believing in his existance tho

At any rate, your complaints against God and they way he set up the world don't make a lot of sense. It reminds me of my boyhood days in Australia, when I often used to go swimming in the lakes and rivers etc., with my brothers (sometimes all five of them) and my cousins and friends. Sometimes, when the water was a little cold, the complainers would stand on the bank and whine about how cold it was. The others would jump right in and yell about how great it was. Sure, the first sensation was a little shocking, but afterwards, you realized just how much better it was to get in and enjoy the swim than to stand around on the bank slapping at the mosquitoes, and trying not to get too sunburnt.

Nice analogy, however, this does imply one believes that, not only god is real, but also that he created everything, the bad stuff *AND* the good stuff

It may be that those who have 'jumped in' into God's way of living can see how much more sense it makes, and how sitting around on the outside making up excuses is the least logical thing to do. It may be that the closest thing God has come to making an error was to give people an intellect strong enough to think up enough excuses and complaints about how badly a mess God has made of things, particularly if such excuses prevent them from 'jumping in'.

He should smite us again to remind us :p
I understand your argument & the logic behind it, but it can only work if you actually accept his existance in the first place

They did not have the burden of understanding morals, only of obedience.

Thus - when the serpent told them to do something, they knew no moral compass.... just obedience.

That is certainly one way of looking at things. I suppose you are right to say that God is responsible for a lot of the above. But are you trying to clear humans of any responsibility at all?

Yes. God chose to test us; if he is truly omniscient, he knew in advance what the outcome would be, and yet put the tree in the garden and the serpent in the garden anyway. The only possible conclusion from that is he wanted to inflict pain and suffering on man and send people to hell.

Even if God is not omniscient, his punishment is impossible to justify; if you son wrongs you, it's not right to punish every generation of children your son may have for his crime. Punishing humans for merely desiring to know right from wrong is also unjustifiable: why did God not want us to know when we were doing things that were evil?

If you consider the pains God went to in order to provide a way for us to be saved, and how it much easier our path is (to believe) than his path (death on a cross), you can see how God does seemed to have played us fair, or if anything, he seems to have gone the extra mile more than us.

God is omnipotent. There's no such thing as effort to an infinitely powerful God, everything is utterly trivial.

No matter what you say, you cannot ignore the fact that man is responsible for his own sin.

Why? God created the tree. God created the serpent. God created the concept of sin. God said we failed the test, and God chose to exact a ridiculously harsh revenge on all subsequent generations of humanity.

Actually, it wasn't superpowered. He got tired and upset and hungry like the rest of us.

He also bought people back from the dead, turned water into wine and commanded demons. Can you do that? Can anyone? Jesus may have had a human body, but he also had some kickass superpowers.

He did not say that the commandments he gave to Moses were ridiculous, but that he came, not to do away with the law, but to fulfill the law, every part of it.

Wrong. Through Jesus' death, God admitted that salvation by following Moses' laws wasn't possible, and that you must also have faith in Jesus. Rather obviously, 'have faith in Jesus' isn't in the OT as a condition to being saved. In effect, he added an extra rule to being saved, presumably because nobody had been saved before then because his criteria were so ridiculously high.

We are, however, judged according to our works, because good works are the fruit of a genuine faith. We are not saved by our works, nor our faith. We are saved by Christ if we have faith.

And if we have works. Which is a wrong-assed way to go about things: at very least, anyone who spends their life doing good works should be saved.

Except that Adam and Eve were adults, not children, possibly more intelligent than us, and they should have listened to God.

They were not more intelligent than us: I know when I'm naked, and I know right from wrong. They knew neither. If they did not know right from wrong, it is ridiculous to expect them to know it was wrong to disobey God.

It is quite reasonable to begin a process of deduction with God, and to assume that He is good, as it is claimed in the Bible.

Try doing the same with a copy of Mein Kampf, assuming Hitler is a good man. Or Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible. Or the Malleus Maleficarum.

Assuming the author's intention before viewing the content leads down some very dark alleys, and is not reasonable: it's classic circular logic.

Those going to heaven and those to hell. Where to you find the basis for that assertion?

The fact that acceptance of Jesus is the deciding factor of whether you are saved or not, according to your school of Christianity. While it's not as bad as the Chick Tract school of 'faith alone' salvation [where you could spend your entire life setting fire to orphanages as long as you repent on your deathbed], it still means someone who lives a good life is sent to hell anyway if they didn't accept Jesus had died so that God could send people to hell for not believing he'd died.

Yes, I have read Revelations, and I came to the conclusion that it was irrelevant whether it was full of the elemental forms of sulfur or not. (How would you describe it to people who had no understanding of science?)

I thought you claimed they were smarter than us?

The main point is that God was not there, and none of his good gifts are either, and that it was the most terrible place one could possible imagine, and them a good deal more. Yes, it is a place of torture, but only because that is reality without God. It isn't ridiculous, it is horrible.

Then only an absolutely evil creature would allow anyone to end up there, when they are the one who sets the criteria for ending up there. Sending people to be tortured forever is not 'love.'

Free will does not mean free of limitations. We are limited to atmospheres containing oxygen. We need sleep. We need human company. We need. We are full of limitations.

Sophistry. That's not the same as telling someone that you'll harm them if they don't choose in the manner you want them to: in that instance, you are acting to coerce them into picking your way. A free choice is one made without coercion.

Even God has his limitations. For example, he gave us a limited choice, and will not take it away from us, not even to pull us out of hell.

Then he is absolutely worthless. If he cannot save even one person from the fate he created and condemned them to, he is not worthy of our acknowledgement.

You cannot have love unless there is a choice. Hence the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I'm not sure why it was a tree. Perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps the tree represents something else that we are not in a position to understand.

Perhaps the whole thing is an ancient tribal myth made by people who didn't understand a truly loving parent accepts their child's love rather than attempting to test it and cruelly punishing them for failing to live up to their utterly ridiculous expectations. Or understand they should still love their child even if their child does not return their love.

It's generally pointed out that God suffered so we would not, but that's bizarre reasoning: nobody had to suffer at all, when God could simply destroy hell with a word and let us choose freely whether to worship him and love him or not. You realise that even if hell didn't exist, and even if God came into our sight, we could still choose not to love him and not to worship him? If he truly loved all humans, he would be willing to accept that rather than to punish anyone who refused to suck up to him with eternal torment.

------------------------------------

The fruit was not what was dangerous. Eating the fruit did nothing to them.

Then God lied to them when he told them that by eating the fruit they would 'surely die,' and the Devil told the truth that they would not surely die.

All that mattered was the command.

In other words, God wanted us to be a puppet on a string, forever. You think if we'd passed there wouldn't have been another test the next day? He'd have to make sure we still had the option once the snake-and-tree routine hadn't got us.

God didn't want them to reject him. He wanted them to have the ability to reject him. That way they could genuinely love him. You cant force someone to love you because thats not what love means.

You can't punish someone for not loving you, that's not what love means either. If someone you feel affection for rejects you, it is not loving to torture them to death; love doesn't come through fear.

If God wanted us to love him but wanted us to have the choice not to, that's easy. You just give people knowledge and let them muddle along. Some will love you, some will not; if you don't punish everyone who doesn't love you, it's actually likely more people will love you, not less.

A real sacrifice for God to make would be to simply put up with people who don't love or worship him, but apparently he isn't prepared to do that.

Have you never sinned? And by sin I mean the Christian definiton of the word so dont go "I dont believe in sin therefore I havent sinned".

God cast humanity out of the garden of eden for the sins of the only two humans in existence at the time, and cursed all their descendants to never return. I had nothing to do with that, and yet according to the Genesis account, I am held responsible for it.

See above. You have sinned. I have sinned. We have all sinned

We had not sinned when God judged us. We didn't even exist when he cast the human race out of Eden. The concept of original sin is fundamentally unfair.

And if your criteria for crime is such that absolutely everyone is a criminal, the criteria is wrong, not the 'criminals.'

Jesus died to give everyone the option of being saved. Not everyone will be saved, but everyone can be saved. Everyone has the ability to be

You mean everyone who died before that went to Hell? Nice.

For forgiveness to work, the person who is being forgiven needs to accept that they have done something wrong. God can forgive all sin, but you need to ask for that forgiveness. Otherwise you are just perpetuating the barrier between you and God by pretending there is nothing wrong

If God loved humans, he wouldn't care if they didn't love him back. Love isn't about always expecting something in return.

Hell was created as a place for all those who rebell against God. If God made that punishment for lucifer and not humans then he would not be just. God doesnt want us to go there but to be just he must let us if we ignore sin.

See my post. Lucifer is Jesus' name, not the devil's, and the story of the war in heaven and an angel being cast out is only vaguely alluded to in the Bible, never spelled out. The concept of Lucifer as a fallen angel is from much, much later.

Hell is punishment, not coercion. In the same way prison is punishment.

People are let out of prison after they've served their sentence, and aren't generally tortured constantly while inside because that's conspired immoral. People aren't generally put in prison for failing to acknowledge they love someone. Prison sentences are finite: even execution where it's available is normally designed to be as fast and painless as possible, though even the most despicabily prolonged execution is still only finite: Hell is eternal suffering. Hell is nothing like prison.

Well since they asked no questions and demonstrated no lack of understanding it is logical to assume they knew what they were doing.

Or weren't paying attention.

Eve herself used the word to the serpent. She wouldnt have used it if she didnt know what it ment

You think people never use words they don't know the meaning of? Seriously, have you never heard a child parroting a swearword in public that they don't know isn't acceptable?

They did not have the burden of understanding morals, only of obedience. Once they understood morals they understood shame and modesty about their bodies

Why, if shame is the correct response to being naked, did God not give us clothes to begin with?

The system was the same as current governments. You are free to do as you wish except...(list of crimes)

Sophistry. You are not required to love your government: it's recognised as bad if a state imprisons people simply for criticising it. The majority of crimes are those that cause harm or inconvenience to others, and the punishments are designed to deter people, in other words, so it's not a free choice to commit them.

You really think murder, rape or arson aren't as bad as 'refusing to acknowledge someone loves you?'

Again i could summate that GMC Military Arms holds dominion over this thread ... yea, verily its fate, even.

Again i could summate that GMC Military Arms holds dominion over this thread ... yea, verily its fate, even.
Most assuredly he does, since Neo Danube and Bruarong best? rebuttals amount to god can do anything, except that...

Most assuredly he does, since Neo Danube and Bruarong best? rebuttals amount to god can do anything, except that...
Puzzling. Could be worth a greek tragedy. Oh, wait ....

He should smite us again to remind us :p
I understand your argument & the logic behind it, but it can only work if you actually accept his existance in the first place

I would say that life if full of reminders, for every person. But the more one is determined to go his own way, the less obvious those reminders get. Most people in that position don't wake up one morning and wonder where all the reminders went. At best, they would possibly remember those 'old naive days of childlike belief, but which seem rather silly now'. It's not that the reminders always have to be painful. The pleasureable reminders far outweight the painful, for me. But it is possible that, with time, choices made by the individual have the result of shutting out the messages from God. In such a scenario, I see choice as a very very very important part of our existance.

Yes, it may be that we have to agree to disagree. At least we can do that agreeably, although, if my arguments are right, it is only naturally that I have some very bad feelings about seeing one of my fellow humans go down a path that I believe will result in absolute horror for him. It would only be human of me to not let you go without clearly communicating the awful risk you are taking.

You are perfectly right to say that all my arguments hinge on the existence of God. That is the beginning point. And interestingly, it's kinda like Jesus addressed that by saying 'I AM'. That is the beginning point for every argument to believe in God, one that he also used. If God does not exist, I cannot say that I have ever met a more deluded fellow than myself. If he does exist.......I am on to a really good thing, to say the least, both in this life and the next. To be sure, I often ask the question of myself about God's existence. I feel that is a normal part of having an invisible best friend. But since I come to the same conclusion every time I ask the question, I feel that I am doing my best, not only in seeking the truth, but also in holding on to that, despite the mixed messages that one finds in life.

I would say that life if full of reminders, for every person. But the more one is determined to go his own way, the less obvious those reminders get. Most people in that position don't wake up one morning and wonder where all the reminders went. At best, they would possibly remember those 'old naive days of childlike belief, but which seem rather silly now'. It's not that the reminders always have to be painful. The pleasureable reminders far outweight the painful, for me. But it is possible that, with time, choices made by the individual have the result of shutting out the messages from God. In such a scenario, I see choice as a very very very important part of our existance.

Yes, it may be that we have to agree to disagree. At least we can do that agreeably, although, if my arguments are right, it is only naturally that I have some very bad feelings about seeing one of my fellow humans go down a path that I believe will result in absolute horror for him. It would only be human of me to not let you go without clearly communicating the awful risk you are taking.

You are perfectly right to say that all my arguments hinge on the existence of God. That is the beginning point. And interestingly, it's kinda like Jesus addressed that by saying 'I AM'. That is the beginning point for every argument to believe in God, one that he also used. If God does not exist, I cannot say that I have ever met a more deluded fellow than myself. If he does exist.......I am on to a really good thing, to say the least, both in this life and the next. To be sure, I often ask the question of myself about God's existence. I feel that is a normal part of having an invisible best friend. But since I come to the same conclusion every time I ask the question, I feel that I am doing my best, not only in seeking the truth, but also in holding on to that, despite the mixed messages that one finds in life.
This is one of the least disagreeable posts i've seen from you. Nice post.
*bows*

This is one of the least disagreeable posts i've seen from you. Nice post.
*bows*

Thanks!

(I'm not used to being bowed to, much less receiving an almost compliment from 'ol mate straughn'.)

Thus - when the serpent told them to do something, they knew no moral compass.... just obedience.

Obedience to God. The serpent was not God.

Yes. God chose to test us; if he is truly omniscient, he knew in advance what the outcome would be, and yet put the tree in the garden and the serpent in the garden anyway. The only possible conclusion from that is he wanted to inflict pain and suffering on man and send people to hell.

Even if God is not omniscient, his punishment is impossible to justify; if you son wrongs you, it's not right to punish every generation of children your son may have for his crime. Punishing humans for merely desiring to know right from wrong is also unjustifiable: why did God not want us to know when we were doing things that were evil?


God is omnipotent. There's no such thing as effort to an infinitely powerful God, everything is utterly trivial.

Why? God created the tree. God created the serpent. God created the concept of sin. God said we failed the test, and God chose to exact a ridiculously harsh revenge on all subsequent generations of humanity.


You have spent so much time criticising God on his harshness, but you won't accept his gift, which, in my experience, far outweighs the harsh side of God. When the delivered present turns up late, rather than being thankful that it arrived at all, you are grumbling about it being late. Rather than seeing the good, you are focussing on the bad. You have become a pessimist, and if you will allow me to compliment you, I would say you have excelled at communicating just how pessimistic you feel about the way ''God (if he exists) must be a truly horrible person and that his best efforts suck''. Obviously you are implying that if you were God you would have done things a whole lot better. However, let us be reasonable here. Your understanding of God and the universe and humans is rather limited (as is mine). What is worse, you appear to have a pessimistic view on life, which generally means seeing the worst in everything, in your case. Are you sure this point of view you are adopting is really the most reasonable one to take? If I was prime minister, and you were one of my advisors, I would listen to your advice with caution, knowing that you were always going to pour cold water over any proposal to make our country a better place. The cold water itself is not so much of a problem. I suppose every needs a little bit of that to make good judgements. But your version of cold water seems to be based some things that are just plain wrong. For example, God does not punish anyone for the sin of Adam and Eve. We are sinners because we do what is wrong. We have the choice, and we stuff it up. (You seem to be saying that God is punishing us for the sin of Adam and Eve, which is just plain wrong.) Futhermore, the wrong that Adam and Eve did was not in trying to get knowledge, as I think has already been pointed out to you in this thread. The wrong was that even though they knew what God wanted, they rebelled against Him. Their actions after this rebellion (hiding from God) shows that they knew it was wrong, and they felt really bad about it. But when confronted, rather than confessing their wrong, they went about finding someone else to blame. In Adam's case, he was blaming the woman, and God, for giving him this woman. That sounds really human to me. I know exactly what that is like, since I have been in that situation many a time (e.g., passing on the blame). Actually, it's sort of what you are doing in your posts, except that you are trying to put all the blame on God. It's not convincing me that you are being honest, because I know that everyone sins, and you are no exception. You simply have to take the blame for your own sin. Fail to do this, and your arguments depart from reason. How's that for an ultimatum?


He also bought people back from the dead, turned water into wine and commanded demons. Can you do that? Can anyone? Jesus may have had a human body, but he also had some kickass superpowers.


The power for the miracles that he worked while on earth came from God. Do you remember the part where the Spirit of God descended upon him, like a dove? That was an occasion when Jesus received God's spirit. So the body of Jesus was like a vessel that held the Spirit of God. Interestingly enough, the apostles later explain that this is exactly the role for each of us humans. We were made to be 'living temples' to our God. That is why the apostles themselves were also able to work miracles, both before and after the death and resurrection and ascension of Christ.


Wrong. Through Jesus' death, God admitted that salvation by following Moses' laws wasn't possible, and that you must also have faith in Jesus. Rather obviously, 'have faith in Jesus' isn't in the OT as a condition to being saved. In effect, he added an extra rule to being saved, presumably because nobody had been saved before then because his criteria were so ridiculously high.


Salvation was possible before Moses, i.e., Abraham had faith, and was considered righteous before God, by faith. As Paul points out in Romans (and other books/letters), the law was never meant to give us salvation, but to point us to our need of a saviour. It was to bring us to God. Thus, in the OT, as in the NT, salvation was a gift of God, according to our faith in God. People like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Ruth, David, and all the other heroes and heroines of the faith were saved by God. They knew that God would do the saving. As Abraham said to Isaac, God shall provide himself a sacrifice. That is what they believed. Thus, whether you believed in Jehovah Jireh (God shall provide) of the OT, or Jesus (aka Joshua, God saves), the point was that your faith was in God, not in a bunch of rules and your own efforts at keeping them.


And if we have works. Which is a wrong-assed way to go about things: at very least, anyone who spends their life doing good works should be saved.


Interestingly, Jesus also had the same attitude. Except that his definition of a good person was someone who had never sinned. But rebellion against God, sin, is present in every life, thus there is no good person, except the life of Christ. I suspect where you differ from Christ is over your definition of a good person.


They were not more intelligent than us: I know when I'm naked, and I know right from wrong. They knew neither. If they did not know right from wrong, it is ridiculous to expect them to know it was wrong to disobey God.


Come on, use your imagination, for heaven's sake. Yes we know when we are naked, but we don't know what it is like to be naked and not realize that there is anything embarrassing about it....ummm, er, well I speak for myself here. Ever since nudism came about....... (mumbles something about humans being a little confused about freedom). Anyway, they certainly realized that they had done something wrong. The hid from God.

Today there is a good deal of genetic diseases. Back then, Adam and Eve were just created. It is reasonable to assume that their genomes were in better order than ours. If so, it is likely that they were capable of a stronger intelligence than ours. But that is only speculation on my part. At least, it would be silly to think that they were so stupid as not to understand what God wanted, particularly if they got all 'funny' and tried to hide from God for no particular reason.


Try doing the same with a copy of Mein Kampf, assuming Hitler is a good man. Or Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible. Or the Malleus Maleficarum.

Assuming the author's intention before viewing the content leads down some very dark alleys, and is not reasonable: it's classic circular logic.


Yes, I see your point. It can lead to circular reasoning. But it doesn't have to. Because I hold everything that I find in the Bible up to reason. Obviously, I realise that my reasoning (like everyones) is rather limited, and there is clearly some parts of the Bible where my reason tells me that it is a faith only area. But if my reasoning detects falsehood, or inconsistency within the text, then I am in a position to accept or reject the Bible. What you are doing is claiming inconsistency or falsehood by only putting one spin on things. You have to be prepared to look at the particular parts of the Bible from several angles. My angle is that God loves us, and that everything that he has done is motivated by that love, and while that love sometimes doesn't look by love at first, careful investigation and reasoning reveals a consistency between Gods actions and his motives. However, I have to look at the possibility that God may have had other motives (evil ones, for example) and that the writers of the Bible were either completely mislead or just plain lying when they write about the goodness of God, and that God is love. However, I don't find any good evidence for evil existing in God. I do see that his actions can be interpreted in several ways, but that is only speculation. The interpretation that remains should be consistent, not only within the Bible, according to my reasoning ability, but also between the Scriptures and the world as I find it (once again according to my reasoning abilitiy). Furthermore, my experience of what I believe to be God in my own life confirms what I find in the Bible as a God of love. Sure, he is also a God of wrath and a consuming fire. But what else would you expect of pure love. It is a terrible thing. He is an awesome God. And one of the wisest chaps of the Bible (Solomon) wrote in Ecclesiastes 11:5 ''As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed [a] in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.'' (NIV)

In your case, however, your interpretation is based on what? I suspect it is nothing other than your case of well developed pessimism and skepticism.


The fact that acceptance of Jesus is the deciding factor of whether you are saved or not, according to your school of Christianity. While it's not as bad as the Chick Tract school of 'faith alone' salvation [where you could spend your entire life setting fire to orphanages as long as you repent on your deathbed], it still means someone who lives a good life is sent to hell anyway if they didn't accept Jesus had died so that God could send people to hell for not believing he'd died.


Chick publications? Well, I may not go along with everything they say, but if they claim that salvation is available to anyone, regardless of what they have done in their lives, then they have told the truth. Witness Jesus' forgiveness of the thief hanging on the cross next to his. Every sin is paid for with the blood of God. You may not think that fair, but apparently God does. He is a God of love after all. And he has a right to forgive the worst in us. He earned that right with his blood. That you complain about that is evidence that you can see nothing but the pessimistic side of things, instead of being glad that there is nothing that you can do that would prevent God's forgiveness from rescuing you (except one thing, the unforgiveable sin, that of resisting God's efforts to convince you to turn to him).


