NationStates Jolt Archive

Before we begin, I want to point out that this thread is NOT about the accuracy or legiamacy of the Bible. Its about what the Bible says. So I would apreciate no one quoting my entire piece and then saying "The Bible is a work of fiction" because I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing the Christian faith and what the Bible says.

This is my personal overview of the Bible

God created the world (just a brief point about science here, the Bible doesn’t say how God created the world, just that he did, so science really doesn’t have that much to say about this) and when he did he created it perfectly, it was all good as the Bible says. God then created man and women in his image. Which means (I think, and many agree with me) that we have free will, the ability to choose.
He gave us this because he wanted us to love him, and to love someone there has to be an element of choice about it. Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, where their every need was catered for. They had actual paradise.

Meanwhile in Heaven, there was an Angel called Lucifer. He was getting very over ambitious and wanted God's place (IE he wanted to be God) and so him and a group of others attempted to start a rebellion in Heaven. However God being God, they couldn't possibly succeed and so God sent them down into a place called Hell.
Hell is a place for all those who rebel against God, and it is a place without God at all.

Unfortunately, Lucifer and his co-conspirators were not the only ones to rebel against God. Adam and Eve did too. They broke the only and very simple command that God had given them. They had all their needs catered for, and that fruit of that tree was not one of their needs. So they had sinned (Sin is the word for rebellion against God) and because of that sin, we would, unless something would be done about it, all go to hell.

Now God loved us. Loved us more than we could imagine. He did not want any of us to go to hell. He loved us far too much for that. So he had to do something about it. And he did. He sent his own son Jesus into the world, a child born of a virgin birth who lived a sinless life. Sin, for humans ultimately leads to death. Jesus never sinned, yet he died. This doesn’t make any sense, so there must have been another explanation. And there was. He died because of all the
sin of everyone else in the world. He died for everyone who was, is and ever will be.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16

A clichéd verse I know, but it is clichéd for a reason. It sums up the Bible very well. Now to believe like it says, people have to do three things.

First, you have to accept your a sinner. This means that you admit that you've done wrong and in the eyes of God you are far from perfect, and what is more you regret it.

Secondly, as a result of regretting it, you ask God to forgive you for all the sin you've done in your life, and to forgive you through Jesus’ death. If you know you've done wrong, and admitted your wrong, the only option really is to say sorry. So that’s what the second part of this is, saying sorry for the things you've done wrong, and asking God to let Jesus’ death count for you too. Jesus’ death on its own isn't enough. You have to accept it and ask God for it to count for you.

Thirdly, because you've accepted you've sinned, and you've asked God to forgive you for it, you should try not to sin any more and lead the life that Jesus laid out for you. I don’t mean you have to be perfect, no one can do that. Christians are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to doing wrong. The key difference is that we do our best not to and when we do fail, we don’t ignore it. We feel bad about it not only because we've done it but because we have let down God. But the good news is just because we sinned, doesn’t mean God is angry with us. He's upset but he will forgive us as long as we keep trying not to sin, and we are genuinely doing what we can

I don't think there's anything in the bible about a fallen angel called Lucifer.. Or any conspiracy against god he might have been involved in, for that matter..

meh..
Bible in a nutshell: God loves you, be nice to each other.

I don't think there's anything in the bible about a fallen angel called Lucifer.. Or any conspiracy against god he might have been involved in, for that matter..
No. That's part of the Jewish tradition that hasn't been trashed, but didn't make it into the book.

The Bible in a nutshell goes like this:
(Old testament) I'm God, kiss my arse until your lips bleed or you'll cop it something rotten.
(New testament) Play nicely with the other children.
This cognitive dissonance is what has led to various schisms and wars over the centuries.

Before we begin, I want to point out that this thread is NOT about the accuracy or legiamacy of the Bible. Its about what the Bible says. So I would apreciate no one quoting my entire piece and then saying "The Bible is a work of fiction" because I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing the Christian faith and what the Bible says.