Then only an absolutely evil creature would allow anyone to end up there, when they are the one who sets the criteria for ending up there. Sending people to be tortured forever is not 'love.'


Which is perhaps why he has made sure that you know about such a place and have given you years of time to change your attitude towards God. If he has done this, then you can hardly blame him for that state you are in. Just think about it. You are calling him evil because of the way he set up things a long time before you were around, since it just doesn't happen to suit you.


Sophistry. That's not the same as telling someone that you'll harm them if they don't choose in the manner you want them to: in that instance, you are acting to coerce them into picking your way. A free choice is one made without coercion.


That isn't sophistry, that is looking at what true freedom really means. You are illogically assuming that true freedom means being without limits on your choices. There is no coercion here. There is only a choice. You are free to make it. But you are not free of the consequences. You are free to jump offthe top of a skyscraper, but not free of the consequences (which depends on whether you have a parachute on your back or not).


Then he is absolutely worthless. If he cannot save even one person from the fate he created and condemned them to, he is not worthy of our acknowledgement.


He is saving me. He would save you too, if you would let him. Far from being worthless, he simply respects our choices. You call him worthless that he cannot save you the way you are, and then accuse him of making us as puppets, unable of making our own choices. On one hand, you want him to act, regardless of our choice, and on the other, you want him to stop treating us as puppets, and let us have our own choices. That cannot be reasonable.


Perhaps the whole thing is an ancient tribal myth made by people who didn't understand a truly loving parent accepts their child's love rather than attempting to test it and cruelly punishing them for failing to live up to their utterly ridiculous expectations. Or understand they should still love their child even if their child does not return their love.


Perhaps, perhaps, but how is one to know without having a personal experience? If you never know my father, you can have all sorts of speculations about him, and you will never know if any of them are right or not. Same goes for God.


It's generally pointed out that God suffered so we would not, but that's bizarre reasoning: nobody had to suffer at all, when God could simply destroy hell with a word and let us choose freely whether to worship him and love him or not. You realise that even if hell didn't exist, and even if God came into our sight, we could still choose not to love him and not to worship him? If he truly loved all humans, he would be willing to accept that rather than to punish anyone who refused to suck up to him with eternal torment.


On the other hand, if our choices are so important to God--if he respects our choices so much that when we choose existance without God, he simply respects that choice. Otherwise, you would have God forever sending his gifts to those who refuse to acknowledge that he exists. In order for that system to work, people in such a position would have to ascribe the source of such gifts to someone or something. Nowadays, many people have concluded that such a source for all the wonderful gifts in the world today is chance, some sort of freak accident that, happily for us, results in things like love and happiness and laughter between good friends over a decent beer after a long day of hard work. Surely, it would be a wrong to take gifts from someone without ever thanking them. How can such a wrong continue in the next life? It doesn't work. It would not be right of God to allow such a thing.

So let me get this straight:

A loving, capable parent has two new children. He places them in a beautiful playroom that is filled with joyful and wonderful things. He surrounds them with goodness, and has them live in a perfect enclave where no pain or wickedness can ever enter.

Then, one day, the loving parent decides to install a working stove in the playroom. He tells the kids not to touch it, but he also puts a magical elf in the room who will encourage the kids to touch the stove. Having no understanding of pain, wickedness, or badness, and knowing that everything their parent has put in their playroom is good and wonderful, the children decide to touch the stove. The loving parent logically responds to this transgression by beating the children, throwing them out on the street, and disowning them for all time.

Christians immediately name the loving parent "Father Of The Eon."

Forgive me, but I hold parents to a much higher standard of conduct (even parents who aren't all-knowing and all-powerful). Are the children responsible for touching the stove, despite the parent's instructions not to? Yes, in so far as children must be taught to be responsible for their actions so they will grow into responsible adults. Did the parent in this situation demonstrate acceptable, reasonable, or even practical parenting? Hell no. Is the parent to blame for constructing a stupid and dangerous situation? Hell yes. Is the parent to blame for utterly failing in his role as guide and nurturer? Hell yes. Was his response to the children's infraction in any way appropriate? Hell no.

However, if you create something that is not able to make choices, it may be alive, but it cannot do anything apart from what you have made it to do. Therefore, since love always has an element of choice, regardless of how sophisticated your creation is, if it cannot choose, it cannot love. Therefore, I suggest that providing choice to humans is the only way for love to be possible. Removing choice would remove love. If you don't understand this, you haven't begun to understand love (although you may well be capable of loving).

So, God gives a choice to Adam and Eve. You compare it to a hot stove in the middle of a room, in the vicinity of kids. For starters, Adam and Eve were not kids. They showed that by their actions after eating the fruit. An innocent child, for example, does not run and hide from a parent unless they realize they have done something very wrong. Thus your analogy doesn't fit to the situation.

Then God bans them from the Garden--reason: they should not eat of the other tree, for then they would not die. I imagine that would put them in a similar position of Satan. A creation of God, but never dying, and forever an enemy of God. Rather, death meant an end point, a 'rest' from the weary struggle of life. However, banning from the garden was not a rejection. Witness the life of Able, a man who pleased God, and his younger brother Seth. God was still interested in a relationship with each individual. God persists, even in the case of Cain, in spite of the waywardness of humans. God gets really discouraged about humans, hence the flood. Yes, that is death to many people, but all people must die anyway, and death, remember, is a kind of 'rest'. If they had been trying to please God, I suspect their death would have been a nice one, surrounded by friends and family (although this is a generalization, and there are always exceptions, e.g. martyrdom). It was a bad one because they chose a bad life. Whether death really is a 'rest' or a horror depends on what you made of life, regardless of whether it is death by drowning or in your own bed from old age.

But one can hardly blame God that people were so bad. He made them to be good, and good they were. Perhaps you could ask yourself why you keep doing wrong things. Why can't you just be good? The answer is that we inherited a sin nature from Adam. God knows that, and does not condemn you for it. He simply offers his help. Why would you reject it?

Random advisory: try not writing so densely, it makes your posts hard to read.

You have spent so much time criticising God on his harshness, but you won't accept his gift, which, in my experience, far outweighs the harsh side of God. When the delivered present turns up late, rather than being thankful that it arrived at all, you are grumbling about it being late. Rather than seeing the good, you are focussing on the bad.

What good? That God's going to save a few people who suck up to him and tell him he's brilliant and merciful because they're scared he'll send them to hell like everyone else?

Obviously you are implying that if you were God you would have done things a whole lot better.

Yes. Anyone with a concept of dealing with equals could do better than God, who doesn't have such a concept.

If I was prime minister, and you were one of my advisors, I would listen to your advice with caution, knowing that you were always going to pour cold water over any proposal to make our country a better place.

I love your personal attacks. They're so...Silly.

(You seem to be saying that God is punishing us for the sin of Adam and Eve, which is just plain wrong.)

Then why don't all humans start out in the garden of Eden? Because God's punishing us for the supposed sin of Adam and Eve, maybe?

It's not convincing me that you are being honest, because I know that everyone sins, and you are no exception.

The concept of sin is Christian-only. Nobody sins but you guys, the rest of us just fuck up and say sorry to the people our fuckuppery affects.

You simply have to take the blame for your own sin. Fail to do this, and your arguments depart from reason. How's that for an ultimatum?

I accept the blame for everything I've ever done. This does not mean I accept that I owe some big nit in the sky an apology when he has infinite power and no reason to give a damn about anything I do because I can't possibly do him any harm.

The power for the miracles that he worked while on earth came from God.

And Bruce Banner's powers came from the Gamma Ray Bomb. That doesn't mean Bruce Banner didn't get superpowers, does it?

Salvation was possible before Moses, i.e., Abraham had faith, and was considered righteous before God, by faith. As Paul points out in Romans (and other books/letters), the law was never meant to give us salvation, but to point us to our need of a saviour.

Yes, it's a pity the Pastorals totally contradict Romans and Galatians on that matter: James is even more clear.

James 2:20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Interestingly, Jesus also had the same attitude. Except that his definition of a good person was someone who had never sinned. But rebellion against God, sin, is present in every life, thus there is no good person, except the life of Christ. I suspect where you differ from Christ is over your definition of a good person.

Yes. I judge a good person to be someone who does their best and treats others kindly, not someone who's worshipped the right God and never worn polycotton blend or had sex with their own gender or eaten lobster or any of the other harmless things that count as sins.

Come on, use your imagination, for heaven's sake. Yes we know when we are naked, but we don't know what it is like to be naked and not realize that there is anything embarrassing about it.

Yes you do. You bathe. You are not embarassed. You get dressed and are not embarassed. You are as naked as Adam was several times a day, and you are not embarassed by most of them.

Today there is a good deal of genetic diseases. Back then, Adam and Eve were just created. It is reasonable to assume that their genomes were in better order than ours. If so, it is likely that they were capable of a stronger intelligence than ours.

Ah, so intelligence is purely genetic...Since when?

At least, it would be silly to think that they were so stupid as not to understand what God wanted, particularly if they got all 'funny' and tried to hide from God for no particular reason.

Or you could think things through? They ate an apple that gave them knowledge of good and evil. They gained knowledge that disobeying God was evil. They hid because they realised this.

Yes, I see your point. It can lead to circular reasoning. But it doesn't have to. Because I hold everything that I find in the Bible up to reason.

No, you hold it up to reason with the cast-in-stone assumption that God is good. I've watched you do it.

What you are doing is claiming inconsistency or falsehood by only putting one spin on things.

What spin, Bruarong? I'm quoting chapter and verse, using the exact words of the text and the precise concepts of Christianity. To a thinking man, hell is an abomination and no loving God would allow it to exist. You have shut your mind to that thought, because of your smug belief that it won't be a problem for you because you're going to heaven.

My angle is that God loves us, and that everything that he has done is motivated by that love, and while that love sometimes doesn't look by love at first, careful investigation and reasoning reveals a consistency between Gods actions and his motives.

Ah, like murdering us by the tens of thousands, sending down plagues and threatening to obliterate the entire human race?

However, I don't find any good evidence for evil existing in God.

Exodus 32:14: And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Oh, there it is. That took me one whole second.

Sure, he is also a God of wrath and a consuming fire. But what else would you expect of pure love. It is a terrible thing.

Have you ever been in love? It's not a terrible thing. It's a wonderful thing.

And one of the wisest chaps of the Bible (Solomon) wrote in Ecclesiastes 11:5 ''As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed [a] in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.''

Ah. We do know those things, so the wise guy doesn't look so cool anymore. Does that mean we now can understand the work of God?

In your case, however, your interpretation is based on what? I suspect it is nothing other than your case of well developed pessimism and skepticism.

It's based on logic and not reading the Bible with a pre-existing belief that slaughting tens of thousands of people must be a good thing if God says so. It's the same logic you would use when reading the Malleus Maleficarum.

That you complain about that is evidence that you can see nothing but the pessimistic side of things, instead of being glad that there is nothing that you can do that would prevent God's forgiveness from rescuing you (except one thing, the unforgiveable sin, that of resisting God's efforts to convince you to turn to him).

Or being gay, a witch, having an abortion, recieving a blood transfusion, marrying outside my race, making a cast metal idol, worshipping another God on the side, pissing against a wall [yes, really]...That's not one thing. That's many things.

And why does God need me to turn to him? Again, there's no reason at all why that's an unforgivable sin. A loving father won't cast away his children because they don't return his calls.

Which is perhaps why he has made sure that you know about such a place and have given you years of time to change your attitude towards God. If he has done this, then you can hardly blame him for that state you are in.

You absolutely have to believe I'm in a 'state,' don't you? It's impossible for you to think that could actually be in a happy relationship with a fiancee I adore without your man in the sky, no?

That isn't sophistry, that is looking at what true freedom really means.

No, it's sophistry. The kind of 'freedom' you're talking about is an abstract concept and is so obviously divorced from the type I'm taking about you must know you're just arguing for the sake of it.

You are illogically assuming that true freedom means being without limits on your choices. There is no coercion here. There is only a choice. You are free to make it. But you are not free of the consequences. You are free to jump offthe top of a skyscraper, but not free of the consequences (which depends on whether you have a parachute on your back or not).

If 'hitting the ground' was an avoidable concept that had been put in place by someone who chose if you hit the ground or not, that man would be evil if he allowed people to hit the ground, since it would be fully in his power to save them all. You would not then be the one who chose if you hit the ground: he would.

God choses who goes to hell: humans do not. It is not our choice: for all you know, God might send you to hell. It's not a free choice, since there is a punishment if we make the wrong choice. It's not a clear choice, because it's not clear what we have to do to make it. It's not our choice, because God has set himself as judge, jury and executioner, with no appeals.

He is saving me.

Is he? Do you claim to know the mind of God?

You call him worthless that he cannot save you the way you are, and then accuse him of making us as puppets, unable of making our own choices. On one hand, you want him to act, regardless of our choice, and on the other, you want him to stop treating us as puppets, and let us have our own choices.

Revelation shows God has absolutely no intention of 'respecting our free will' to believe in him or not on Judgement day. He's going to stand us up in front of him while the book of life is read, so your argument that Hell is him allowing us to never be with him is rubbish.

Rev 20:12: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God;

If you quit with this ludicrous false dilemma, you'd realise that there's a third choice: God can respect our free will without punishing or exiling anyone. He can allow people to make a free choice whether to love him or not, respect that choice, and still not send them to hell for it. He can simply shrug and let them get on with life, and find their own happiness. If he really wants us to be happy, he would come before us, apologise for his crimes, and learn to understand us and care for us as a father rather than slaughting us as a dictator as in the Old Testament.

There's a school of thought that that's true meaning of the Jesus story. Quote! (http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Morality.shtml)

It is usually assumed that God must know right from wrong, because he is immortal and omnipotent. However, I would argue that such power and immortality mean that God cannot possibly know right from wrong.

God would have no concept of dealing with equals, since he is unique, omnipotent, and unchallenged. Human morality, on the other hand, is entirely about dealing with others as equals. It's about concepts such as mercy and reciprocity and fairness, the need for which an omnipotent God would not understand because he has no direct knowledge of weakness or suffering or fear. If we were to return to the "heavenly father" analogy, ask yourself what kind of father a man would be if he had never gone through childhood himself.

Such a father would be incapable of understanding his children, and he would be a terrible father (perhaps even as bad as the Old Testament God). If you were to continue with this line of thought, then the only way for the father to understand his children would be to experience childhood. It would therefore follow that Jesus was the agent through which God sought to experience humanity. Jesus was born and raised as a human being. He absorbed the moral teachings of neighbouring human societies of the time, and then incorporated them into a new understanding of humanity and morality that God could never have discerned on his own. Jesus understood what God could not, because he knew what it meant to be weak, and mortal. In other words, he knew what it meant to walk a mile in another man's shoes.

But that wasn't enough; he also had to know the depths of evil. He had to find out first-hand about the pain of torture so that he could comprehend suffering, which an unfeeling God had mercilessly inflicted upon countless previous generations. And on the cross, he finally understood fear of death, which was yet another concept that would have been utterly alien to an immortal God. It would have been the ultimate test, and the ultimate learning experience. And when Jesus cried out on the cross that God had "forsaken" him, he would have been hoping that perhaps he wouldn't have to see this through to its bitter end. But that wasn't to be the case. He had to understand mortality and death, so he could understand first-hand what God had inflicted upon humanity. And when he finally died, he became a proxy agent for God's repentance, in atonement not for humanity's sins against God, but for God's sins against humanity. If you interpret his story this way, then it becomes obvious that we didn't have to learn morality from God; God had to learn morality from us!

To be honest, it works better than Paul's version, and explains why God hasn't returned to slaughtering humans mercilessly as he did before Jesus' time.

On the other hand, if our choices are so important to God--if he respects our choices so much that when we choose existance without God, he simply respects that choice.

By sentencing us to an eternity of suffering? Some 'respect!'

Surely, it would be a wrong to take gifts from someone without ever thanking them.

It would be even more wrong to torture someone to death for refusing to thank you. The joy is in giving the gift, the thank you is a bonus. It is incredibly vain to give gifts just so that people will thank you for them.

Then God lied to them when he told them that by eating the fruit they would 'surely die,' and the Devil told the truth that they would not surely die.

This is your mistake. You dont understand. When I said the fruit itself was not dangerous, I meant just that. The fruit itself. It was not a poisonous fruit, nor was it damaging to their health in any way. What was dangerous was breaking the command that God gave them. He could have equally said "Dont bathe in that river" or "Dont touch that plant" or "Dont enter X region of the garden". The fruit had no magic, it was disobeying God's command that was important.


In other words, God wanted us to be a puppet on a string, forever. You think if we'd passed there wouldn't have been another test the next day? He'd have to make sure we still had the option once the snake-and-tree routine hadn't got us.

God did not institute the snake and the tree as a way to "get" us as you so eluiquently put it. He put it there as a way of allowing us an alternative understanding, a way out. God didnt want us to disobey him, but he didnt want to force us into obeying either. So when he created Eden he allowed us a way out.


You can't punish someone for not loving you, that's not what love means either. If someone you feel affection for rejects you, it is not loving to torture them to death; love doesn't come through fear.

A parent can punish a child for disobeying them. God punished Adam and Eve for disobeying his command. A child shows love for its parents by obeying its commands.


If God wanted us to love him but wanted us to have the choice not to, that's easy. You just give people knowledge and let them muddle along. Some will love you, some will not; if you don't punish everyone who doesn't love you, it's actually likely more people will love you, not less

A real sacrifice for God to make would be to simply put up with people who don't love or worship him, but apparently he isn't prepared to do that.

Firstly, God IS prepared to put up with people who dont love him. Your still alive arnt you? All around the world he puts up with people that dont love him. Why? In the hope that they will come to love him. Secondly, he gave us the knowlege (see the Bible).


God cast humanity out of the garden of eden for the sins of the only two humans in existence at the time, and cursed all their descendants to never return. I had nothing to do with that, and yet according to the Genesis account, I am held responsible for it.

You have sinned. Untill you can prove to me that you havent sinned then your arguement is superflous. If you die before the age of accountability (IE when you are capable of sinning) you go to heaven.


We had not sinned when God judged us. We didn't even exist when he cast the human race out of Eden. The concept of original sin is fundamentally unfair.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/original-sin.html

See here


And if your criteria for crime is such that absolutely everyone is a criminal, the criteria is wrong, not the 'criminals.'

"I dont like it, it needs changing, it is stupid" is your arguement here. Not going to work. Your standards arent the ones that matter. God's are.


You mean everyone who died before that went to Hell? Nice.

http://www.gotquestions.org/before-Jesus.html

See here


If God loved humans, he wouldn't care if they didn't love him back. Love isn't about always expecting something in return.

God does love us no matter what, but in order to forgive us we need to ask for the forigvness. He cant forgive us against our will. That breaks free will. In order to be forgiven we have to accept we've done wrong

People are let out of prison after they've served their sentence, and aren't generally tortured constantly while inside because that's conspired immoral. People aren't generally put in prison for failing to acknowledge they love someone. Prison sentences are finite: even execution where it's available is normally designed to be as fast and painless as possible, though even the most despicabily prolonged execution is still only finite: Hell is eternal suffering. Hell is nothing like prison.

Hell is comparable to prison in terms of the logic behind it. IE punishment, not coerscion


You think people never use words they don't know the meaning of? Seriously, have you never heard a child parroting a swearword in public that they don't know isn't acceptable?.

You forget who they had as their teacher


Why, if shame is the correct response to being naked, did God not give us clothes to begin with?

You only respond with shame if you have a knowledge of what shame is. Shame is a correct response if you have knoweldge of good and evil


Sophistry. You are not required to love your government: it's recognised as bad if a state imprisons people simply for criticising it. The majority of crimes are those that cause harm or inconvenience to others, and the punishments are designed to deter people, in other words, so it's not a free choice to commit them.

You really think murder, rape or arson aren't as bad as 'refusing to acknowledge someone loves you?'

You dont understand sin. Yet again

Sin is rebelling against God. That is what you are punished for. If you aim for a target and miss it by a millimetere, it is the same result as missing it by a metere. You have missed. That is what sin is. And you are not "sent" by God to hell, any more than you are sent to the ground by gravity if you jump off a cliff. You go there because of the nature of sin and the nature of hell

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

See here for more info

Wow, a 91 page thread.... jeeese. My apologies for not reading all of it!

After trying to read a bit of it, I just have to say: who cares?

The point of having faith is to....have faith, regardless of what a Judge says, or a Scientist. I've never understood the desire for the various religions to promote religion within the schools anyway, it is clearly a responsibility for them to take care of within the limits of their churches.

The scientific community promotes specific reasons for why things work or how things come to be. This does not necessarily exclude a religious focus, but may, simply, require a deeper explanation within the churches youth programs, etc...

Random advisory: try not writing so densely, it makes your posts hard to read.


Point noted. Thanks for the hint.


I love your personal attacks. They're so...Silly.


If it helps, it wasn't personal. I was thinking of one of my friends who sounds similar to you. I always have to remember that anything she says is going to come out negative, particularly when giving advice.


Then why don't all humans start out in the garden of Eden? Because God's punishing us for the supposed sin of Adam and Eve, maybe?


They were put out of the garden to protect them from the horror of immortality combined with emnity towards God, i.e. Satan's postion. It's there in Genesis (the part about not eating of the tree of life). Not a direct result of punishment from God, but for protection.


The concept of sin is Christian-only. Nobody sins but you guys, the rest of us just fuck up and say sorry to the people our fuckuppery affects.


That's not convincing. I assume that's your idea of a joke (not impressed).


I accept the blame for everything I've ever done. This does not mean I accept that I owe some big nit in the sky an apology when he has infinite power and no reason to give a damn about anything I do because I can't possibly do him any harm.