This is my personal overview of the Bible

God created the world (just a brief point about science here, the Bible doesn’t say how God created the world, just that he did, so science really doesn’t have that much to say about this) and when he did he created it perfectly, it was all good as the Bible says.

...
Meanwhile in Heaven, there was an Angel called Lucifer. He was getting very over ambitious and wanted God's place (IE he wanted to be God) and so him and a group of others attempted to start a rebellion in Heaven.

Ignoring the fact that this rebellion isn't actually in the Bible: did God create Lucifer?

Ignoring the fact that this rebellion isn't actually in the Bible: did God create Lucifer?

And more to the point, if God was all powerful then why would Lucifer be retarded enough to try to beat him?

No. That's part of the Jewish tradition that hasn't been trashed, but didn't make it into the book.

The Bible in a nutshell goes like this:
(Old testament) I'm God, kiss my arse until your lips bleed or you'll cop it something rotten.
(New testament) Play nicely with the other children.
This cognitive dissonance is what has led to various schisms and wars over the centuries.
Very succinct grats

Ignoring the fact that this rebellion isn't actually in the Bible: did God create Lucifer?

Firstly, this rebelion is in the Bible.

See here: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lucifer.html

And secondly, the Bible isnt specific on what created the angels. I would imagine so but I dont know.

And more to the point, if God was all powerful then why would Lucifer be retarded enough to try to beat him?

Because Lucifer let his pride blind him.

http://img414.imageshack.us/img414/9288/inanutshell1tj.png (http://imageshack.us)
<3 Paint! XD

Because Lucifer let his pride blind him.
Nice generic non explanatory answer.

Firstly, this rebelion is in the Bible.

See here: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lucifer.html

And secondly, the Bible isnt specific on what created the angels. I would imagine so but I dont know.
There's a huge amount of Jewish religious literature based on discussion sof the pieces of the talmud concerning this that didn't make it into the old testament. The giants in the earth mentioned in Genesis were the offspring of angels and mortal women, though.

Does God have free will?

If he is really "perfect" (onmiscient and all that stuff) then surely all his actions must be perfect thus he can't choose not to be perfect or perform a perfect action.

I don't see how "bing created in gods image" means free will, becuase I doubt very much God does have a choice to sin ect..

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16

Adriatitca, please explain the logic of this.

Mankind are sinners according to God, so God must punish his son/himself?

Makes no sense at all.

I don't see how "bing created in gods image" means free will, becuase I doubt very much God does have a choice to sin ect..
Hmm...even if we are created in his image, it doesn't mean that he left everything unchanged (which would include that wiggle room to have free will)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16

Adriatitca, please explain the logic of this.

Mankind are sinners according to God, so God must punish his son/himself?

Makes no sense at all.
Exactly ... god was the only one requiring a sacrifice for salvation

Me thinks an all powerful god could have managed without requiring someones death.

No. That's part of the Jewish tradition that hasn't been trashed, but didn't make it into the book.

The Bible in a nutshell goes like this:
(Old testament) I'm God, kiss my arse until your lips bleed or you'll cop it something rotten.
(New testament) Play nicely with the other children.
This cognitive dissonance is what has led to various schisms and wars over the centuries.

Yeah, God seems to have terrible moodswings. I don't think I'd want him at my party. Also, this Lucifer guy seems really annoying.

Hmm...even if we are created in his image, it doesn't mean that he left everything unchanged (which would include that wiggle room to have free will)

Well the OP said

God then created man and women in his image. Which means (I think, and many agree with me) that we have free will, the ability to choose.


And I don't get quite how he came to that conclusion.

Also the "we need free will to love God" gets me the wrong way. The bible tells us only a matter of stories about god (which are now *cough* are not to be taken literally) and all a christian could conclude about God is he created the world, how are we supposed to love something we know so little about.

I've asked that to another christian and they replied with "I love the world he created for us bla bla bla" - But I'd still think even if I loved my house or a carpenter made me something I loved, I wouldn't intern love the carpenter himself. Hopefull I might see a reply I like better.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16

Adriatitca, please explain the logic of this.