Such reasoning. What has apology got to do with his power and our lack of it?


And Bruce Banner's powers came from the Gamma Ray Bomb. That doesn't mean Bruce Banner didn't get superpowers, does it?


Your original assertion was that Jesus had a superbody. He didn't. Neither did his apostles. And yet they were able to work miracles like he did. It was simply the power of the Spirit of God, not the body of Jesus.


Yes, it's a pity the Pastorals totally contradict Romans and Galatians on that matter: James is even more clear.

James 2:20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


James was emphasising that faith that does not result in good works is a dead faith. He was not addressing the issue of how we are saved, but that how we can know that we have faith. I would not call it a contradiction at all. That it seems so to you suggests that you do not understand faith or salvation.


Yes. I judge a good person to be someone who does their best and treats others kindly, not someone who's worshipped the right God and never worn polycotton blend or had sex with their own gender or eaten lobster or any of the other harmless things that count as sins.


The law given was so that people might learn what holiness is. It was never given to make us holy. You still have not caught the difference. Avoiding polycotton clothes does not make one holy. It was given that so that people would learn that holiness does not come from mixing wrong and right, or having mixed motives. Purity is simply having one motive. Holiness is having one motive--to do all to the glory of God.


Yes you do. You bathe. You are not embarassed. You get dressed and are not embarassed. You are as naked as Adam was several times a day, and you are not embarassed by most of them.


I usually close the window and the curtains. That's the difference.


Ah, so intelligence is purely genetic...Since when?


I reckon that is a lame attempt to criticise my post. I never said that intelligence was 'purely' genetic. That is what you introduced.


Or you could think things through? They ate an apple that gave them knowledge of good and evil. They gained knowledge that disobeying God was evil. They hid because they realised this.


If they realised the evil of their actions ONLY after they ate the fruit, not before, then eating the fruit could hardly be considered evil, since they were ignorant, not disobedient. They hid because they realised that they knew better. They knew they were guilty of disobeying God. They may not have understood much about good and evil (they were only good), but they knew the direction that one needed to take in order to find that knowledge of evil, and they took it, despite God's warning. Thus, they knew that they took the path of evil, even before they knew what it was to experience evil.


No, you hold it up to reason with the cast-in-stone assumption that God is good. I've watched you do it.


I've tried to explain to you that my idea of God being good comes from the Bible, not from me. That is not my assertion, but one I found in the Bible, and I have looked to see if such an assertion really holds true in real everyday life and by reading ALL of the Bible, not just selected parts.

What helps make it believable is that if the writers really were trying to pull the wool over our eyes, they could have done a much better job. Truth is stranger than fiction, and they reveal the warts and all of history, the apparent inconsistencies. I don't argue that the love of God is immediately obvious to any rational thinker. But it is there if you are prepared to look.



What spin, Bruarong? I'm quoting chapter and verse, using the exact words of the text and the precise concepts of Christianity. To a thinking man, hell is an abomination and no loving God would allow it to exist. You have shut your mind to that thought, because of your smug belief that it won't be a problem for you because you're going to heaven.


The spin is the one you get by looking as selected parts of the Bible and interpreting them in your own particular way, disregarding the rest of the Bible. Yes, you can quote scripture, but not as good as Satan. He is the master of deception.
(I'm not claiming that you are trying to be deceiving. But you are, IMO, deceived. That is not meant as a personal insult, but just as a consistency with what I believe. No doubt, you think I am also deceived.)

However, you claim that I have stopped being reasonable about the existence of hell because of a 'smug' feeling that I'm not going there. Alternatively, I could have been thinking about hell because Jesus mentioned it rather often. Thus it probably has got nothing to do with a smug feeling. How the hell would you know what I am feeling anyway? Talk about assertions.


Ah, like murdering us by the tens of thousands, sending down plagues and threatening to obliterate the entire human race?


God's judgement comes down on evil. Because he is holy, he must destroy evil. But he tends to wait years and years before such destruction in hopes that some people at least will be persuaded to turn from their evil and avoid the destruction. And he tends to give plenty of warnings, just because he is patient. If you do not understand this, it will probably be because you do not understand the nature of holiness and evil.


Exodus 32:14: And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Oh, there it is. That took me one whole second.


The 'evil' to which this translation of the Bible (Old King James) is NOT the 'evil' to which I have been referring. Look up the newer translations for the words which are more appropriate to our modern language, and you will avoid the confusion. Or better still, go to the Hebrew version of that part of scripture and get a translation. I believe the 'evil' to which you have referred is more like punishment, or harm.


Have you ever been in love? It's not a terrible thing. It's a wonderful thing.


Of course it is a wonderful thing. That is why it is so terrible when the woman who loves her man so dearly finds him cheating on her.


Ah. We do know those things, so the wise guy doesn't look so cool anymore. Does that mean we now can understand the work of God?


(chuckles) I presume it is unnecessary to answer that one.


It's based on logic and not reading the Bible with a pre-existing belief that slaughting tens of thousands of people must be a good thing if God says so. It's the same logic you would use when reading the Malleus Maleficarum.


Slaughter is never a 'good' thing in that it is never pleasant. It may only be a 'good' thing in the sense that it is making the best of a bad situation. Like I said before, you have to understand that there are some things worse in this life than death, like evil.


Or being gay, a witch, having an abortion, recieving a blood transfusion, marrying outside my race, making a cast metal idol, worshipping another God on the side, pissing against a wall [yes, really]...That's not one thing. That's many things.

And why does God need me to turn to him? Again, there's no reason at all why that's an unforgivable sin. A loving father won't cast away his children because they don't return his calls.


All of the above can be forgiven--that and far far worse. (Not that receiving a blood transfusion has anything to do with sin.) God wants you to turn to him, because you were made to share intimacy with him. Rejection of that intimacy is taken seriously. He respects your choice. He doesn't cast you away. He leaves you alone, turns his back. The fact that he designed you to be happy only with intimacy with him means that you will find his absence a torture. It isn't an issue of not returning his calls. It's about respecting your choice.


You absolutely have to believe I'm in a 'state,' don't you? It's impossible for you to think that could actually be in a happy relationship with a fiancee I adore without your man in the sky, no?


Nope. I don't have to believe that you are in a state. When I mentioned the word, I was not implying that you had to be unhappy. I was referring to your state of not knowing God. I certainly wish you all the best with your fiancee. Happiness and pleasure are gifts from God that do not necessarily depend on knowing him personally. He is good and kind, after all.


No, it's sophistry. The kind of 'freedom' you're talking about is an abstract concept and is so obviously divorced from the type I'm taking about you must know you're just arguing for the sake of it.


You appear to want the freedom to make your own choice, and then to be free of the consequences, as if the consequences was somehow a nasty and unnecessary interference from God. My point is, you and me are late arrivals on the scene of a long long battle. We can hardly expect everything to be as we should want it. God made the rules. Get over it.

The rest of your points will have to wait. Good night.

The fruit was not what was dangerous. Eating the fruit did nothing to them. It was not a posionous fruit or any kind of dangerous fruit. What was dangerous was breaking the command God gave them. It could of been "dont pick that flower" or "dont bathe in that river" etc. All that mattered was the command.

So... because they lacked dissipline & obediance we're now all moral & prone to suffering.... Ok, that's a very reasonable punishment, i get it.
*Makes note that if his cat ever scratches him to torture every cat he ever gets*

Yes, that was sarcasm

God didn't want them to reject him. He wanted them to have the ability to reject him. That way they could genuinely love him. You cant force someone to love you because thats not what love means.

Hmm... "Obey & love me and you'll live forever or disobey & suffer and then die"
I wouldn't love'm neighter i guess

Have you never sinned? And by sin I mean the Christian definiton of the word so dont go "I dont believe in sin therefore I havent sinned".

Define sin?

See above. You have sinned. I have sinned. We have all sinned

Yaaay! Eternal damnation for all!

Jesus died to give everyone the option of being saved. Not everyone will be saved, but everyone can be saved. Everyone has the ability to be

Only after making lots of assumptions, the least of all assuming that's the path to salvation in the first place. Various religions have different paths, how to pick the right one? Even if you want to be saved, you'd still need the luck to pick the right faith, unless this isn't the right faith in the first place, and we don't need to be saved?

For forgiveness to work, the person who is being forgiven needs to accept that they have done something wrong. God can forgive all sin, but you need to ask for that forgiveness. Otherwise you are just perpetuating the barrier between you and God by pretending there is nothing wrong

I live life in a way that i can enjoy it, if that includes sins, then so be it

Hell was created as a place for all those who rebell against God. If God made that punishment for lucifer and not humans then he would not be just. God doesnt want us to go there but to be just he must let us if we ignore sin.

Well, that's a funny way to look at it... It's not him punishing us, it's him letting us do as we chose to do :rolleyes:

Hell is punishment, not coercion. In the same way prison is punishment.

Only difference being, you don't get thrown into jail all that easilly (well, not where i live anyway)

Well since they asked no questions and demonstrated no lack of understanding it is logical to assume they knew what they were doing. Eve herself used the word to the serpent. She wouldnt have used it if she didnt know what it ment

Let's assume she did know the punishment & the word, why didn't god accept their question for forgiveness?

They did not have the burden of understanding morals, only of obedience. Once they understood morals they understood shame and modesty about their bodies

So basicly, they stopped being slaves

The system was the same as current governments. You are free to do as you wish except...(list of crimes)

Flawed comparisation, there's no punishment in the legal system that punishes all your decendents for eternity

But only under a dictator do those laws not require justification.

Bingo :eek:

I would say that life if full of reminders, for every person. But the more one is determined to go his own way, the less obvious those reminders get. Most people in that position don't wake up one morning and wonder where all the reminders went. At best, they would possibly remember those 'old naive days of childlike belief, but which seem rather silly now'. It's not that the reminders always have to be painful. The pleasureable reminders far outweight the painful, for me. But it is possible that, with time, choices made by the individual have the result of shutting out the messages from God. In such a scenario, I see choice as a very very very important part of our existance.

Like i said, what reminders?
I agree choice is one of the most important aspects of our lives, take away a person's choice & you'll eventually break that person.
(Imagine being submitted to the same food, drinks, routines everyday without being allowed to even think about changing them... *shudders*

However, faith also limits choice.

Yes, it may be that we have to agree to disagree. At least we can do that agreeably, although, if my arguments are right, it is only naturally that I have some very bad feelings about seeing one of my fellow humans go down a path that I believe will result in absolute horror for him. It would only be human of me to not let you go without clearly communicating the awful risk you are taking.

You didn't have to type that many words to agree to disagree :p
Oh, and will you drop the drama already? If hell is being devoid of god then it can't be worse then this life :p

Obedience to God. The serpent was not God.

Really? It was a talking animal, animals (other then us humans) don't chatter away, who are we to say that serpent wasn't devine?

The wrong was that even though they knew what God wanted, they rebelled against Him. Their actions after this rebellion (hiding from God) shows that they knew it was wrong, and they felt really bad about it. But when confronted, rather than confessing their wrong, they went about finding someone else to blame. In Adam's case, he was blaming the woman, and God, for giving him this woman.
Actually, Adam was the only one who cast blame; Eve just told the truth: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." Eve realised the wrong of the situation and fessed up to her actions ...at least, according to the New International Version Bible.

Sorry for the pedantry, just wanted to point that out.

This is your mistake. You dont understand. When I said the fruit itself was not dangerous, I meant just that. The fruit itself. It was not a poisonous fruit, nor was it damaging to their health in any way. What was dangerous was breaking the command that God gave them. He could have equally said "Dont bathe in that river" or "Dont touch that plant" or "Dont enter X region of the garden". The fruit had no magic, it was disobeying God's command that was important.

Slavery also revolved arround following commands, and if you broke them, there be a whipping to do

God did not institute the snake and the tree as a way to "get" us as you so eluiquently put it. He put it there as a way of allowing us an alternative understanding, a way out. God didnt want us to disobey him, but he didnt want to force us into obeying either. So when he created Eden he allowed us a way out.

This reminds me of something i saw on TV sometime ago, about how officers in US airwaystations sometimes placed wallets containing money on a desk, and waited to arrest the sad fuck that found it & took it with him. It's called entrapment, and it's not moral, because you are causing the person to take it in the first place, you're tempting him.

By allowing the snake to exist, aswell as the tree,he made sure we would be tempted, and as such, kicked out of Eden & condamned to painfull labor (guess he hated women more then men) and death.

A parent can punish a child for disobeying them. God punished Adam and Eve for disobeying his command. A child shows love for its parents by obeying its commands.

I hope you don't have kids, seriously

Firstly, God IS prepared to put up with people who dont love him. Your still alive arnt you? All around the world he puts up with people that dont love him. Why? In the hope that they will come to love him. Secondly, he gave us the knowlege (see the Bible).

We already told you that the bible is not trustworthy for several reasons:
1: It's written by man
2: It's written atleast several decades after Jesus's greatest trick
3: It's the only source available, wich can't be verified

There are afew other reasons why you shouldn't use the bible as proof, you might want to read the thread again.

You have sinned. Untill you can prove to me that you havent sinned then your arguement is superflous. If you die before the age of accountability (IE when you are capable of sinning) you go to heaven.

Well, that's nice, what's all the fuss about abortion then? We're just hurling them into heavens, what's not to like?/sarcasm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/original-sin.html
See here

Biased source, circular reasoning...

"I dont like it, it needs changing, it is stupid" is your arguement here. Not going to work. Your standards arent the ones that matter. God's are.

Wich god? Yours? The hindoo gods? The indian gods? Amun Ra?

http://www.gotquestions.org/before-Jesus.html
See here

More bias & circular reasoning...

God does love us no matter what, but in order to forgive us we need to ask for the forigvness. He cant forgive us against our will. That breaks free will. In order to be forgiven we have to accept we've done wrong

Illogical. I can chose to forgive you, you have no say in it, because you're not the one who decides whether or not i forgive you. In other words, forgiving someone doesn't affect that person's free will, because he's not the one doing the forgiving

Hell is comparable to prison in terms of the logic behind it. IE punishment, not coerscion

The thought of punishment *IS* coersion.

You forget who they had as their teacher

You only respond with shame if you have a knowledge of what shame is. Shame is a correct response if you have knoweldge of good and evil

That's what happens if you eat the fruit of knowledge of good & evil

You dont understand sin. Yet again

Nope, i don't.

Sin is rebelling against God. That is what you are punished for. If you aim for a target and miss it by a millimetere, it is the same result as missing it by a metere. You have missed. That is what sin is. And you are not "sent" by God to hell, any more than you are sent to the ground by gravity if you jump off a cliff. You go there because of the nature of sin and the nature of hell

Ilogical

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

See here for more info

Even more bias...

Science is the system in which logic is used to determine an end to a question. Faith, which all religion requires, is the system in which one holds belief in a given object/idea without any logic supporting this belief. Science cannot test a subject which does not hold a logical path. Religion does not use logic to define itself, thus, science cannot be used to determine the validity of religion. Attempting to prove or disprove religion through science is folly.

Any argument held, not based out of logic, is illogical, and pointless, as it can never end. This point clearly leads to the end that anyone that attempts to logically prove his/her religion is true, is illogical, for all religions require faith, an entity which obscures logic.

The argument that religious people are smarter than scientific people is once again, folly. Religious people claim to know more, about the universe, its meaning and orientation. However, they can never prove what they claim to know through any logical system. Their 'knoledge' comes from faith, faith in a book written by collection of people nearly 2,000 years ago. If I said the universe was made by a giant hot dog, and in the middle of the sun is a big marshmellow, and sombody believed me, their faith is equally legitamate as any Christian's faith in God.

Science cannot prove everything. Religion can prove nothing. It's fundemental system is faith. Faith is a idea based out of illogical belief, logic is the only system by which anything can be fundementally proven. Humanities greatest weapon is logic, why not use it?

EDIT: Id just like to point out, that the Catholic Church (while not the only christian church, just the biggest) does not believe in creationism, thus, does not support the story of Adam and Eve.

Science is the system in which logic is used to determine and end to a question...
If the scientific method were logic then the outcome of every experiment could be predicted before it happened.

Science is not logic; and, in fact, arguments to support religion have used logic.

If the correct equation is found (which it is usually not), the outcome of every scientific experiment could be predicted.

If a religion uses logic to support it's theories, it is using false logic, as the very definition of religion bars the use of correct logic.

If the correct equation is found (which it is usually not), the outcome of every scientific experiment could be predicted.

If a religion uses logic to support it's theories, it is using false logic, as the very definition of religion bars the use of correct logic.
Logic begins with a premise, and then draws conclusions from the premise. "If this premise is so, then this is what logically follows." God's existence is such a premise.

Science, on the other hand, begins with an observation -- "The sky is blue." -- and an hypothesis -- "The sky is blue because of light refraction off sky molecules." Then it proceeds to test the hypothesis to see if it is supportable or disproved. If it is supportable, it can be expanded upon.

If science were logic, then it would be more like, "The sky is blue. Light refracts off molecules. Therefore, the sky is blue because light refracts off sky molecules." I know, bad logic; but my point is that if logic reaches a conclusion, that means that no testing is necessary.

The 'logic' stating that, "The world is so, thus, God created it.", is extremely flawed. I will not go into the depths of how, for I am short on time. By your logic, the statement, "The world is so, thus, aliens created it.", is just as, if not more so logical a statement. But then again, both are based out of faith, a system which denies the use of logic.

The logic/science you are using is very base. The use of advanced science does not start or end in any given order, nor does such logic. Science in its advanced forms need not start with an observation, but a question, statement or problem.

I am sorry we cannot continue now, but I am strapped on time.

The 'logic' stating that, "The world is so, thus, God created it.", is extremely flawed.
It is, indeed. However, the logic that states, "God is the creator of everything. If this is so, then God created the world," is quite sound.

I will not go into the depths of how, for I am short on time. By your logic, the statement, "The world is so, thus, aliens created it.", is just as, if not more so logical a statement. But then again, both are based out of faith, a system which denies the use of logic.

The logic/science you are using is very base. The use of advanced science does not start or end in any given order, nor does such logic. Science in its advanced forms need not start with an observation, but a question, statement or problem.

I am sorry we cannot continue now, but I am strapped on time.
Faith does not deny logic; it is not in contradiction with it; nor does it substitute for it. Logic is a tool that can be used in either religion or science.

The "question, statement or problem" arises because of an observation.

No worries; have fun.

Obedience to God. The serpent was not God.

How do you know?

More to the point... how would THEY know?

How do you know?

More to the point... how would THEY know?

was adam literate o_O?

This is your mistake. You dont understand. When I said the fruit itself was not dangerous, I meant just that. The fruit itself. It was not a poisonous fruit, nor was it damaging to their health in any way. What was dangerous was breaking the command that God gave them. He could have equally said "Dont bathe in that river" or "Dont touch that plant" or "Dont enter X region of the garden". The fruit had no magic, it was disobeying God's command that was important.


Actually... unless you can point out another fruit that has the power to grant "Knowledge of Good and Evil", you are going to have to concede that the tree in question was, indeed, 'magic'.


Firstly, God IS prepared to put up with people who dont love him. Your still alive arnt you? All around the world he puts up with people that dont love him. Why? In the hope that they will come to love him. Secondly, he gave us the knowlege (see the Bible).


Or, of course... your god is imaginary... and so has NO power to mite those who don't love him.

You CHOOSE to believe that it is love that allows your god to tolerate a world full of sin and evil.... but there is no real evidence to support your claim.


You have sinned. Untill you can prove to me that you havent sinned then your arguement is superflous. If you die before the age of accountability (IE when you are capable of sinning) you go to heaven.


Not scriptural. There is ONLY ONE way to heaven, according to scripture, and that is through conscious belief.

Thus, infants, children, aborted foetuses, miscarriages, are all condemned to burn in the pits of hell for all eternity.


God does love us no matter what, but in order to forgive us we need to ask for the forigvness. He cant forgive us against our will. That breaks free will. In order to be forgiven we have to accept we've done wrong


Rubbish. I can forgive you for your arrogance with, or without your permission... and it has nothing to do with YOUR free will.... only mine.

It is curious that Christians argue that "with God, all things are possible", and yet don't seem to be able to get round the idea that 'all things' includes 'getting over' whatever issue it is he has with sinners.


Sin is rebelling against God. That is what you are punished for. If you aim for a target and miss it by a millimetere, it is the same result as missing it by a metere. You have missed. That is what sin is. And you are not "sent" by God to hell, any more than you are sent to the ground by gravity if you jump off a cliff. You go there because of the nature of sin and the nature of hell


You can argue that we are not 'sent' to Hell... but there was NOTHING before god... so god MUST have created Hell. Thus - he built an eternal torment, and he judged that some MUST be condemned to it.

Logically, then... we are 'sent' to 'Hell', by the decision of 'god'.

was adam literate o_O?

Well, no texts are mentioned... and his only source of education (according to scripture) was the oral tradition... so, perhaps not.

Also - of course, all of the Judeo-Christian holy texts were written long after Adam... so, they'd be no help.

The 'logic' stating that, "The world is so, thus, God created it.", is extremely flawed. I will not go into the depths of how, for I am short on time. By your logic, the statement, "The world is so, thus, aliens created it.", is just as, if not more so logical a statement. But then again, both are based out of faith, a system which denies the use of logic.

The logic/science you are using is very base. The use of advanced science does not start or end in any given order, nor does such logic. Science in its advanced forms need not start with an observation, but a question, statement or problem.

I am sorry we cannot continue now, but I am strapped on time.

You should read up on the scientific method. ALL science is based initially on an observation. Take any theory and roll it back far enough and it will come to directly or indirectly observed phenomena.

Willamena, then a hypothesis is formed using logic to extrapolate based on the observation what possible explanation would make sense (be logical). Then the hypothesis tested to see if it fits with all related phenomena we can observe directly or indirectly. Logic fills in the gaps so long as the gaps. The goal of testing is to close those gaps.

K - The difference between the gaps filled by scientific logic and the gaps filled by philosophical/religious logic is that the scientific logic is testable and the philosophical/religious logic is not testable. Generally, the flaw in your statement is that you assume that because some religious assumptions defy logic that all do.

Generally, philosophy and many religious beliefs are based on logic that simply is not always based on emperical evidence. There are other types.

For example there is no emperical evidence of what I'm thinking about between 12 and 1 AM last night. More importantly, the only things you can call illogical are conclusions that defy emperical evidence, not the ones that simply don't have emperical evidence. And you still run into the idea that some people don't believe there is such a thing as emperical evidence and you can't really prove they're wrong.

*snip*

Amusing concept by ND - how does an omniscient being 'hope'?

Amusing concept by ND - how does an omniscient being 'hope'?

Neo, unfortunately, seems to be one of those that accepts the anthropomorphic 'god'... and yet STILL tries to apply concepts like 'omniscience', 'omnipotence' and 'omnipresence' to that same deity.

It's one of the biggest problems I have with the 'consistency' of scripture, actually... we have a 'god' who is in NO wise definable as human, judging by the prpoerties and powers allowed to him in the text... and yet 'he' is referred to as literally having hands, eyes, nostrils, etc.

It is, indeed. However, the logic that states, "God is the creator of everything. If this is so, then God created the world," is quite sound.



But. then, the 'logic' is a fallacy, because the 'assumption' cannot be supported or verified.

Indeed, it relies on very specific definitions (and, limitations, when you think about it) to make that assumption... the 'nature' of 'god', the 'separation' of 'god' FROM his 'creation'.... even, the 'nature' of 'the world'.

Thus, the 'logic' you invoke, is almost circular.... the 'god who created the world' MUST have 'created the world', because we ASSUME that he is 'the god who created the world'.

But. then, the 'logic' is a fallacy, because the 'assumption' cannot be supported or verified.

Indeed, it relies on very specific definitions (and, limitations, when you think about it) to make that assumption... the 'nature' of 'god', the 'separation' of 'god' FROM his 'creation'.... even, the 'nature' of 'the world'.

Thus, the 'logic' you invoke, is almost circular.... the 'god who created the world' MUST have 'created the world', because we ASSUME that he is 'the god who created the world'.
The "assumption" is a premise. Logic begins with a premise. The premises of science must be "supported or validated" because science seeks to explain things, but this is not the goal of religion. The goal here is to lead to new ideas through associative processes.

The logic is not circular because it begins with a premise and moves forward from there. If god created everything, and the world is included in everything, then god created the world.

It is curious that Christians argue that "with God, all things are possible", and yet don't seem to be able to get round the idea that 'all things' includes 'getting over' whatever issue it is he has with sinners.
LoL! *polite applause*

LoL! *polite applause*

***bows, genuflects, and accepts gifts of flowers, chocolates, and all major credit cards...***

:)

The "assumption" is a premise. Logic begins with a premise. The premises of science must be "supported or validated" because science seeks to explain things, but this is not the goal of religion. The goal here is to lead to new ideas through associative processes.


No no, my friend... SOME may see that as the 'goal'... but far more seem to take 'religion' as being entirely about 'explaining' things.

And, I do not accept different 'rules' for different arenas.

If I assert that 'cheese IS telephones'... it matters not whether I debate religion or science... my premise must have some sort of 'value' for the logic to follow with any intrinsic worth.


The logic is not circular because it begins with a premise and moves forward from there. If god created everything, and the world is included in everything, then god created the world.

Unless god IS the world.

This is what I mean... the terms have to be so specific, that the assertion becomes meaningless in introspection.

Logic begins with a premise, and then draws conclusions from the premise. "If this premise is so, then this is what logically follows." God's existence is such a premise.
.

Descartes, Descartes, Descartes.

You set out to prove A is true by saying "Ok first off, A is true". Thats where the flaw lies. The basis for this premise lies on something that isn't factual.

(Granted this might have been said before- but I sure as hell ain't going back through 93 pages to find it :D :p )

No no, my friend... SOME may see that as the 'goal'... but far more seem to take 'religion' as being entirely about 'explaining' things.

And, I do not accept different 'rules' for different arenas.

If I assert that 'cheese IS telephones'... it matters not whether I debate religion or science... my premise must have some sort of 'value' for the logic to follow with any intrinsic worth.



Unless god IS the world.

This is what I mean... the terms have to be so specific, that the assertion becomes meaningless in introspection.

I think the point you miss is that science and religion use the same logic but science relies on emperical evidence, and religion does not. It's the same process to explain different aspects of the state of existence. One deals with absolute truth and the other deals with the observed truth. You can gues which is which.

Sure, he is also a God of wrath and a consuming fire. But what else would you expect of pure love. It is a terrible thing. He is an awesome God.


Uhhh...

Thanks!

(I'm not used to being bowed to, much less receiving an almost compliment from 'ol mate straughn'.)
I appreciate the conscience you put into the post, so i felt it deserved a bow.
I'm not completely evil ;)

This is your mistake. You dont understand. When I said the fruit itself was not dangerous, I meant just that. The fruit itself. It was not a poisonous fruit, nor was it damaging to their health in any way. What was dangerous was breaking the command that God gave them. He could have equally said "Dont bathe in that river" or "Dont touch that plant" or "Dont enter X region of the garden". The fruit had no magic, it was disobeying God's command that was important.

"Jesus, stop lifting that friggin' fig leaf. More than two shakes and you're .... argh, i give up. Here, whiff down this stuff, mmmm, nummy."
*plop*
Well, i haven't got much to work with here ... i guess a rib'll do.
*RRRIIIIIP*
*suture*

*zzzz*
*time passes*
*stirring*
"Mmmm .... ouch. Well, time to ... ow, can't reach it. What's going on? I - hey, who are you and what're you doing in my slippers?"
*innocent look*
"Ah well, make me a sandwich."
"Wouldn't you like something with that, maybe a soda and chips?"
"Nah, i'm on the safeway alt-diet ... a bottled water and ... hmmm, maybe an apple."
"All right, sweety, i'll be right back. I think there's one over there."
"Yeah well hurry up."

Firstly, God IS prepared to put up with people who dont love him. Your still alive arnt you? All around the world he puts up with people that dont love him. Why? In the hope that they will come to love him.
Yeah, i can see where Saddam Hussein has his redeeming qualities, and how a broken, impetuous and malevolent child-entity of a god would really appreciate him and the kind of people that he inspires, you know, god hopes they'll love him, since their love is truly worth that much. :rolleyes:



You have sinned. Untill you can prove to me that you havent sinned then your arguement is superflous. If you die before the age of accountability (IE when you are capable of sinning) you go to heaven.What a horrible misunderstanding of basic premise, two things most importantly.
It's not his onus to prove sin, IT'S YOURS. You don't know what's in GMC's background, heart OR future, and therefore you shouldn't be throwing around words that you apparently can't spell.
And if it were even the case that your logic works, the VERY NEXT STATEMENT contradicts it, the whole original sin thing REQUIRES that WE (yes, you too) are born into sin in order to win favour by turning and attempting to redeem ourselves in the ayes of said slavemaster. You're essentially saying that he goes to heaven before he's actually born of the flesh of this world, which very clearly is a lack of understanding on your part of the whole cycle presented in the bible.
So which is it?



And you are not "sent" by God to hell, any more than you are sent to the ground by gravity if you jump off a cliff. You go there because of the nature of sin and the nature of hell


Natures obviously being ascribed to them by their creator.

Exodus 32:14: And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Oh, there it is. That took me one whole second.

Well, suffice it to say that GMC is doing so well on this thread, he/she's eating MY lunch and i'm not an opponent here (to my knowledge). ;)

I'll lightly add to this post, just a smidge, since that cought my eye, and i figured i'd give another example of spin:

Exodus 32:14

KJV: (The above post.)

NIV: Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
(I'll beat you if you don't eat your vegetables)

Living: So the LORD changed his mind and spared them.

NRSV: And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.

....
So to summate, later readers/interpreters recoiled in horror that their beloved "god" had considered fulfilling an angry and evil act against his own beloved children, the ones supposedly that only needed to repent so he could love them fully.
Yes, it does say angry, by the way ... and it certainly says quite a bit more about this than one might offhandedly explain away as our misunderstanding.

EXODUS 32:11-12

KJV: And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath may wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
12) Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent this evil against thy people.

NIV: But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, who you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand?
12) Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent, and do not bring disaster on your people.

Living: But Moses begged God not to do it. "Lord," he pleaded, "why is your anger so hot against your own people whom you brought from the land of Egypt with such great power and mighty miracles?
12) Do you want the Egyptians to say, 'God tricked them into coming to the mountains so that he could slay them, destroying them from off the face of the earth'? Turn back from your fierce wrath. Turn away from this terrible evil you are planning against your people!

NRSV: But Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
12) Why should the Egyptians say, "With evil intent did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

---
So, the moral of the story here is ... mouth off at god about how much an arsehole he is to kill his own chosen people, and, since he wasn't moral enough until a mortal corrected him, he sees "the light" and repents the evil which he thought to do to his people.

Okay, some takers, perhaps? This ought to be either funny or extremely embarassing. Or both.
I also noted that NRSV decided that they couldn't spin the evil nature so they basically left it the same as KJV.

'he' is referred to as literally having hands, eyes, nostrils, etc.
...anus? ;) Hmmm, massage the holy prostate. It's for good health. I think i sense another "holy-"day. Happy holy-days!
Kind of like Bender's nuclear pile in the episode, Godfellas.
Rock on Grave. Thanks for the compliment a while back, Grave, btw. *bows*

Also, to make this post useful, there's a newsgroup of some sort that was purporting that God did INDEED have "holy orifi", but i don't have the book with that addie in it.
It's in High Weirdness by Mail, by Rev. Stang of the Church of the SubGenius.
It rocks.
It also, less to the point, has the addie for the Flat Earth Society and The Society To Save Madonna From Nuclear War.
Yes, the "Material Girl" Madonna, not the Madonna that was farting out blood onto the cardinal's face on South Park.

Grave .... GUESS what i got today?
Hint: Unrated. Over 20 minutes of deleted scenes and outtakes ...

How'd Jayne say it again?
Frog-humping, catsucking pissant?
*forgive me*

Actually, Adam was the only one who cast blame; Eve just told the truth: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." Eve realised the wrong of the situation and fessed up to her actions ...at least, according to the New International Version Bible.

Sorry for the pedantry, just wanted to point that out.

Heck, Willamena, you aren't going and getting all literal on me now, are you?

But there it is, perhaps, and that explains why women are so much better behaved then men. Least my wife is always showing me up.

Anyways, I do accept your point. It may have been that Eve was not putting any blame on the serpent but only, as you said, telling it how it was. Alternatively, she may have been using innuendo. If so, she was far more clever than Adam's blatant shirk of responsibility. Come to think if it, the New Testament writers tend to refer to Adam as the first sinner, not Eve. I don't think I have thought enough about that. I had always assumed that it was because they saw that most of the blame was with him, not her. Perhaps it is only splitting hairs though.

I heard a stat that said that 70% of the scientists are now christians. I think this maybe slightly too high but it does show a good point. Science does not contradict religion always. In some cases it backs it up and in others it doesn't. Science is how, religion is why.

Like i said, what reminders?
I agree choice is one of the most important aspects of our lives, take away a person's choice & you'll eventually break that person.
(Imagine being submitted to the same food, drinks, routines everyday without being allowed to even think about changing them... *shudders*


Reminders, as I see them, come to us in many forms. Basically, whenever we recognise things in life that are inherently good, e.g., the love of a loyal friend, honesty from the lips of your lover, self-sacrifice from your mother, or even the vulnerable beauty of a small delicate flower. Reminders stop being reminders when we find ways to explain them in terms of randomness or freak accidents, or if we successfully find a way of ignoring them. A classic example is the rainbow, but a bit overused. Beautiful music can really life the soul up and make it fly (in a way that has nothing to do with taking drugs, as far as I have read). The sweet music from the calls of a native bird (who is looking for a mate) can be a reminder of beauty, and the source of beauty. It is possible that these reminders can remind people of God (not necessarily the Christian God, but a Creator God). However, reminders are not always giving one good feelings.

Let me illustrate. I have seen some rather wretched miserable people hanging around filthy slums that look more dead than alive. I don't think it is possible for any human to avoid feeling bad at just the sight of them, unless one has become 'immune' to such sights. This 'immunity' of which I speak is what I was referring to when I was talking about people no longer recognising the 'reminders'. They either ignore them (look the other way) or find a way of rationalising that tells those bad feelings to go away. Or they try to appease those feelings by giving the poor wretches some money, while ignoring the little voice that says those few coins were not enough. (I know from personal experience.)




However, faith also limits choice.


Agreed. Choice limits choice also.



You didn't have to type that many words to agree to disagree :p
Oh, and will you drop the drama already? If hell is being devoid of god then it can't be worse then this life :p

I see you meant that as humour. But the Bible claims that God is not far from any person. In fact, the only place he isn't is within your soul, unless you invite him in. In that scenario, then, hell would be a much different place to our current existence. For all I know, hell is not a location, but a state of existence.

Yeah, i can see where Saddam Hussein has his redeeming qualities, and how a broken, impetuous and malevolent child-entity of a god would really appreciate him and the kind of people that he inspires, you know, god hopes they'll love him, since their love is truly worth that much. :rolleyes:


Even the worst offenders can be forgiven. But if your asking why does God allow people like Saddam Hussain to exist, you seem to forget a little thing called free will.


What a horrible misunderstanding of basic premise, two things most importantly.
It's not his onus to prove sin, IT'S YOURS. You don't know what's in GMC's background, heart OR future, and therefore you shouldn't be throwing around words that you apparently can't spell.

Hate to disapoint you but we all have sinned. No one in this world is perfect, nor has been perfect save for one man.


And if it were even the case that your logic works, the VERY NEXT STATEMENT contradicts it, the whole original sin thing REQUIRES that WE (yes, you too) are born into sin in order to win favour by turning and attempting to redeem ourselves in the ayes of said slavemaster. You're essentially saying that he goes to heaven before he's actually born of the flesh of this world, which very clearly is a lack of understanding on your part of the whole cycle presented in the bible.
So which is it.

See here. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f006.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

How do you know?

More to the point... how would THEY know?

Because God created them and was in a much closer relationship with them. Athiests arguing this point are quite happy to assume that God created Adam and Eve without any knowledge for some reason.

Actually... unless you can point out another fruit that has the power to grant "Knowledge of Good and Evil", you are going to have to concede that the tree in question was, indeed, 'magic'.

It only had that reaction because of what God commanded about it. God could easily have commanded an area of the forest to give the knowledge of good and evil etc. Again, it was the command of God that had the power, not the fruit.


Or, of course... your god is imaginary... and so has NO power to mite those who don't love him.

You CHOOSE to believe that it is love that allows your god to tolerate a world full of sin and evil.... but there is no real evidence to support your claim.

Grave, dont treet me like an idiot. You are diliberatly changing the nature of the discussion from being about the nature of God as described in the Bible, to whether or not that God exists. That is not what we are discussing.


Not scriptural. There is ONLY ONE way to heaven, according to scripture, and that is through conscious belief.

Thus, infants, children, aborted foetuses, miscarriages, are all condemned to burn in the pits of hell for all eternity.


Wrong. A simplistic opinion from someone who does not know enough about scripture

http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html


Rubbish. I can forgive you for your arrogance with, or without your permission... and it has nothing to do with YOUR free will.... only mine.

It is curious that Christians argue that "with God, all things are possible", and yet don't seem to be able to get round the idea that 'all things' includes 'getting over' whatever issue it is he has with sinners.

Well if he 'gets over' it in the way your suggesting, then everyone would have to enter heaven including Hitler.


You can argue that we are not 'sent' to Hell... but there was NOTHING before god... so god MUST have created Hell. Thus - he built an eternal torment, and he judged that some MUST be condemned to it.

Logically, then... we are 'sent' to 'Hell', by the decision of 'god'.

We are sent to hell because hell is a place for all those who rebell against God. So you can put it like that if you wish. Of course it doesnt change the fact that God doesnt want us to go there.

No no, my friend... SOME may see that as the 'goal'... but far more seem to take 'religion' as being entirely about 'explaining' things.
Lots of people in the Western world get it wrong, yup. I think (as I've stated before) that's because science sets expectations and is held so high aloft that it becomes desirable that everything conform to it.

And, I do not accept different 'rules' for different arenas.

If I assert that 'cheese IS telephones'... it matters not whether I debate religion or science... my premise must have some sort of 'value' for the logic to follow with any intrinsic worth.
It's not different 'rules', it is different 'applications' (goals). The premise does not lack value; it can have value in the form of 'significance'. It only lacks 'literal truth' value.

The premise for explaining things must be literally true; other goals can have other premises. The premise for self-discovery, for instance, has no such requirement. For instance, if I assert "cheese IS telephones" and I am looking to explain cheese, then what follows must be a literally true conclusion about cheese or the whole thing is faulty. If I assert "I am cheese," (as a metaphor) then I am looking not to explain my physical existence but to place myself in relation to cheese by 'putting myself in its shoes', an ability human beings have in abundance and use to good end. Then I 'become the cheese' in order to find out things about my cheesy self* (naturally without losing sight of reality). I move forward from there in order to advance this process towards my goal. Now, I could work forward logically or not, as logic is one process, but the premise is just a starting place.
*EDIT: Note, I can also learn non-factual things about the cheese this way.

God, i.e. the supernatural being, is a reflection of self. Religion is our relationship to god. Any exploration of god is also, at the same time, a self-exploration.

Unless god IS the world.

This is what I mean... the terms have to be so specific, that the assertion becomes meaningless in introspection.
If god IS the world, then by extension, I have a relationship with the world. It is equivalent to saying that by exploring the world around me I discover things about myself. I am in a mindset that places me in a relation of 'similarity' with the things around me. Like the world, I too am solid matter, and I can be manipulated by nature (am subject to nature). What the animal and the tree create for themselves, I can also create for myself (i.e. offspring). Their abilities are my abilities, and vice-versa. This world is me.

If, on the other hand, god created the world while apart from it, then I also have a creator relationship with the world. Rather than being a part of it, I too am apart from it in my specialness, my uniqueness. My mind, my heart and my soul set me apart. The world can be manipulated by nature, and by me. I have the ability to create in this world, to bring something into being from nothing (i.e. thought). This world is mine.

Religion is a philosophy. It is not science.

Descartes, Descartes, Descartes.

You set out to prove A is true by saying "Ok first off, A is true". Thats where the flaw lies. The basis for this premise lies on something that isn't factual.

(Granted this might have been said before- but I sure as hell ain't going back through 93 pages to find it :D :p )
I have never read Descartes, but my understanding is that he was setting out to literally prove god. Then his reasoning is inherently faulty, since one cannot prove a metaphor (a nonliteral thing) to be literally true.

Heck, Willamena, you aren't going and getting all literal on me now, are you?
Not literal, just factual about re-telling the story. After all, the story elements are what make for significant metaphor; change those, and you change the metaphor.

The Scientific Community, at this time, is on a movement against the 'moral' opposition that those who believe in Religion hold. While some of the Scientific Community is only in it for the Science and therefore are NOT part of the crusade (much like some who believe in the Christian God did not participate in the Crusades, but only wanted religion so that it benefitted all), the rest of the Scientific Community is on a movement to marginalize the other side of the debate, demeaning them as idiots, retards, and religious fanatics.

Well you can't really expect scientists to just sit there and when Christian fundamentalists are trying to get 'intelligent design' taught in science lessons ion America. What, so religious people are allowed to launch offensives against scientists, but scientists cannot retaliate?

:confused:

They were put out of the garden to protect them from the horror of immortality combined with emnity towards God, i.e. Satan's postion. It's there in Genesis (the part about not eating of the tree of life). Not a direct result of punishment from God, but for protection.

God decided they were his enemies. A merciful God would forgive them and not make that choice.

Your original assertion was that Jesus had a superbody. He didn't.

No, I asserted he had a 'superpowered body.' How his superpowers came to the body is absolutely irrelevent: he had superpowers.

James was emphasising that faith that does not result in good works is a dead faith. He was not addressing the issue of how we are saved, but that how we can know that we have faith. I would not call it a contradiction at all. That it seems so to you suggests that you do not understand faith or salvation.

No, it suggests you didn't read the verse in the context of the others around it.

Jam 2:17-26:Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Holiness is having one motive--to do all to the glory of God.

Your God seems quite the egotist...

If they realised the evil of their actions ONLY after they ate the fruit, not before, then eating the fruit could hardly be considered evil, since they were ignorant, not disobedient.

Correct.

Thus, they knew that they took the path of evil, even before they knew what it was to experience evil.

No, because they could not know or comprehend evil, or know it was different to good.

I've tried to explain to you that my idea of God being good comes from the Bible, not from me.

No, it doesn't. Nobody reads the Bible cover to cover and then becomes a Christian.

God's judgement comes down on evil. Because he is holy, he must destroy evil.

That doesn't follow. And he's done an absolutely terrible job of it, if that's what he must do. Anyway, what about your point about free will? If he wants us to have free will, he cannot destroy evil.

Or better still, go to the Hebrew version of that part of scripture and get a translation. I believe the 'evil' to which you have referred is more like punishment, or harm.

Hilariously, the Herbrew version uses the same word in Exodus 32:14 for 'evil' ['rah'] as it does in Genesis 2:9 to describe the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil.'

That rather torpedoes your point, doesn't it?

Of course it is a wonderful thing. That is why it is so terrible when the woman who loves her man so dearly finds him cheating on her.

Does she murder him for it? Would she be justified in torturing her man to death? Would it be loving for her to do so?

Slaughter is never a 'good' thing in that it is never pleasant. It may only be a 'good' thing in the sense that it is making the best of a bad situation. Like I said before, you have to understand that there are some things worse in this life than death, like evil.

Slaughter is evil. I can't believe I actually have to point that out.

All of the above can be forgiven--that and far far worse. (Not that receiving a blood transfusion has anything to do with sin.) God wants you to turn to him, because you were made to share intimacy with him. Rejection of that intimacy is taken seriously. He respects your choice. He doesn't cast you away. He leaves you alone, turns his back. The fact that he designed you to be happy only with intimacy with him means that you will find his absence a torture. It isn't an issue of not returning his calls. It's about respecting your choice.

It's not a choice if he made us to only be able to survive one half of the choice. And seriously, reject intimacy and you get tortured? That's not love, it's unhealthy obsession. Your version of God sounds like nothing more than a stalker.

If you love someone, you will not stand idly by and watch them harm themselves. The 'free will' argument is nonsensical: if you could save the life of someone you adored, even against their will, you would do so.

God made the rules. Get over it.

Right, so the basis of God's authority is his power alone, and Biblical morality consists of 'God is really, really powerful, so do whatever he says or else he'll kill you.' Concession accepted.

The Scientific Community, at this time, is on a movement against the 'moral' opposition that those who believe in Religion hold. While some of the Scientific Community is only in it for the Science and therefore are NOT part of the crusade (much like some who believe in the Christian God did not participate in the Crusades, but only wanted religion so that it benefitted all), the rest of the Scientific Community is on a movement to marginalize the other side of the debate, demeaning them as idiots, retards, and religious fanatics.
Well you can't really expect scientists to just sit there and when Christian fundamentalists are trying to get 'intelligent design' taught in science lessons ion America. What, so religious people are allowed to launch offensives against scientists, but scientists cannot retaliate?

:confused:
Well, scientists should not retaliate, if they expect to maintain credibility.

The kind of behaviour Empryia pointed out only damages them more.

If 'hitting the ground' was an avoidable concept that had been put in place by someone who chose if you hit the ground or not, that man would be evil if he allowed people to hit the ground, since it would be fully in his power to save them all. You would not then be the one who chose if you hit the ground: he would.


I tend to argue that because God is good and perfect, whatever has done is good and perfect. You seem to be arguing that because hell exists, God, the creator of hell, must be evil, or incapable of removing hell, and therefore weak.

For him to change things would imply that he made a mistake. Therefore, he could not be all-knowing. However, if God is omnipotent, it is likely that he made things the best way the first time, and does not need to change them. Thus we are in no position to determine logically whether the existence of hell is the best possibility. You begin with your assumption (God is either evil or weak), and I begin with mine (God is strong and perfect and good).

If you see hell as the consequences of choice (the wrong one) and God doing his best to convince you to avoid it, then I cannot see how you can blame God for your choices. What you want is for God to remove hell, so that you can do as you please. If murdering other people happened to please you, then where would be the justice in that?


God choses who goes to hell: humans do not. It is not our choice: for all you know, God might send you to hell. It's not a free choice, since there is a punishment if we make the wrong choice. It's not a clear choice, because it's not clear what we have to do to make it. It's not our choice, because God has set himself as judge, jury and executioner, with no appeals.


I still do not see how you can logically conclude that you do not have a choice. You seem to be simply asserting that humans to not have a choice. Thats not reasoning.


Is he? Do you claim to know the mind of God?


Not all of it, but just enough to call him my father.


Revelation shows God has absolutely no intention of 'respecting our free will' to believe in him or not on Judgement day. He's going to stand us up in front of him while the book of life is read, so your argument that Hell is him allowing us to never be with him is rubbish.

Rev 20:12: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God;


I never said that everyone would always be able to believe in the non-existence of God. And yes, all will one day stand before the great judge. What we believed will be determined by our actions while we had the time and ability to choose (ie. this life). And he will allow our choices to determine our future. The judgement will be over what our choices really were.


If you quit with this ludicrous false dilemma, you'd realise that there's a third choice: God can respect our free will without punishing or exiling anyone. He can allow people to make a free choice whether to love him or not, respect that choice, and still not send them to hell for it. He can simply shrug and let them get on with life, and find their own happiness. If he really wants us to be happy, he would come before us, apologise for his crimes, and learn to understand us and care for us as a father rather than slaughting us as a dictator as in the Old Testament.


Ludicrous? You are resorting to ridicule, now? The problem with your third option is that you don't know if there can be any happiness without God. Every good things comes from God, so without God, there is no good thing, but only the desire for good things, i.e. hell. Desire raging out of control becomes a torment. God would save you from that. But you apparently won't let him. Your choice.

And you have assumed, once again, that he has crimes to apologise for. In doing so, you have passed judgement on God. As if you could know it better. You, a mortal, apparently know better than God, the immortal. You have a limited intelligence. His isn't. Can't you see something irrational about that?


There's a school of thought that that's true meaning of the Jesus story. Quote! (http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Morality.shtml)



To be honest, it works better than Paul's version, and explains why God hasn't returned to slaughtering humans mercilessly as he did before Jesus' time.


If God really was like that, it is likely that he has less intelligence than humans. And you were accusing me of being ludicrous.

And by the way, how can you say that God is not 'slaughtering humans mercilessly'? Since the slaughter of the Jews in the OT was an act of God perform on his behalf by the Babylonians and the Greeks and the Romans, how can you say that he was not still slaughtering them using the Germans? I'm not suggesting that I believe this, but just challenging your assertion that the God of the OT was less merciful than he is today. In terms of numbers of people slaughtered, the modern God is getting more bloody, not less, if we are to be consistent with your argument.


By sentencing us to an eternity of suffering? Some 'respect!'


You have been warned. Thus you are taking responsibility in your own hands. Incidentally, why do you reject his offer? Isn't that ludicrous?


It would be even more wrong to torture someone to death for refusing to thank you. The joy is in giving the gift, the thank you is a bonus. It is incredibly vain to give gifts just so that people will thank you for them.

Once again, God does not torture. My idea of hell is that it is a place where the desires of each person, unfulfilled, will be the source of torture.

God does not give gifts in order to get thanks, but because he is a loving father. How often have you thanked him for the gifts you like, eg. your fiancee?

Wrong. A simplistic opinion from someone who does not know enough about scripture

[url]http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html[/url

Wow, not one bit of scriptural support for the 'age of accountability'. Every supporting argument requires one not only to agree with the translations of the author of the webpage but also the long extrapolations from that translation. How odd that your 'age of accountablity' is not actually mentioned in the Bible ever? Unless one simply decides that the rules don't apply to those incapable of deciding (and decides that children are incapable of deciding) then really it can't be supported at all, now can it? Children are capable of seeing all of the evidence offered to those who have not read the Bible or been exposed to the Faith, why are they not held accountable when they see this and yet don't See? I know the answer, but it doesn't work if you accept everything on that page.

For him to change things would imply that he made a mistake. Therefore, he could not be all-knowing. However, if God is omnipotent, it is likely that he made things the best way the first time, and does not need to change them. Thus we are in no position to determine logically whether the existence of hell is the best possibility. You begin with your assumption (God is either evil or weak), and I begin with mine (God is strong and perfect and good).


Not really, pleased read again:

I tend to argue that because God is good and perfect, whatever has done is good and perfect. You seem to be arguing that because hell exists, God, the creator of hell, must be evil, or incapable of removing hell, and therefore weak.

You are saying that because god is good, god must be good. This is circular logic.

GMC says that because there is hell, god must be evil. This is not circular logic.

Not really, pleased read again:



You are saying that because god is good, god must be good. This is circular logic.

GMC says that because there is hell, god must be evil. This is not circular logic.

That logic is more like.

Drawn from scripture (depending on what you hold to be proper translations): There is a hell.
Assumption: Hell is a bad thing.
Drawn from scripture: God created Hell.
Conclusion: God created a bad thing.
Assumption: Bad things are evil.
Conclusion: God is evil.
The assumptions are the basis for the conclusion. The assumptions are not based on scripture or observed phenomena. They are basically decisions he made on what must be in order to get to the conclusion he wanted to reach. That is also circular logic. The circle is just a bit more complex.

More importantly, it only addresses a particular brand of beliefs about God. It's not reflective of what many believe about God.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

I believe there is a God and also that science is his creation. Science explains more than the bible does. Unless you buy people living untilt hey are 237 years old and such, and the world being only 7,000 years old. Surely you must be joking. God and science are linked at God created science. What will be interesting is when humans can create other humas through cloning and mutation. Then and only then wil I decry God as the bible states that he and only he is the giver of life. If one can create a new life from a mass of cells then there may be some truth to their aetheist ways.

You have been warned. Thus you are taking responsibility in your own hands. Incidentally, why do you reject his offer? Isn't that ludicrous?



This one is always fun to play with. It's the dumb crutch of the argument and it fails miserably.

I shall demonstrate.

Just today I created a magical flying fire breathing dragon that can fly faster than the speed of light. I got on that dragon and flew to Mars.

I offer you a free gift. If you believe that I created a magical flying dragon and flew to Mars I'll give you an etenity of pleasure. It's a free gift. Why don't you take it.

If you don't accept my offer you can go to hell.

GMC says that because there is hell, god must be evil. This is not circular logic.

Actually we are saying that because there is hell, God is just. That isnt circular logic either

I believe there is a God and also that science is his creation. Science explains more than the bible does. Unless you buy people living untilt hey are 237 years old and such, and the world being only 7,000 years old. Surely you must be joking. God and science are linked at God created science. What will be interesting is when humans can create other humas through cloning and mutation. Then and only then wil I decry God as the bible states that he and only he is the giver of life. If one can create a new life from a mass of cells then there may be some truth to their aetheist ways.
And why would you attribute that new life to man and not to God?

Actually we are saying that because there is hell, God is just. That isnt circular logic either

No, that's absurd

No, that's absurd

Depends on how you look at it. Could the argument be made that the death penalty is evidence of justice (not do you believe just could the argument be made)?

Depends on how you look at it. Could the argument be made that the death penalty is evidence of justice (not do you believe just could the argument be made)?

If i understand your question properly, you mean, do i consider the death penalty just?

No, i don't

I'd like (well, actually I wouldn't but oh well) an atheist to show me an actual proof that it (no god) did happen.

Plz?

No, that's absurd

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/evilgod.html

See here

I'd like (well, actually I wouldn't but oh well) an atheist to show me an actual proof that it (no god) did happen.

Plz?
How can "no god" have happened? That's a grammatical impossibility. :)

If i understand your question properly, you mean, do i consider the death penalty just?

No, i don't

Not what I said. I said can an argument be made that the death penalty is just, and the answer is yes. You may not agree with the argument but it's not absurd. Many people believe that a just world by a just world there are always opposites. Matter/Anti-matter, Good/Evil, Heaven/Hell, Light/Dark, Up/Down, Yin/Yang, etc. An argument can be made and it can no more be dismissed as absurd than the argument that He is evil simply because there is duality.

I'd like (well, actually I wouldn't but oh well) an atheist to show me an actual proof that it (no god) did happen.

Plz?

Where God is concerned the burden of proof is on the believers. There is no evidence pointing towards an existence of God, just as their isn't towards giant flying spaghetti monsterisms, invisible pink unicorns, little green men from Mars and honest politicans.

Does that mean these things do definately not exist ? No. Just that objectively viewed believing in an alien who massacred entire galactic races millenia ago and send their souls on space airplanes to the planet earth is just as valid as believing in the Judeo Christian God.

Where God is concerned the burden of proof is on the believers. There is no evidence pointing towards an existence of God, just as their isn't towards giant flying spaghetti monsterisms, invisible pink unicorns, little green men from Mars and honest politicans.

Does that mean these things do definately not exist ? No. Just that objectively viewed believing in an alien who massacred entire galactic races millenia ago and send their souls on space airplanes to the planet earth is just as valid as believing in the Judeo Christian God.

Thats a little unfair. The Bible is a mass of proof. Before you say "Its just a book, it could be fiction" you need to look into the history surrounding it, as well as the archeology that supports it.

Thats a little unfair. The Bible is a mass of proof. Before you say "Its just a book, it could be fiction" you need to look into the history surrounding it, as well as the archeology that supports it.

Supports parts of it. Forrest Gump has a lot of history surrounding it and one day archeology that will support parts of it. It doesn't mean Forrest Gump exists. That's why there's thing called... dum, dum, dum... FAITH

I'd like (well, actually I wouldn't but oh well) an atheist to show me an actual proof that it (no god) did happen.

Plz?

Could you first start with defining what you see as a god?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/evilgod.html

See here

What i see there isn't really all that convincing, for starters, the way the guy questioning the bible formulated his opinions is horrid, and the replies aren't all that great neighter.

Not what I said. I said can an argument be made that the death penalty is just, and the answer is yes. You may not agree with the argument but it's not absurd. Many people believe that a just world by a just world there are always opposites. Matter/Anti-matter, Good/Evil, Heaven/Hell, Light/Dark, Up/Down, Yin/Yang, etc. An argument can be made and it can no more be dismissed as absurd than the argument that He is evil simply because there is duality.

On what grounds can you argue that the death penalty is just? Alot of people seem to think otherwise, i don't know of any European country still executing people for instance.

Duality isn't the problem with the god as presented in the bible, duality implies balance, i see no balance in the biblical god.

Thats a little unfair. The Bible is a mass of proof. Before you say "Its just a book, it could be fiction" you need to look into the history surrounding it, as well as the archeology that supports it.

I'm not going to claim it's 100% fiction, i do claim that it contains fiction within it's pages, fiction & mythologies.

Giving that you tend to toss out links lately, i'd be intrested in those relating to archeology it's a field i'm intrested in.

I think the point you miss is that science and religion use the same logic but science relies on emperical evidence, and religion does not. It's the same process to explain different aspects of the state of existence. One deals with absolute truth and the other deals with the observed truth. You can gues which is which.

I don't think I'm missing the point... I think that, if we wish to discuss religion in terms of 'logic', we have to apply certain rigours to the process.

It is not 'logical' to assert something that ONLY holds true because we choose to accept that assertion... and, even if the process used 'resembles' logic, the lack of rational basis for the first assumption is always going to be to the detriment of the asserted 'logic'.

"The Moon is made of cheese. Astronauts brought back samples of 'Moon rock'. Therefore, NASA had some samples of extraterrestrial cheese".

The above is just as logical as the 'logic' about God creating the universe. Indeed, as long as the first statement is accepted as truth, the rest of the logic is pretty solid.

However, the last statment isn't 'logical'. It is ONLY 'logical' IF the first assumption is held to be true...

If you want to argue that religion doesn't need empirical evidence, then you ALSO have to admit that such 'logic' can never arrive at any 'empirical' truth.

On what grounds can you argue that the death penalty is just? Alot of people seem to think otherwise, i don't know of any European country still executing people for instance.

Duality isn't the problem with the god as presented in the bible, duality implies balance, i see no balance in the biblical god.

Then you're defining him in a very specific way. Certainly you're not arguing the Bible can only be interpreted one way. So much of it is figurative.

Grave .... GUESS what i got today?
Hint: Unrated. Over 20 minutes of deleted scenes and outtakes ...

How'd Jayne say it again?
Frog-humping, catsucking pissant?
*forgive me*

Just got back from some pre-Christmas shopping... with a little something for myself.... I also, am aimin' to misbehave. (Widescreen).

Yay!

...anus? ;) Hmmm, massage the holy prostate. It's for good health. I think i sense another "holy-"day. Happy holy-days!
Kind of like Bender's nuclear pile in the episode, Godfellas.
Rock on Grave. Thanks for the compliment a while back, Grave, btw. *bows*

Also, to make this post useful, there's a newsgroup of some sort that was purporting that God did INDEED have "holy orifi", but i don't have the book with that addie in it.
It's in High Weirdness by Mail, by Rev. Stang of the Church of the SubGenius.
It rocks.
It also, less to the point, has the addie for the Flat Earth Society and The Society To Save Madonna From Nuclear War.
Yes, the "Material Girl" Madonna, not the Madonna that was farting out blood onto the cardinal's face on South Park.

I only compliment you, my friend, because you deserve it. :)

I'm not sure if God is ever attributed an anus in scripture... but there is at least one reference to his 'back side'....

I don't think I'm missing the point... I think that, if we wish to discuss religion in terms of 'logic', we have to apply certain rigours to the process.

It is not 'logical' to assert something that ONLY holds true because we choose to accept that assertion... and, even if the process used 'resembles' logic, the lack of rational basis for the first assumption is always going to be to the detriment of the asserted 'logic'.

Certainly, it is completely logical, if there is no way to know what the 'truth' actually is.

"The Moon is made of cheese. Astronauts brought back samples of 'Moon rock'. Therefore, NASA had some samples of extraterrestrial cheese".

A perfect example. If you read earlier, I said it is illogical if one denies emperical evidence, it is not illogical if one simply entertains ideas about something for which we have no evidence and cannot have evidence.

The above is just as logical as the 'logic' about God creating the universe. Indeed, as long as the first statement is accepted as truth, the rest of the logic is pretty solid.

Great, we agree. So long as you accept the first statement (and let's face it you have no basis to declare it cannot be so), the rest of the logic is solid. The first is an assumption. Assumption are valid to make so long as they can't be shown to be false. Now, this isn't scientific, but it is logical.

However, the last statment isn't 'logical'. It is ONLY 'logical' IF the first assumption is held to be true...

It's a logical extrapolation of the first statement. The last statement is never logical on it's own. It is only a logical conclusion within given parameters. Take that same last statement. Reach it in a logical way and that's logical. Reach the last statement in a different way and it's logical. It is logical if you allow for the first assumption. You need only allow for it, you do not have to believe it is the only possible assumption.

Certainly, you've encountered people who reached one logical conclusion and would have reached another logical conclusion if they had received different information. One or both conclusions are objectively wrong, but neither is illogical.

If you want to argue that religion doesn't need empirical evidence, then you ALSO have to admit that such 'logic' can never arrive at any 'empirical' truth.
You're correct. Religion doesn't seek that kind of truth. It's seeks absolute truth. Scientific truth requires observation and may or may not match up with absolute truth. Whether or not we are, in absolute truth, plugged into some massive virtual reality machine has no bearing on reaching the conclusion that we are in a massive virtual reality machine is not scientific and not 'empirical' truth.

Just got back from some pre-Christmas shopping... with a little something for myself.... I also, am aimin' to misbehave. (Widescreen).

Yay!

You guys are killing me with curiosity.

Because God created them and was in a much closer relationship with them. Athiests arguing this point are quite happy to assume that God created Adam and Eve without any knowledge for some reason.

Not at all.

Get off your high horse, my friend... and think about the questions.

How do you KNOW that the serpent was NOT god? You believe it to be the case, but can you PROVE it?

How would Eve KNOW that the serpent was not god? What would be her 'evidence'?

It isn't that Atheists assume a lack of knowledge... it is more that the religious presuppose enlightenment that is not justified.

We are sent to hell because hell is a place for all those who rebell against God. So you can put it like that if you wish. Of course it doesnt change the fact that God doesnt want us to go there.
I don't think it really changes anything if we consider how much he does or doesn't want to send us there. If he is going to send us there, he is going to, and that's that. If he tortures me, if doesn't amtter how much he did or didn't want to, the fact is that he is doing it, and I would disagree with that in and of itself.

That logic is more like.

Drawn from scripture (depending on what you hold to be proper translations): There is a hell.
Assumption: Hell is a bad thing.
Drawn from scripture: God created Hell.
Conclusion: God created a bad thing.
Assumption: Bad things are evil.
Conclusion: God is evil.
The assumptions are the basis for the conclusion. The assumptions are not based on scripture or observed phenomena. They are basically decisions he made on what must be in order to get to the conclusion he wanted to reach. That is also circular logic. The circle is just a bit more complex.

More importantly, it only addresses a particular brand of beliefs about God. It's not reflective of what many believe about God.

I agree with the last part... it only addresses one 'brand' of beliefs. Unfortunately, the 'brand' of beliefs it supports, are those that are LITERAL beliefs based on scripture.

The scripture repeatedly talks about 'evil spirits from god', for example... making 'god' the root of evil. Indeed, the Hebrew perception of 'god' makes him the root of everything good AND evil.

It is only in the later Judeo- and early Judeo-Christian mythos that 'god' begins to take on ONE aspect of a dichotomy... which is the point at which HaSatan stops being the tool of 'god', and becomes his 'nemesis'.

Not at all.

Get off your high horse, my friend... and think about the questions.

How do you KNOW that the serpent was NOT god? You believe it to be the case, but can you PROVE it?

How would Eve KNOW that the serpent was not god? What would be her 'evidence'?

It isn't that Atheists assume a lack of knowledge... it is more that the religious presuppose enlightenment that is not justified.

The odd part of the view of some Christians is that you may extrapolate or assume certain things that cannot be evidenced by the Bible or at least aren't the only possible assumption, and only that particular assumption is permitted in their mind. Any other assumption is evil and you're going to hell. That's the part that kills me.

"Um, I don't agree with your assumption. Where does it say that?"
"It doesn't but it's the only thing that makes sense."
"Not true, what about THIS line of thought?"
"Nope, it can't be that. Um, no. And if you don't stop saying that it is, I'm gonna try to make a law that makes sure that you stop saying it."

I agree with the last part... it only addresses one 'brand' of beliefs. Unfortunately, the 'brand' of beliefs it supports, are those that are LITERAL beliefs based on scripture.

The scripture repeatedly talks about 'evil spirits from god', for example... making 'god' the root of evil. Indeed, the Hebrew perception of 'god' makes him the root of everything good AND evil.

It is only in the later Judeo- and early Judeo-Christian mythos that 'god' begins to take on ONE aspect of a dichotomy... which is the point at which HaSatan stops being the tool of 'god', and becomes his 'nemesis'.

Certainly, one could argue that his is the root of everything including Evil and Sin. This doesn't make God evil however. There could, of course, be a higher purpose to the duality that we simply don't understand. In fact, even in our understanding, balance seems an admirable goal (thus why we find it in almost all religions).

Wrong. A simplistic opinion from someone who does not know enough about scripture

http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html


I am amused, friend... you claim that I am some kind of naive... and yet you have to look elsewhere to support your argument?

I want YOU (not some website) to show where, in scripture, it STATES that there is another entry point... another way in.

As far as I know, there is only one way, and that is to believe on Jesus.

Please - explain to me where my knowledge is lacking.

Again - I want YOUR words. I want YOU to explain how it makes sense to YOU.


Well if he 'gets over' it in the way your suggesting, then everyone would have to enter heaven including Hitler.


Is that a bad thing?


We are sent to hell because hell is a place for all those who rebell against God. So you can put it like that if you wish. Of course it doesnt change the fact that God doesnt want us to go there.

God made Hell.

God has decided he doesn't want to spend time with sinners.

Thus, God has decided WHO goes to Hell.

So - in a very real way, God DOES, indeed, want us to go there.

I don't think I'm missing the point... I think that, if we wish to discuss religion in terms of 'logic', we have to apply certain rigours to the process.

It is not 'logical' to assert something that ONLY holds true because we choose to accept that assertion... and, even if the process used 'resembles' logic, the lack of rational basis for the first assumption is always going to be to the detriment of the asserted 'logic'.

"The Moon is made of cheese. Astronauts brought back samples of 'Moon rock'. Therefore, NASA had some samples of extraterrestrial cheese".

The above is just as logical as the 'logic' about God creating the universe. Indeed, as long as the first statement is accepted as truth, the rest of the logic is pretty solid.

However, the last statment isn't 'logical'. It is ONLY 'logical' IF the first assumption is held to be true...
Wait a minute... no one claimed that something "holds true because we choose to accept that assertion." The assertion I used in example was a metaphor, not an incorrect fact. The metaphor is not arbitrarily accepted; it is accepted because it holds significant meaning --and that is the truth in it, that meaning. Granted the example I used, about cheese, holds no meaning for me, but then it was an example to demonstrate the point.

In your example above you are reverting to explaining something with logic, again. My point was that it does not compare to using logic with a goal that does not include explanation of something.

God is such a metaphor. Now if someone is using it to explain how the universe comes to be, or some such nonsense, that is their own faulty logic.

If you want to argue that religion doesn't need empirical evidence, then you ALSO have to admit that such 'logic' can never arrive at any 'empirical' truth.
Amen to that.

Then you're defining him in a very specific way. Certainly you're not arguing the Bible can only be interpreted one way. So much of it is figurative.

Erm, no, in my eyes the bible is part history/big part mythology & fables.
The problem is, you can't hold one part of the bible to be litteral, and another part to be analogue/mythology/moral telling/whatever because it suits your agenda.

Eighter you accept that it's all litteral, or you accept that it's all open to personal interpretation (good luck convincing the other guys of this tho)

You didn't say how one can argue the justness of death penalty tho :p

Amen to that.
Ha. We all agree on that last bit (at least on the surface).

Erm, no, in my eyes the bible is part history/big part mythology & fables.
The problem is, you can't hold one part of the bible to be litteral, and another part to be analogue/mythology/moral telling/whatever because it suits your agenda.
Actually... you can. To assert that it must be all literal or all metaphorical because part of it is literal and part of it is metaphorical is not rational.

Erm, no, in my eyes the bible is part history/big part mythology & fables.
The problem is, you can't hold one part of the bible to be litteral, and another part to be analogue/mythology/moral telling/whatever because it suits your agenda.

Eighter you accept that it's all litteral, or you accept that it's all open to personal interpretation (good luck convincing the other guys of this tho)

Certainly (I'm seeing how many times I can say certainly in this thread), you aren't claiming that books can never contain literal parts and figurative parts? Particularly books written by many authors?

Let's say I show you visions of a bunch of things I want you to understand. One of those visions is of a party in real time and you are to write down what you see. Now with a party you would have words for all of the goings on and words for everything you indirectly witness, so the result would be quite literal. Now, I show you a vision of evolution from a single-celled organism into a man over the course of a day (sped up for your benefit since you'd be dead if it were real-time). You've never heard of evolution and don't even have a word for evolving. You've never heard of anything remotely like what you've seen. So you decide to write that a man was created out of the dust, shaped out of the clay (which is how it might appear to you), over the course of a day. I watch you write that down and I'm satisified that it's not exact because the event itself isn't really necessary to describe in detail, particularly because I'm God and I know that some clown somewhere is going to misread it anyway.

Same person, same book, two events, both real events, one described literally, one described figuratively. That's only if you consider of their visions to be actual events and not allegorical events.

The only way to reach the conclusion that allegories, figurative language and literal language cannot all be in the Bible is to start with that conclusion. There is much evidence that this is the only way that the Bible makes any sense and much evidence that it fits quite well with other evidence outside of the Bible once we accept that some stories are allegorical in nature or figurative representations of actual events.

You didn't say how one can argue the justness of death penalty tho :p
Yes, because you're too wrapped up in your beliefs to understand that one can logically hold a belief that is not yours. It's the same flawed thinking that leads to partisan politics, and religious wars.

GnI and I have come to very different conclusions about absolute reality but you will find that we are very respectful to one another about how we each arrived to those beliefs. In fact, I would say that GnI used very similar methods to arrive where we are, we were just shaped by different experiences along the way.

GnI and I have come to very different conclusions about absolute reality but you will find that we are very respectful to one another about how we each arrived to those beliefs. In fact, I would say that GnI used very similar methods to arrive where we are, we were just shaped by different experiences along the way.

:)

It is funny... I'd say we used the same methods, to get to the same street... but we somehow ended up at opposite ends. In some ways we seem to looking the same directions... in other ways, we have different vantages.

But, as you point out, we CAN still tip our hats to each other, and say "Good Morning" as we pass. :)

Even the worst offenders can be forgiven. But if your asking why does God allow people like Saddam Hussain to exist, you seem to forget a little thing called free will.
No, you don't get it. Re-read it and think about what i'm asking, not what you want to say to qualify your theory of my understanding of the subject.




Hate to disapoint you but we all have sinned. No one in this world is perfect, nor has been perfect save for one man.
Fine n'dandy, and all, but you'd have to prove it, and since you asserted it, the onus is on you. You have a swath of generalization that you do not possess the KNOWLEDGE of, and in said manner, you are bearing false witness against thy neighbor.
Better back that up a notch.

http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

Well, i appreciate you putting the link down.

Wrong. A simplistic opinion from someone who does not know enough about scripture.
:eek:

THAT was a f*cking mistake.

Oh well, live n'learn.

Well you can't really expect scientists to just sit there and when Christian fundamentalists are trying to get 'intelligent design' taught in science lessons ion America. What, so religious people are allowed to launch offensives against scientists, but scientists cannot retaliate?

:confused:
I'll point out that it would be spam for me to repost it at length so i'll instead implore that you check out
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from the July, 2002 issue of Scientific American, by John Rennie.
It's plenty for an average non-idiot vs. the average idiot to have a decent understanding of the issues.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s.

I'm sure, in the 97 pages of this thread, that someone has already utterly destroyed this statement.

I tend to argue that because God is good and perfect, whatever has done is good and perfect. You seem to be arguing that because hell exists, God, the creator of hell, must be evil, or incapable of removing hell, and therefore weak.

For him to change things would imply that he made a mistake. Therefore, he could not be all-knowing. However, if God is omnipotent, it is likely that he made things the best way the first time, and does not need to change them. Thus we are in no position to determine logically whether the existence of hell is the best possibility. You begin with your assumption (God is either evil or weak), and I begin with mine (God is strong and perfect and good).

If murdering other people happened to please you, then where would be the justice in that?


And by the way, how can you say that God is not 'slaughtering humans mercilessly'?



Once again, God does not torture. My idea of hell is that it is a place where the desires of each person, unfulfilled, will be the source of torture.

All i really need to say is you need to read and interpret my expansion post on Exodus 32.
That, and Job was clearly tortured by god. It wasn't his poor choices that got him to the state of defiance of god, it was god's own actions. And you know it. There isn't any other spin on it.

Supports parts of it. Forrest Gump has a lot of history surrounding it and one day archeology that will support parts of it. It doesn't mean Forrest Gump exists. That's why there's thing called... dum, dum, dum... FAITH
*FLORT*

Haha
Good post, especially with the *insert* nuance of your choice in comparison. Timely, too, since cable's replayed the past couple days. I suspect it's a contemporary allegory to It's a Wonderful Life ;)

Just got back from some pre-Christmas shopping... with a little something for myself.... I also, am aimin' to misbehave. (Widescreen).

Yay!
Rock on! *bows*
I am a leaf in the wind.

I only compliment you, my friend, because you deserve it. :)

I'm not sure if God is ever attributed an anus in scripture... but there is at least one reference to his 'back side'....
Well, worship is worship .... ;)

You guys are killing me with curiosity.
Wouldn't you rather go peacefully in your sleep ... unlike everyone else as passengers in your automobile?
;)
OOH! On a more personal note, a semi-local guy was found dead in the past day or so of auto-erotic asphyxiation. And he hadn't had the sense of responsibility to sell off most of his 100 or so pot plants before the local constabulary made off with it. We don't even HAVE an evidence locker here ...
(I was reminded of this because of Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose, from X-Files ... where they're riding in the car, and Clyde says,
"Ya know, i can't think of a less dignified way to go than auto-erotic asphyxiation."
Mulder replies, "What? Why are you telling me this?")

I want YOU (not some website) to show where, in scripture, it STATES that there is another entry point... another way in.

Well, see my above post

Post #1450

Certainly (I'm seeing how many times I can say certainly in this thread), you aren't claiming that books can never contain literal parts and figurative parts? Particularly books written by many authors?

Let's say I show you visions of a bunch of things I want you to understand. One of those visions is of a party in real time and you are to write down what you see. Now with a party you would have words for all of the goings on and words for everything you indirectly witness, so the result would be quite literal. Now, I show you a vision of evolution from a single-celled organism into a man over the course of a day (sped up for your benefit since you'd be dead if it were real-time). You've never heard of evolution and don't even have a word for evolving. You've never heard of anything remotely like what you've seen. So you decide to write that a man was created out of the dust, shaped out of the clay (which is how it might appear to you), over the course of a day. I watch you write that down and I'm satisified that it's not exact because the event itself isn't really necessary to describe in detail, particularly because I'm God and I know that some clown somewhere is going to misread it anyway.

Same person, same book, two events, both real events, one described literally, one described figuratively. That's only if you consider of their visions to be actual events and not allegorical events.

The only way to reach the conclusion that allegories, figurative language and literal language cannot all be in the Bible is to start with that conclusion. There is much evidence that this is the only way that the Bible makes any sense and much evidence that it fits quite well with other evidence outside of the Bible once we accept that some stories are allegorical in nature or figurative representations of actual events.



There is however a problem with this logic. How do you know what portion of the Bible is literal and what portion is not? Whose version of the Bible do you follow? Certainly not every Christian follows each portion of the Bible the same way. So who is right and who is wrong?

How do you run a religion or a life based from information that you don't know what to take as literal or not? Further more some people would try to shape the views of all in a certain regions based on parts of the Bible they believe should be taken literally, while ignoring other parts perhaps because it suites their purpose.

That makes no sense. If we can see this big bang, yet we are here as a result of it then it's effects must already have passed this place, thus we would not be able to see it. That in itself is a cirular argument.


Okay. Light travels at about 3x10^8 meters per second. The universe as we know it is massively huge, encompassing billions upon billions upon billions of light years. So, the light that we see takes a long time to get here. If a star is 4 light years away, then it takes 4 years for the light to reach the Earth, thus the light that we are seeing was emitted 4 years ago. With our earth and space based telescopes, we can see stars and galaxies billions of light years away, and that light that we see from those objects was emitted billions of years ago. However, I do not think that we can see far enough to see the immediate after effects of the Big Bang, but we can actually peer into the past. Hell, when you look up to the sky and look at the stars, you are ultimately viewing the past.

Hey, science just explained something! Amazing, no? And that is just my fairly basic understanding of the universe.

That logic is more like.

Drawn from scripture (depending on what you hold to be proper translations): There is a hell.
Assumption: Hell is a bad thing.
Drawn from scripture: God created Hell.
Conclusion: God created a bad thing.
Assumption: Bad things are evil.
Conclusion: God is evil.
The assumptions are the basis for the conclusion. The assumptions are not based on scripture or observed phenomena.

False. Scripture very much supports assumption 1, that 'Hell is bad.'

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Luk 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Luk 13:23-28 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.

But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out.

2Th 1:8-9 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

I think there's enough there to support the basic idea that hell is bad. Sub in that God sends people he doesn't like there, so logically it's not going to be a good place to be, what with all the fearful, abominable people being there and all. So, let's recap:

Scriptural Fact: God created Hell.
Scriptural Fact: Hell is bad.
Obvious And Obnoxious Tautology: It is bad to create something bad.
Conclusion: It is wrong to create hell.
Secondary Conclusion: Anyone who does create Hell is bad.

That's not a circular argument: the premises [that God created Hell and that Hell is a bad place] are known and accepted; I doubt Bruarong and Neo Danube would be willing to argue Hell was not a bad place.

More importantly, it only addresses a particular brand of beliefs about God. It's not reflective of what many believe about God.

Correct. I have no problem with what many Christians [ie mainstream Christians who accept the OT is a litany of horrors] believe about their God, only with people who go on to claim the vicious, vengeful and destructive creature described in the Old Testament is somehow good.

Not literal, just factual about re-telling the story. After all, the story elements are what make for significant metaphor; change those, and you change the metaphor.

Just out of interest, how do you tell the difference between literal interpretations and 'just factual re-telling of the story', particularly when trying to avoid confusion over semantics?

Personally, I do not consider myself a literalist. When I read the Bible, I am not bound to the literal position, and clearly, Jesus never intended this either, particularly when inviting people to eat his flesh and drink his blood. His meaning was not bound to the material world, but referred to a deeper meaning in the spiritual flesh and blood.

I guess I consider my position as one who believes that miracles (where the laws of nature are temporarily suspended) are possible. Furthermore, I consider people who call themselves Christians but don't believe in miracles (i.e, that Christ was God) to be an embarrassment to Christianity.

However, to repeat myself, a believer in Christ need not, indeed, should not, take everything found in the Bible as literal. Even many of the parables that Jesus told did not have to be literally true (e.g., the prodigal son). The truth was in the meaning of forgiveness, but the story itself may or may not have been a factual one.

As an afterthought, that is a classic example of how religion can explain something like forgiveness, while applying science would be like using the wrong tool.

Scriptural Fact: God created Hell.
Scriptural Fact: Hell is bad.
Obvious And Obnoxious Tautology: It is bad to create something bad.
Conclusion: It is wrong to create hell.
Secondary Conclusion: Anyone who does create Hell is bad.

Flaw in your logic. Your presuming that hell does not exist for a greater purpose, like say, justice. By your logic the prison system is evil as prison is not a good place. Also you completely ignore the fact that hell was not created for humans originally, and the fact that God offers us a way out.

Flaw in your logic. Your presuming that hell does not exist for a greater purpose, like say, justice

Irrelevant. We also ignore that Auschwitz and Stalin's Gulags might have existed for a greater purpose we can't percieve, because it doesn't matter, what happens / happened there is still wrong. Punishment without limit for a finite crime without possibility of parole or appeal is also not justice.

By your logic the prison system is evil as prison is not a good place.

The prison system exists to reform inmates or in the worst cases confine them so they cannot harm others, not to torture them. If the prison system existed to torture people, you would have a point, but it doesn't, so you don't. Prisons are not created to be as unpleasant to be in as possible [or where they are, the people who operate them are indeed bad, and this is recognised]; nobody starts out saying 'I'm going to make a bad place,' so your argument falls apart. They may not be a barrel of fun, but they're not deliberately engineered to hurt people, either.

Also you completely ignore the fact that hell was not created for humans originally

Irrelevant. Humans are still supposedly sent there, regardless of why it was created.

and the fact that God offers us a way out.

False. There is no scriptural support for there being a way out of hell if you're sent there.

God decided they were his enemies. A merciful God would forgive them and not make that choice.

God has provided the path for forgiveness, because He is merciful. He has no interest in treating humans as his enemies. The OT is full of pleas from God to humans to stop being his enemies. But since he wrote the rules, the humans actually have to turn away from doing evil before they receive the status of being friends with God. It's called repentence. Just because you don't like God's way of doing things, you cannot reasonably argue that he is evil. Otherwise you end up calling anyone who differs from you evil.



No, I asserted he had a 'superpowered body.' How his superpowers came to the body is absolutely irrelevent: he had superpowers.


Then you still don't get it. The body was NOT superpowered. The power flowed through his body, from God to man.


No, it suggests you didn't read the verse in the context of the others around it.

Jam 2:17-26:Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


I suggest that in each of these cases, James is trying to show how faith and works cannot be divorced from each other. While they are separate entities, they cannot be separated, in the sense that you cannot have one person with faith and not works. Just as you cannot separate the body from the spirit without death. He isn't saying that works alone can 'justify' us, but that works that arise from faith is necessary for that faith to be living. Obviously, a dead faith is useless. It is something that the demons have. In that sense, such works are necessary for justification, because without them, one does not have a living faith. It really isn't that complicated. Faith and works equals living faith. Living faith is required for salvation. Faith without works is a dead faith. Dead faith is not enough for salvation. Anyone with a dead faith is not saved.



Your God seems quite the egotist...


Speculation based on what you know of imperfect humans. God is perfect.


No, because they could not know or comprehend evil, or know it was different to good.


More speculation. There is nothing in the story that suggests that. Therefore, it must be based on your idea of what it must be like not to know what good and evil are. Would you say it is possible to know about good and evil without experiencing it? Wouldn't it be possible to know the direction towards evil, without taking it? For example, a guy knows it is wrong to rob the little shop on the corner owned by the immigrants, and so long as he considers the possibility but never takes it, he knows about that particular evil but avoids doing it.


No, it doesn't. Nobody reads the Bible cover to cover and then becomes a Christian.


In fact, I have met people who claim to have done that very thing. The evidence is against you, sir.


That doesn't follow. And he's done an absolutely terrible job of it, if that's what he must do. Anyway, what about your point about free will? If he wants us to have free will, he cannot destroy evil.


It is written in the book, mister. And how would you know if he has done a terrible job of it?

The point of free will is that while you know what God is eventually going to do with evil, you are free to choose the 'temporal pleasures' of life here and now, and ignore God's warning, or you can take him seriously and avoid the path that leads to destruction.


Hilariously, the Herbrew version uses the same word in Exodus 32:14 for 'evil' ['rah'] as it does in Genesis 2:9 to describe the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil.'

That rather torpedoes your point, doesn't it?


If you can understand the concept of semantics, that there is often more than one meaning behind the use of a word, e.g. evil. Futhermore, it isn't all that difficult to see that there is a difference between the 'evil' that comes upon those who persue it, and the evil that is persued. Otherwise, you end up saying that because being locked up in a tiny room is a bad thing, prisons are bad, and therefore the humans who thought of prisons are bad.
Alternatively, you could see it as making the best of a bad situation.


Does she murder him for it? Would she be justified in torturing her man to death? Would it be loving for her to do so?


Because she is human, her reaction to such a situation is limited. She cannot ensure justice. It is out of her control, particularly as there is no law in the country (that I know of) that punishes a man for cheating on his girlfriend. However, justice is God's responsibility. He would not be just if he allowed such an injustice to be uncorrected.

And he is not interested in torturing humans. Are you in torture now? Rather, he gives you time to give your evil to him. When he takes it away from you, you will avoid the destruction that comes upon the evil.


Slaughter is evil. I can't believe I actually have to point that out.


I agree. Well, sort of. Like being stuck in prison is evil too. Like having a school detention. Like getting into trouble from mum and dad.


It's not a choice if he made us to only be able to survive one half of the choice. And seriously, reject intimacy and you get tortured? That's not love, it's unhealthy obsession. Your version of God sounds like nothing more than a stalker.

If you love someone, you will not stand idly by and watch them harm themselves. The 'free will' argument is nonsensical: if you could save the life of someone you adored, even against their will, you would do so.


If, however, you removed their free will, you would be removing their capacity to love, and perhaps with that the very thing that makes them human. Thus, you would not have saved them, but destroyed them.

Do not think that God is idle. Nothing in life is truly accidental, so long as there is a God who is the 'hands on' type. In that sense, he is sorta like a 'stalker'. A very good one, with only good intent. And perhaps we would consider his love to be some sort of unhealthy obsession. But how do we know what 'healthy' is? By looking at the pitiful version of love that humans frequently show? Sure, there are exceptions, but it may well be that pure love should be 'obsessed' with the object of the love, in a very pure and good way.


Right, so the basis of God's authority is his power alone, and Biblical morality consists of 'God is really, really powerful, so do whatever he says or else he'll kill you.' Concession accepted.

You know that is not what I say.

But I suggest that every one should do what God says, not only because he has the power to punish you, but because you cannot escape his love, which is at once both wonderful and terrible. The reward for loving God is to be who you were made to be, a friend of God. The reward for ignoring God is to be left regretting a bad decision.

All i really need to say is you need to read and interpret my expansion post on Exodus 32.
That, and Job was clearly tortured by god. It wasn't his poor choices that got him to the state of defiance of god, it was god's own actions. And you know it. There isn't any other spin on it.

My reading of Job tells me that God allowed Satan to 'torture' Job. If that was the end of story, then we could logically conclude that God was perhaps evil, or at least cares more for his own ends than that of even his 'favourite' human. But it wasn't the end of story. In fact, Job is rewarded by having 'twice as much as before', in terms of earthly goods. His second bunch of children are far better than the first. But most of all, he learns a good deal more about the love and wisdom of God, which far outweights all the other stuff. Thus, God is just, for while Job does suffer, he receives a far greater reward. His suffering was a short-lived thing that ended in his enjoying for more than he had before.

So long as you say that human suffering means that God is evil, you are ignoring the after life. This is pertinent to human suffering today. Why did all those Indonesians have to dies in a tsunami? and all those Indians in an earthquake? Why does God allow all that suffering? Where is justice in that? If your argument is that we suffer because God is evil, you have completely overlooked the Biblical account for suffering, and it's source.

Suffering is not evil in itself, and while evil does cause suffering, not all suffering is from evil. In fact, personal suffering can teach us quite a lot. It can make us stronger. Let me use two examples.

When my mother sent me to my room for swearing at my brother, I suffered from that evil that I committed. But I never thought my mother was evil. I know now, and perhaps even back then, that such punishment was fair.

When my dad made me finish my first day of hard work, I was suffering from blisters on my hands. But afterwards, he congratulated me on making another step to manhood. For me, that made the suffering completely worthwhile.

This one is always fun to play with. It's the dumb crutch of the argument and it fails miserably.

I shall demonstrate.

Just today I created a magical flying fire breathing dragon that can fly faster than the speed of light. I got on that dragon and flew to Mars.

I offer you a free gift. If you believe that I created a magical flying dragon and flew to Mars I'll give you an etenity of pleasure. It's a free gift. Why don't you take it.

If you don't accept my offer you can go to hell.

If you had never heard of Christianity before, I suspect yours would be a logical reaction to the message. Just a fanciful tale of fantastic proportions. However, there is more to Christianity than unsubstantiated claims, unlike your little demonstration. For example, most people intuitively know that they do wrong things. The Christian message is that such knowledge is consistent with us being created by God, and that something has gone wrong with humans. Most people also feel that there is a God, or at least that there might be one, and that the meaning of life is somehow connected to him/her/it. The Gospel message tends to rely on such knowledge being already present to those who hear it. Of course such knowledge can be explained in other ways. But part of the Christian message is to believe in order to discover more of this knowledge. Thus seeing is believing, and believing is seeing, at least in one sense.

Thus Christianity is unlike your little demonstration, because acceptance of the message of Jesus depends on some basic knowledge (i.e. of God or of humans) being already present (either consciously or unconsciously). Thus those people who are most resistant to Christianity may be those who have successfully found ways to explain everything in terms of randomness or freak accidents. They would be likely to believe that a bad conscience can be traced back to a product of randomness, rather then something that God put within us to help us be good to one another.

Have you ever read that part in the Bible where Jesus is constantly referring those 'those who have ears to hear, let him hear'? I suggest that many people no longer have the 'ears' to which Jesus was referring, or at least that those 'ears' are suppressed to the point of almost-deafness.

Just out of interest, how do you tell the difference between literal interpretations and 'just factual re-telling of the story', particularly when trying to avoid confusion over semantics?

Personally, I do not consider myself a literalist. When I read the Bible, I am not bound to the literal position, and clearly, Jesus never intended this either, particularly when inviting people to eat his flesh and drink his blood. His meaning was not bound to the material world, but referred to a deeper meaning in the spiritual flesh and blood.

I guess I consider my position as one who believes that miracles (where the laws of nature are temporarily suspended) are possible. Furthermore, I consider people who call themselves Christians but don't believe in miracles (i.e, that Christ was God) to be an embarrassment to Christianity.

However, to repeat myself, a believer in Christ need not, indeed, should not, take everything found in the Bible as literal. Even many of the parables that Jesus told did not have to be literally true (e.g., the prodigal son). The truth was in the meaning of forgiveness, but the story itself may or may not have been a factual one.

As an afterthought, that is a classic example of how religion can explain something like forgiveness, while applying science would be like using the wrong tool.
Any bit of a story that contains supernatural elements is not literal (god, demons, monsters, angels, talking snakes, and miracles). Our first clue is that the supernatural does not physically manifest --if it did, it would be natural, not supernatural.

Just as the forgiveness, the meaning in the parable of the prodigal son, is the significant thing in the story related by Jesus, the meanings in other stories --that contain supernatural elements --is the significant part in stories told about Joshua, Moses, Jesus, etc. The parable is the simplest form of myth, placing the meaning right before you in simple terms using human or humanized characters in easily understandable situations. A "poor man's" myth.

This use of myth pre-dates the Bible stories, which are relatively recent in mythological terms. By the time the Bible stories were put down in writing, in the first Century BC, the mythic elements had been handed down for millennia. God and the original mythic elements had already been concretized into "real" being, and the meaning in the myths was dropping away, being replaced by a sort of self-deceit. Same thing was happening in Greece and throughout the Mediterranean, where philosophy took hold and totally "killed" the gods.

Anyway... don't know about avoiding "confusion over semantics". Semantics is the fine art of moving towards a common meaning so that communication can take place.

All i really need to say is you need to read and interpret my expansion post on Exodus 32.
That, and Job was clearly tortured by god. It wasn't his poor choices that got him to the state of defiance of god, it was god's own actions. And you know it. There isn't any other spin on it.
Ooooohhh, yes there is...

There is a nonliteral spin.

There is however a problem with this logic. How do you know what portion of the Bible is literal and what portion is not? Whose version of the Bible do you follow? Certainly not every Christian follows each portion of the Bible the same way. So who is right and who is wrong?

How do you run a religion or a life based from information that you don't know what to take as literal or not? Further more some people would try to shape the views of all in a certain regions based on parts of the Bible they believe should be taken literally, while ignoring other parts perhaps because it suites their purpose.
A good hint for what is nonliteral is, is it believable in terms of nature? if it isn't, then it is probably meant to be supernature (above nature), and therefore not literal.

:eek:

THAT was a f*cking mistake.

Oh well, live n'learn.

I'm still playing nice.... this is either a n00b, in which case it behooves us to treat them kindly... or someone flamebaiting me... in which case I'll not rise to it.

My reading of Job tells me that God allowed Satan to 'torture' Job.

Based on a misunderstanding of the scripture, my friend.

According to the Hebrew beliefs, HaSatan was the adversary of MAN, not of 'god'.

HaSatan is a rank of angels... whoever the current HaSatan is... he/she/it is the Prosecutor of mortals in the angelic courts.

The story of Job, is 'god' presenting a flawed human to HaSatan to 'test', to see if he is worthy.

This is the problem with 'christians' who only know what they get taught in church, and don't spend any time looking at what their faith is BASED on.

Irrelevant. We also ignore that Auschwitz and Stalin's Gulags might have existed for a greater purpose we can't percieve, because it doesn't matter, what happens / happened there is still wrong. Punishment without limit for a finite crime without possibility of parole or appeal is also not justice.

While the time may be infinite, the nature of the punishment is not. Also, parole is irrelevent, seeing as how God has given you an entire lifetime to avoid the punishment


The prison system exists to reform inmates or in the worst cases confine them so they cannot harm others, not to torture them. If the prison system existed to torture people, you would have a point, but it doesn't, so you don't. Prisons are not created to be as unpleasant to be in as possible [or where they are, the people who operate them are indeed bad, and this is recognised]; nobody starts out saying 'I'm going to make a bad place,' so your argument falls apart. They may not be a barrel of fun, but they're not deliberately engineered to hurt people, either.

Hell is not delibrately enginereed to hurt people either. It is like that because of its nature (IE the absensce of God). If you live your life without God, you will get what you desire, a place without God.


Irrelevant. Humans are still supposedly sent there, regardless of why it was created.

Not irrelevlent. You are making it sound like that God wanted people to go there. He didnt. He created it for the Devil and his cohorts.


False. There is no scriptural support for there being a way out of hell if you're sent there.

There is a way of avoiding it before you go there however

C.S.Lewis had this comparison to our current situation. He compared Eden to being a free country that was then occupied by a fascist power. Some people turned to colaberate with that power, some didnt. All the time, another, more powerful country was preparing to invade, to liberate that country. Then the powerful country sent in a spy to form an underground resistance movement. That movement spread and spread. Then when the more powerful country invades, the resistance movement members are rewarded as they remained true to the free world ways. Those that colaberated were punished.

If you live your life without God, you will get what you desire, a place without God.
Actually, it's more like, "If you live your life without God, then that's what you have, a place without God."

There is no afterlife for the atheist.

Any bit of a story that contains supernatural elements is not literal (god, demons, monsters, angels, talking snakes, and miracles). Our first clue is that the supernatural does not physically manifest --if it did, it would be natural, not supernatural.

Just as the forgiveness, the meaning in the parable of the prodigal son, is the significant thing in the story related by Jesus, the meanings in other stories --that contain supernatural elements --is the significant part in stories told about Joshua, Moses, Jesus, etc. The parable is the simplest form of myth, placing the meaning right before you in simple terms using human or humanized characters in easily understandable situations. A "poor man's" myth.

This use of myth pre-dates the Bible stories, which are relatively recent in mythological terms. By the time the Bible stories were put down in writing, in the first Century BC, the mythic elements had been handed down for millennia. God and the original mythic elements had already been concretized into "real" being, and the meaning in the myths was dropping away, being replaced by a sort of self-deceit. Same thing was happening in Greece and throughout the Mediterranean, where philosophy took hold and totally "killed" the gods.

Anyway... don't know about avoiding "confusion over semantics". Semantics is the fine art of moving towards a common meaning so that communication can take place.

Basically, you seem to be saying that miracles have not occurred. That is to say that IF there was a miracle, it would not be a miracle but part of the natural world, because your definition of a miracle is that it cannot happen. I cannot use your definition of a miracle, because I believe miracles are possible, but not natural.

If you say that miracles do not happen, on what basis do you make such a claim? That you have not personally witnessed one? That science has not detected any? I can think of plenty of reasons for both of those cases. It is more likely that you have ruled out miracles on the basis of your world view. Simply because so much of the myths out there contain parts of the stories that were not meant to be factual does not mean that the Biblical story was meant to be taken the same way.

Let's take an example. A Bible story has it that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, gave birth to her only child at about the age of 90 years old. The story clearly indicates that she was way passed the child bearing age, and that the arrival of Isaac was an intervention from God. In your world view, you would have to take notice only of the meaning of an old age child bearing, not the literal possibility. You would probably argue that the literal possibility is not relevant. However, the literal impossibility of giving birth to a child at the age of 90 is an integral part of the story. Remove that, and there is no need for Abraham to have faith in God that the promise of the child will be fulfilled. But the need for faith in God was the essential part of Abraham being considered righteous by God. If you say that this even did not literally occur, you are calling into question the literal need for faith in God today, as a requirement for the salvation that God offers. Thus I find that in some cases, when you change the literal interpretation of Scripture, you may be in grave danger of changing the meaning also. Of course, once the meaning is changed, how can one be sure that the meaning is worth believing?

Based on a misunderstanding of the scripture, my friend.

According to the Hebrew beliefs, HaSatan was the adversary of MAN, not of 'god'.

HaSatan is a rank of angels... whoever the current HaSatan is... he/she/it is the Prosecutor of mortals in the angelic courts.

The story of Job, is 'god' presenting a flawed human to HaSatan to 'test', to see if he is worthy.

This is the problem with 'christians' who only know what they get taught in church, and don't spend any time looking at what their faith is BASED on.

(Reads post again, and then again, and then several times)

Not sure what your point is, and where exactly you are disagreeing with my post. Perhaps you could make it plainer for me.

You may have noticed that I typed the word torture in quotation marks. That was a reference to straughn's use of the word. I'm not sure that it is relevant to the story whether Satan was tormenting Job, or simply handed the powers to test him (or even if there is any difference between the two).

But then to imply that I must have learned this while in church is a bit over the top. Looks like you think that you have read the Bible more than me. You may have, but it does look ugly when you assume this, simply because I don't see things the same way that you do.

If you had never heard of Christianity before, I suspect yours would be a logical reaction to the message. Just a fanciful tale of fantastic proportions. However, there is more to Christianity than unsubstantiated claims, unlike your little demonstration. For example, most people intuitively know that they do wrong things. The Christian message is that such knowledge is consistent with us being created by God, and that something has gone wrong with humans. Most people also feel that there is a God, or at least that there might be one, and that the meaning of life is somehow connected to him/her/it. The Gospel message tends to rely on such knowledge being already present to those who hear it. Of course such knowledge can be explained in other ways. But part of the Christian message is to believe in order to discover more of this knowledge. Thus seeing is believing, and believing is seeing, at least in one sense.

Thus Christianity is unlike your little demonstration, because acceptance of the message of Jesus depends on some basic knowledge (i.e. of God or of humans) being already present (either consciously or unconsciously). Thus those people who are most resistant to Christianity may be those who have successfully found ways to explain everything in terms of randomness or freak accidents. They would be likely to believe that a bad conscience can be traced back to a product of randomness, rather then something that God put within us to help us be good to one another.

Have you ever read that part in the Bible where Jesus is constantly referring those 'those who have ears to hear, let him hear'? I suggest that many people no longer have the 'ears' to which Jesus was referring, or at least that those 'ears' are suppressed to the point of almost-deafness.


A belief in God does not automaticaly entail a belief in your God. I do not dismiss the possability of unexplained events. In fact I do believe that that "miracles" can and do happen. Still there is more to my demonstration than a simple unsubstantiated claim. See if you where to believe my message you where to make an investment in it. Just as anything you believe you do make an investment in it which could lead to potential lose if your belief was founded in a lie. As to my example believing in my super fast dragon may lead you to join a partnership with me in Mars tourism. If I had lied to you I might very well take you for a ride. The same thing applies to a belief in your religion. If a person was to take the supposed "free gift" they would be acting as if the Jesus story was true. If it turns out the Jesus story is a lie than all the actions taken on the belief the Jesus story was true could very well have been in vien. I'm arguing the cost of belief here as well as the challenge in accepting stories uncriticly.

Actually, it's more like, "If you live your life without God, then that's what you have, a place without God."

There is no afterlife for the atheist.

However, in the Christian world view, there certainly is an afterlife for the atheist. ND is arguing from the Christian world view, so he/she is perfectly logical to present the afterlife from such a point of view.

A belief in God does not automaticaly entail a belief in your God. I do not dismiss the possability of unexplained events. In fact I do believe that that "miracles" can and do happen. Still there is more to my demonstration than a simple unsubstantiated claim. See if you where to believe my message you where to make an investment in it. Just as anything you believe you do make an investment in it which could lead to potential lose if your belief was founded in a lie. As to my example believing in my super fast dragon may lead you to join a partnership with me in Mars tourism. If I had lied to you I might very well take you for a ride. The same thing applies to a belief in your religion. If a person was to take the supposed "free gift" they would be acting as if the Jesus story was true. If it turns out the Jesus story is a lie than all the actions taken on the belief the Jesus story was true could very well have been in vien. I'm arguing the cost of belief here as well as the challenge in accepting stories uncriticly.

It would be a lot easier to read your post if you paid more attention to spelling, although I understand some people do have a genuinely hard time telling the difference, e.g, between 'where' and 'were'. Your thoughts seem to be intelligent enough to use better spelling. That is just a gentle criticism, and you need not take it to heart. Plus everybody makes spelling mistakes. But it is the spelling mistakes that change the meaning of the text, or that requires everyone to read it several times that are critical.

I understand your point about taking a risk with belief. But you have to see that every world view contains the element of belief. Consider the world view which says that 'I will not believe anything unless it can be proven by science.' In this world view, the BELIEF that only things than can be proven by science are worth accepting is the foundation for the world view. It cannot be proven that only things than can be scientifically proven are worth accepting. Thus, to accept this world view involves a good deal of risk, perhaps more so than with the religious view points, I cannot say.

The risk with the Christian world view is a real one, and I accept that there isn't really a way to avoid this. For me, it's like God wanted us to take a risk when he invented faith, and then made sure that the decision not to have faith also involved a similar level of risk. Perhaps you are familiar with Pascal's wager. However, in my post that you criticised earlier, I was arguing on the basis of a Christian world view, not using such an argument to show that it was true. I was saying 'IF it is true, then why would anyone reject God?' Perhaps you were a late arrival and were not familiar with the previous 100 pages of thread.

Edit: I am personally very much in favour of taking a critical approach to any new message, particularly one that involves such huge consequences, such as the Gospel message. We are not expected to believe something, particularly in the absence of any supporting knowledge, which is what I was presenting in my previous post to you. I doubt God expects us to let go of our reasoning, particularly when it was a personal gift from his hands.

Of course, once the meaning is changed, how can one be sure that the meaning is worth believing?

Whether or not the meaning is changed... there is STILL question voer whether the 'meaning' is worth believing.

Indeed... there is question over what the 'meaning' IS.

However, in the Christian world view, there certainly is an afterlife for the atheist. ND is arguing from the Christian world view, so he/she is perfectly logical to present the afterlife from such a point of view.

Where does scripture state an 'afterlife' for the Atheist?

(Reads post again, and then again, and then several times)

Not sure what your point is, and where exactly you are disagreeing with my post. Perhaps you could make it plainer for me.

You may have noticed that I typed the word torture in quotation marks. That was a reference to straughn's use of the word. I'm not sure that it is relevant to the story whether Satan was tormenting Job, or simply handed the powers to test him (or even if there is any difference between the two).

But then to imply that I must have learned this while in church is a bit over the top. Looks like you think that you have read the Bible more than me. You may have, but it does look ugly when you assume this, simply because I don't see things the same way that you do.

The point on which we disagree, is that you still seems to be granting some autonomy to Satan... which is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew story.

Satan doesn't 'choose' to 'try' Job... it is his 'job'. It is Jehovah that 'tortures' Job, HaSatan is the tool.

It didn't necessarily say YOU personally MUST have learned everything you know in church. One HOPES that you have looked far beyond the agenda of whichever denomination you share fellowship with.

However, far too many people have a view of what occurs in the Bible, that is only justified by what they did learn at church, or what 'everyone knows'... or even what someone else (Milton being the big contributor) has said.

Example: Everyone Knows: that it was snowing when Jesus was born.

Everyone Knows: That there were two of each kind of animal on the Ark.

Everyone Knows: that the devil is red... or looks like a goat...

or any amount of things that 'everyone knows'.

Whether or not the meaning is changed... there is STILL question voer whether the 'meaning' is worth believing.

Indeed... there is question over what the 'meaning' IS.

Agreed and agreed. I, Bruarong, henceforth give you, Grave, permission to make up your own mind on the issue.


Where does scripture state an 'afterlife' for the Atheist?


And I saw the dead, small and great, before the great white throne........
Regardless of whether the atheist is small or great, I suppose that MEANS he will be there.

Where does scripture state an 'afterlife' for the Atheist?

It says an afterlife for everyone. It just changes depending on how you respond to Jesus

The point on which we disagree, is that you still seems to be granting some autonomy to Satan... which is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew story.

Satan doesn't 'choose' to 'try' Job... it is his 'job'. It is Jehovah that 'tortures' Job, HaSatan is the tool.



Oh, I see what you mean now. You are saying that because God allowed Job's pain, thus it could be argued that he actually caused it. Which is little like saying that God is causing suffering in the world today, because he allows it. In one sense, God is responsible for Job's pain. But I would not call that torture, because torture usually does not have the best interests in mind for the object of the torture. However, in Job's case, one can easily argue that God retained Job's best interest in his heart, even though it clearly did not seem that way to Job at the time.

In the case of the suffering in the world, the source is not God, but the sin of humans, according to the Genesis story. Thus suffering, as we humans experience it, can have several sources.

If you had never heard of Christianity before, I suspect yours would be a logical reaction to the message. Just a fanciful tale of fantastic proportions. However, there is more to Christianity than unsubstantiated claims, unlike your little demonstration. For example, most people intuitively know that they do wrong things.

Interesting statement, which raises a few questions:
1. Is this "instinct" not merely "being raised in an environment where certain values are quite prominently present" ?
2. If there is more to it than that, why would it not merely be a survival trait ?
3. How do you explain that people can be in complete disagreement over what "right" and "wrong" actually are in many cases ?

The Christian message is that such knowledge is consistent with us being created by God, and that something has gone wrong with humans.

If the "knowledge" would be the same for everyone - yes. But it evidently isn't.

Most people also feel that there is a God, or at least that there might be one, and that the meaning of life is somehow connected to him/her/it.
True - provided you replace God with "something higher".
Although well over 50% of the worlds population is monotheistic; so perhaps just saying "true" will suffice ;)

The Gospel message tends to rely on such knowledge being already present to those who hear it. Of course such knowledge can be explained in other ways.

Like humans being humans for instance ;)

But part of the Christian message is to believe in order to discover more of this knowledge. Thus seeing is believing, and believing is seeing, at least in one sense.

Which is of course where religion and science rather vehemently differ.
Seeing is believing - yes; believing is seeing: no.
Looking for eveidence that your belief is true tends to "produce" that evidence after all...

False. Scripture very much supports assumption 1, that 'Hell is bad.'

Good then you should have no problem quoting said scripture. Hell is for bad people. It says nothing that its existence is bad. Unless you'd care to quote scripture that says the existence of hell is bad. Oddly, I don't view the existence of prisons as bad, but I wouldn't want to end up in one.

I think there's enough there to support the basic idea that hell is bad. Sub in that God sends people he doesn't like there, so logically it's not going to be a good place to be, what with all the fearful, abominable people being there and all. So, let's recap:

Not a good place to be != a bad place to exist

Scriptural Fact: God created Hell.
Scriptural Fact: Hell is bad.
Obvious And Obnoxious Tautology: It is bad to create something bad.
Conclusion: It is wrong to create hell.
Secondary Conclusion: Anyone who does create Hell is bad.

That's not a circular argument: the premises [that God created Hell and that Hell is a bad place] are known and accepted; I doubt Bruarong and Neo Danube would be willing to argue Hell was not a bad place.

I don't agree. Again, show me the scripture that say the existence of Hell is a bad thing.


Correct. I have no problem with what many Christians [ie mainstream Christians who accept the OT is a litany of horrors] believe about their God, only with people who go on to claim the vicious, vengeful and destructive creature described in the Old Testament is somehow good.

Agreed.

Just out of interest, how do you tell the difference between literal interpretations and 'just factual re-telling of the story', particularly when trying to avoid confusion over semantics?
I read your question wrong, sorry.

To answer it, 'literal' suggests a telling of facts that are actually real. The 'factual re-telling' is an accurate re-telling (copy-paste) of something previously told.

There is however a problem with this logic. How do you know what portion of the Bible is literal and what portion is not? Whose version of the Bible do you follow? Certainly not every Christian follows each portion of the Bible the same way. So who is right and who is wrong?

How do you run a religion or a life based from information that you don't know what to take as literal or not? Further more some people would try to shape the views of all in a certain regions based on parts of the Bible they believe should be taken literally, while ignoring other parts perhaps because it suites their purpose.

You assume it needs to say the same thing to everyone. I believe the stories, literal, figurative or allegorical are all meant for the same purpose, to teach us lessons. Lessons about right and wrong, lessons about how to treat others, lessons about life (mostly referring to the teachings of Jesus). I don't accept anything in the Bible as established fact. I do accept many of the premises. It's not flawed to think you and I get different things from the Bible. You and I would get different things from a Shakespearean play or a Statler Brothers song. Why is the Bible different? The wonderful and significant difference is that since the death of Jesus we have an open connection that allows us to learn and understand further from things that are not in scripture if we are open to them. The problem comes in when people close their hearts to the Lord (referring to Christians) and either listen to what men tell them to believe about our purpose OR they become those men that people listen and speak as if they have authority to tell us how to live and judge those who don't live as they believe.

Jesus warned us against those who judge and judgement itself. Jesus warned us against those who take the place of honor in the world (Pope, anyone). Jesus warned us against those who would tell you they have more to say about how to live and how to love the Lord than you do. Jesus warned us against those that make us call them Father or Rabbi. I haven't missed those lessons. I don't propose to tell you, then, that there is only one answer to what you get from scripture for most of it (let's face it some of it is abundantly clear), but I do propose to tell you that it is dangerous to listen to men over what you find in your heart and your Bible with regards to your spirit.

Just out of interest, how do you tell the difference between literal interpretations and 'just factual re-telling of the story', particularly when trying to avoid confusion over semantics?

Personally, I do not consider myself a literalist. When I read the Bible, I am not bound to the literal position, and clearly, Jesus never intended this either, particularly when inviting people to eat his flesh and drink his blood. His meaning was not bound to the material world, but referred to a deeper meaning in the spiritual flesh and blood.

I guess I consider my position as one who believes that miracles (where the laws of nature are temporarily suspended) are possible. Furthermore, I consider people who call themselves Christians but don't believe in miracles (i.e, that Christ was God) to be an embarrassment to Christianity.

However, to repeat myself, a believer in Christ need not, indeed, should not, take everything found in the Bible as literal. Even many of the parables that Jesus told did not have to be literally true (e.g., the prodigal son). The truth was in the meaning of forgiveness, but the story itself may or may not have been a factual one.

As an afterthought, that is a classic example of how religion can explain something like forgiveness, while applying science would be like using the wrong tool.

Not to mention how fond Jesus was of the allegory and how often he chastised his followers for taking his stories literally.

Irrelevant. We also ignore that Auschwitz and Stalin's Gulags might have existed for a greater purpose we can't percieve, because it doesn't matter, what happens / happened there is still wrong. Punishment without limit for a finite crime without possibility of parole or appeal is also not justice.

Fair point. But I think you let what humans claim about Hell color your views of what it is and what it may be. As GnI would tell you. There is little scriptural support for what many Christians claim about Hell.

However, one must point out that no matter how bad you think it must be for hell to exist, you still have make an assumption, there is no place in scripture where it says it is bad that Hell exists. You are assigning your view of morality to it.

The prison system exists to reform inmates or in the worst cases confine them so they cannot harm others, not to torture them. If the prison system existed to torture people, you would have a point, but it doesn't, so you don't. Prisons are not created to be as unpleasant to be in as possible [or where they are, the people who operate them are indeed bad, and this is recognised]; nobody starts out saying 'I'm going to make a bad place,' so your argument falls apart. They may not be a barrel of fun, but they're not deliberately engineered to hurt people, either.

There are those that would argue that Hell, for one thing, is a very difficult place to get into (I think Pat Buchanan is more destined for such a place if it exists than Ghandi) and, for a second thing, is not generally a place where humans go.

Irrelevant. Humans are still supposedly sent there, regardless of why it was created.

Again, depends on what you believe.

False. There is no scriptural support for there being a way out of hell if you're sent there.
Now, you're being intellectually dishonest. You realize that is not what he meant. What he said was true. You create a strawman with your statement. Are you going to honestly claim that he meant that there is a way out AFTER one is sent?

Basically, you seem to be saying that miracles have not occurred.
On the contrary, I think they occur every day. Every minute of every day. Just probably not in the way you (literally) mean them to occur.

That is to say that IF there was a miracle, it would not be a miracle but part of the natural world, because your definition of a miracle is that it cannot happen. I cannot use your definition of a miracle, because I believe miracles are possible, but not natural.

If you say that miracles do not happen, on what basis do you make such a claim? That you have not personally witnessed one? That science has not detected any? I can think of plenty of reasons for both of those cases. It is more likely that you have ruled out miracles on the basis of your world view. Simply because so much of the myths out there contain parts of the stories that were not meant to be factual does not mean that the Biblical story was meant to be taken the same way.
A miracle is not an event that occurs in the physical world; that would be a natural phenomenon. Things that happen in the physical world that seem magical are not miracles; 'miracle' is the meaning we attach to such events (it is a spiritual revelation).

Let's take an example. A Bible story has it that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, gave birth to her only child at about the age of 90 years old. The story clearly indicates that she was way passed the child bearing age, and that the arrival of Isaac was an intervention from God. In your world view, you would have to take notice only of the meaning of an old age child bearing, not the literal possibility. You would probably argue that the literal possibility is not relevant. However, the literal impossibility of giving birth to a child at the age of 90 is an integral part of the story. Remove that, and there is no need for Abraham to have faith in God that the promise of the child will be fulfilled. But the need for faith in God was the essential part of Abraham being considered righteous by God. If you say that this even did not literally occur, you are calling into question the literal need for faith in God today, as a requirement for the salvation that God offers. Thus I find that in some cases, when you change the literal interpretation of Scripture, you may be in grave danger of changing the meaning also. Of course, once the meaning is changed, how can one be sure that the meaning is worth believing?
My attitude does not deny that Sarah gave birth past the age of childbirth, or declare it untrue. The miracle is not that Sarah gave birth past the age of childbirth, but that Sarah HAD a child, and all that means to both of them. Every birth is a miracle.

A good example, though, of how the spiritual is sucked out of the Bible stories by concretization. Don't look for the literal, you won't find the spiritual there. Even Jesus rails against concretization of the myth:
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20

Was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah seen as a 'miracle'? No, it was a 'punishment'. Supernatural acts in the physical world are not what define a miracle; the miracle is how it moves you on the inside.

However, in the Christian world view, there certainly is an afterlife for the atheist. ND is arguing from the Christian world view, so he/she is perfectly logical to present the afterlife from such a point of view.
There is zero need "in the Christian world view" for an afterlife for the atheist. The afterlife for the Christian means salvation of the spirit. That's it.

I read your question wrong, sorry.

To answer it, 'literal' suggests a telling of facts that are actually real. The 'factual re-telling' is an accurate re-telling (copy-paste) of something previously told.

Right. However, I suggest the main difficulty lies in the interpretation of story. Obviously, unless you use the exact words that were originally written (in which case, if it was Aramaic, it isn't going to make much sense to me), you simply have to use a paraphrased/translated version. A strict copy-paste approach will not help most of us modern humans. Thus we have to polish up our powers of reasoning. At this point, we are likely to head off in all sorts of directions ('well, I think it means this.....).

So, to re-tell a story is going to be different, depending on what the meaning is. The best way to obtain the meaning is to diligently study what the writer was originally meaning to say. Thus one should have an understanding of the culture and idioms of the time.

In such a situation, it isn't so easy to distinguish between the literal interpretation and the straight-out factual retelling of a story. Hence, theology, perhaps.

On the contrary, I think they occur every day. Every minute of every day. Just probably not in the way you (literally) mean them to occur.


A miracle is not an event that occurs in the physical world; that would be a natural phenomenon. Things that happen in the physical world that seem magical are not miracles; 'miracle' is the meaning we attach to such events (it is a spiritual revelation).


My attitude does not deny that Sarah gave birth past the age of childbirth, or declare it untrue. The miracle is not that Sarah gave birth past the age of childbirth, but that Sarah HAD a child, and all that means to both of them. Every birth is a miracle.

A good example, though, of how the spiritual is sucked out of the Bible stories by concretization. Don't look for the literal, you won't find the spiritual there. Even Jesus rails against concretization of the myth:


Was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah seen as a 'miracle'? No, it was a 'punishment'. Supernatural acts in the physical world are not what define a miracle; the miracle is how it moves you on the inside.

You have succeeding in confusing me. (Not that that's a hard thing to do.) I'm now unsure I know what you think a miracle really is. Mmmm, hang on, let me read your post a couple more times.......

There is zero need "in the Christian world view" for an afterlife for the atheist. The afterlife for the Christian means salvation of the spirit. That's it.

It depends if the Christian world view is seen as needing to relate to every piece of Scripture.

Interesting statement, which raises a few questions:
1. Is this "instinct" not merely "being raised in an environment where certain values are quite prominently present" ?
2. If there is more to it than that, why would it not merely be a survival trait ?
3. How do you explain that people can be in complete disagreement over what "right" and "wrong" actually are in many cases ?



If the "knowledge" would be the same for everyone - yes. But it evidently isn't.


True - provided you replace God with "something higher".
Although well over 50% of the worlds population is monotheistic; so perhaps just saying "true" will suffice ;)



Like humans being humans for instance ;)



Which is of course where religion and science rather vehemently differ.
Seeing is believing - yes; believing is seeing: no.
Looking for eveidence that your belief is true tends to "produce" that evidence after all...

An intelligent post and I think I have a couple of replies, but, sorry, you'll have to wait. The real world is calling me.

Meanwhile, why on earth did you call yourself The Squeaky Rat? It's kinda funny and annoying at the same time.

Right. However, I suggest the main difficulty lies in the interpretation of story. Obviously, unless you use the exact words that were originally written (in which case, if it was Aramaic, it isn't going to make much sense to me), you simply have to use a paraphrased/translated version. A strict copy-paste approach will not help most of us modern humans. Thus we have to polish up our powers of reasoning. At this point, we are likely to head off in all sorts of directions ('well, I think it means this.....).

So, to re-tell a story is going to be different, depending on what the meaning is. The best way to obtain the meaning is to diligently study what the writer was originally meaning to say. Thus one should have an understanding of the culture and idioms of the time.

In such a situation, it isn't so easy to distinguish between the literal interpretation and the straight-out factual retelling of a story. Hence, theology, perhaps.
I sort of agree; that is the best way to determine what the person who wrote down the stories meant them to mean. The best way to obtain the meaning is to study what the mythological elements mean in other contexts and compare. The original author's work, after all, is not available (the stories having originated in oral tradition, centuries hence).

When supernatural elements are involved, it is rather simple to distinguish that a story has been concretized to be literal, and that the original had some actual spiritual value.

Meanwhile, why on earth did you call yourself The Squeaky Rat? It's kinda funny and annoying at the same time.

In a sense you just answered your own question ;)

Right. However, I suggest the main difficulty lies in the interpretation of story. Obviously, unless you use the exact words that were originally written (in which case, if it was Aramaic, it isn't going to make much sense to me), you simply have to use a paraphrased/translated version. A strict copy-paste approach will not help most of us modern humans. Thus we have to polish up our powers of reasoning. At this point, we are likely to head off in all sorts of directions ('well, I think it means this.....).

So, to re-tell a story is going to be different, depending on what the meaning is. The best way to obtain the meaning is to diligently study what the writer was originally meaning to say. Thus one should have an understanding of the culture and idioms of the time.

In such a situation, it isn't so easy to distinguish between the literal interpretation and the straight-out factual retelling of a story. Hence, theology, perhaps.
Interpretation isn't that big a problem: there can be interpretations with significant meaning to individuals, and one big accepted interpretation as the official one. This is why we have the Bible to refer to.

The problem lies solely in when you hold up the one big accepted interpretation and say, "This is it. This is the truth. This is what its to mean."

The problem lies in not recognizing that the little interpretations are equally true, because what is spiritually enlighting need only enlighten one spirit at a time.

The literal interpretation is worse; that is the one that says, "This is literally true." And when you hold up the one big interpretation and declare it entirely literally true, then you've gone as far from enlightening people as you can get.

My reading of Job tells me that God allowed Satan to 'torture' Job. If that was the end of story, then we could logically conclude that God was perhaps evil, or at least cares more for his own ends than that of even his 'favourite' human. But it wasn't the end of story. In fact, Job is rewarded by having 'twice as much as before', in terms of earthly goods. His second bunch of children are far better than the first. But most of all, he learns a good deal more about the love and wisdom of God, which far outweights all the other stuff. Thus, God is just, for while Job does suffer, he receives a far greater reward. His suffering was a short-lived thing that ended in his enjoying for more than he had before.

So long as you say that human suffering means that God is evil, you are ignoring the after life. This is pertinent to human suffering today. Why did all those Indonesians have to dies in a tsunami? and all those Indians in an earthquake? Why does God allow all that suffering? Where is justice in that? If your argument is that we suffer because God is evil, you have completely overlooked the Biblical account for suffering, and it's source.

Suffering is not evil in itself, and while evil does cause suffering, not all suffering is from evil. In fact, personal suffering can teach us quite a lot. It can make us stronger. Let me use two examples.

When my mother sent me to my room for swearing at my brother, I suffered from that evil that I committed. But I never thought my mother was evil. I know now, and perhaps even back then, that such punishment was fair.

When my dad made me finish my first day of hard work, I was suffering from blisters on my hands. But afterwards, he congratulated me on making another step to manhood. For me, that made the suffering completely worthwhile.
The suffering Job endured was a direct result of a competition between God and Satan, for which God conceded to allow damned near all types of unpleasantry for Job. God also created Satan, and the weirdness here is that one might normally think that Satan and God would corroborate less about things, but you know, it is something significant to consider.
Also, Job's faith had been very strong until God had allowed it to whittle to almost nothing, and then God made a huge dramatic deal upon arrival to show up on how insignificant Job was to his judgment. The issuance of reparation was an after-post to the chapter, implying of course that when the single source of overriding devotion in your life decides to torment you, you should put up with it, since it is basically over a wager between that entity and another entity IT created so it could show you how you have no right to anything but to obey, and if you do, you can get more worldly things out of it but still have been put on a petulant trial by what is supposed to be wiser, kinder, and gentler than that.

Does it ACTUALLY state that he "enjoyed" the reparations "more"?
No. Four different currently-used versions all talk about inheritance through his offspring and that he died, being old and full of days. It didn't say his life was truly better afterwards, nothing of the sort.


And as per this line,
So long as you say that human suffering means that God is evil, you are ignoring the after life.
You have no leg to stand on. You have no decent integrity of argument implying that any afterlife is going to fix this one.
There is ....wait for it... approximately ZERO proof of an afterlife, give or take a few marginal percentage points.
I'm not a fool. I don't take wagers where the consummative result is made even AFTER I'M DEAD.
I won't patronize you here, i'll simply point out that i've already posted what the meaning of the word "dead" is. And it isn't "hiatus until resurrection", either, it's dead.
Commitment to a biblical account of anything without corroboration is obviously a fool's errand. I am not saying that things haven't been proven to be true in the bible, i'm saying that using you have completely overlooked the Biblical account for suffering, and it's source. as your rationale defeats the integrity of argument for anyone who hasn't already sworn themselves to uphold biblical authority.

I appreciate your analogy, though, but know i already understand that. It very clearly falls within the realm of seasoned human experience, and my own, indeed. To wit, no need to invoke some supposed higher authority in it - it is a mechanism of human interaction. I would even say it's an excellent allusion to Job. I simply believe that a higher moral order is higher than the Christian, and it's the responsibility of every conscience-oriented individual not to sell themselves out to a simple answer of domination and obeying but quite more the engagement of principles themselves. IE, if your god tortures, it has sunk to human levels and therefore isn't worth worship.

Ooooohhh, yes there is...

There is a nonliteral spin.
That was my implication, in other words.
*bows*

I'm still playing nice.... this is either a n00b, in which case it behooves us to treat them kindly... or someone flamebaiting me... in which case I'll not rise to it.
I have a reasonable doubt that you would behave unbehoovingly.
I wanted to point out that the person's judgment had been clouded by their conceit about your knowledge of the subject, and that could lead to some unpleasant repercussions ...
As i said, live n'learn!!
*bows*

Any bit of a story that contains supernatural elements is not literal (god, demons, monsters, angels, talking snakes, and miracles). Our first clue is that the supernatural does not physically manifest --if it did, it would be natural, not supernatural.

Just as the forgiveness, the meaning in the parable of the prodigal son, is the significant thing in the story related by Jesus, the meanings in other stories --that contain supernatural elements --is the significant part in stories told about Joshua, Moses, Jesus, etc. The parable is the simplest form of myth, placing the meaning right before you in simple terms using human or humanized characters in easily understandable situations. A "poor man's" myth.

This use of myth pre-dates the Bible stories, which are relatively recent in mythological terms. By the time the Bible stories were put down in writing, in the first Century BC, the mythic elements had been handed down for millennia. God and the original mythic elements had already been concretized into "real" being, and the meaning in the myths was dropping away, being replaced by a sort of self-deceit. Same thing was happening in Greece and throughout the Mediterranean, where philosophy took hold and totally "killed" the gods.

Anyway... don't know about avoiding "confusion over semantics". Semantics is the fine art of moving towards a common meaning so that communication can take place.
A most excellent post.
*bows*

EDIT: One of a SERIES of excellent posts on this topic, on this thread.
Howmany ever facets of "elements" you possess, Willamena, you are certainly in ONE of them here.

Basically, you seem to be saying that miracles have not occurred. That is to say that IF there was a miracle, it would not be a miracle but part of the natural world, because your definition of a miracle is that it cannot happen. I cannot use your definition of a miracle, because I believe miracles are possible, but not natural.

If you say that miracles do not happen, on what basis do you make such a claim? That you have not personally witnessed one? That science has not detected any? I can think of plenty of reasons for both of those cases. It is more likely that you have ruled out miracles on the basis of your world view. Simply because so much of the myths out there contain parts of the stories that were not meant to be factual does not mean that the Biblical story was meant to be taken the same way.

Let's take an example. A Bible story has it that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, gave birth to her only child at about the age of 90 years old. The story clearly indicates that she was way passed the child bearing age, and that the arrival of Isaac was an intervention from God. In your world view, you would have to take notice only of the meaning of an old age child bearing, not the literal possibility. You would probably argue that the literal possibility is not relevant. However, the literal impossibility of giving birth to a child at the age of 90 is an integral part of the story. Remove that, and there is no need for Abraham to have faith in God that the promise of the child will be fulfilled. But the need for faith in God was the essential part of Abraham being considered righteous by God. If you say that this even did not literally occur, you are calling into question the literal need for faith in God today, as a requirement for the salvation that God offers. Thus I find that in some cases, when you change the literal interpretation of Scripture, you may be in grave danger of changing the meaning also. Of course, once the meaning is changed, how can one be sure that the meaning is worth believing?
Bruarong, Willamena *has* qualified her position on miracles. Apparently, she and i have very similar understanding of what they are.
You should save her the trouble and see her postings in the Forum Archives.

Oh, I see what you mean now. You are saying that because God allowed Job's pain, thus it could be argued that he actually caused it. Which is little like saying that God is causing suffering in the world today, because he allows it. In one sense, God is responsible for Job's pain. But I would not call that torture, because torture usually does not have the best interests in mind for the object of the torture. However, in Job's case, one can easily argue that God retained Job's best interest in his heart, even though it clearly did not seem that way to Job at the time.

In the case of the suffering in the world, the source is not God, but the sin of humans, according to the Genesis story. Thus suffering, as we humans experience it, can have several sources.
He's saying that HeSatan is a FACULTY of Jehovah. Think of the angelic mass as the CHOIR of minion, not having any specific independent function. That is the capability of Satan in this context (also the context that Job IS THE OLDEST Book in the contiguous Bible).
Since there are parts, if i recall, of the bible that qualify whether or not ANY of the chorus of angels had any "free will" at all - i've read that they hadn't and that for some reason, that favour incited jealousy amongst them, resulting in an appreciation for Satan's decadence, which IN ITSELF is a choice .... hmmm, it would imply that even the choir of faculty to god isn't particularly keen on the lack of justice employed by their employer.

Further, as for Job - it could be argued that god only intervened when he was about to lose the faith of his "best pupil", which indeed he was in severe dire circumstances of doing, as a result of god's own hubris.
He rewarded him for Job cowering to God's power-play roll call. Not for his faith.