Mankind are sinners according to God, so God must punish his son/himself?

Makes no sense at all.

God is loving but also just

The wages of sin are death. Thus if people sin they must die. Not only the physical death but the spiritual death in Hell. Hell was a place created for all those who rebelled against God (IE sinned)

God had to break this cycle. So he sent his son into the world who had no sin. He had no sin, yet he died. So it couldnt have been his sin that caused him to die. Seing as their is no limit to how much sin you can carry in your death, he carried all the sin of the world, that was, is and every will be.

The cycle was broken. The man without sin dies

Thus our sin is paid for. All we have to do is accept it

God is loving but also just

The wages of sin are death. Thus if people sin they must die. Not only the physical death but the spiritual death in Hell. Hell was a place created for all those who rebelled against God (IE sinned)

God had to break this cycle. So he sent his son into the world who had no sin. He had no sin, yet he died. So it couldnt have been his sin that caused him to die. Seing as their is no limit to how much sin you can carry in your death, he carried all the sin of the world, that was, is and every will be.

The cycle was broken. The man without sin dies

Thus our sin is paid for. All we have to do is accept it
God was the only one that required a death to pay for our sins.

Well the OP said

And I don't get quite how he came to that conclusion.

Also the "we need free will to love God" gets me the wrong way. The bible tells us only a matter of stories about god (which are now *cough* are not to be taken literally) and all a christian could conclude about God is he created the world, how are we supposed to love something we know so little about.

I've asked that to another christian and they replied with "I love the world he created for us bla bla bla" - But I'd still think even if I loved my house or a carpenter made me something I loved, I wouldn't intern love the carpenter himself. Hopefull I might see a reply I like better.

I dont think you've read the Bible fully. The Bible tells us a massive amount about God and about what he's done for us all. Why do you think we know so little about him. Surely over 60 writers writing over a period of over a millienia on the same subject would give us a great deal of infomation about that subject.

""Lucifer was the Anointed Cherub. Anointed means to be set apart for Gods Divine purpose. It also means "bestowal of Gods divine favor", and "appointment to a special place or function."
God had given Satan a certain amount of power and authority. But he perverted that power. Lucifer wanted to exalt himself above God... rather than "just" being the Angel of God.
If God is so good, then why did he create Satan?
Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )
Like man, the angels were created perfect, and with a free will.
Satan was lifted up because of his beauty, he corrupted the wisdom by reason of his brightness (This is in Ezekiel 28:17)""


The whole freewill thing makes absolutely no sense though. God knew Satan would rebel against him and cause all that trouble before he even created him (he had to, he's all knowing) So if he knew he would turn to evil why create him and set him up as his highest angel. Similarly, why would God provide us with both the ability to be tempted and the temptation to do it if he knew before hand that we would turn to evil just so he could punish us for it later.

God was the only one that required a death to pay for our sins.

I'm not sure I understand your point of this post. I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure of its relevence. Can you elaborate on the point your are trying to make

The whole freewill thing makes absolutely no sense though. God knew Satan would rebel against him and cause all that trouble before he even created him (he had to, he's all knowing) So if he knew he would turn to evil why create him and set him up as his highest angel. Similarly, why would God provide us with both the ability to be tempted and the temptation to do it if he knew before hand that we would turn to evil just so he could punish us for it later.

Does a women, knowing that if she has a child it will disobey her at some point, thus not choose to have a child.

Another point. If God just kept us in the garden, with no tree of the knowledge of good and evil and no way to disobey him, then Eden would be a prison, with no way out.

Does God have free will?

If he is really "perfect" (onmiscient and all that stuff) then surely all his actions must be perfect thus he can't choose not to be perfect or perform a perfect action.

I don't see how "bing created in gods image" means free will, becuase I doubt very much God does have a choice to sin ect..


Sure he can sin, he does it all the time. Murder is a sin and natural disasters kill people all the time. Hurricanes don't have free will so God is surely in charge of them. Volcanoes and tsunamis too, he sins all the time.

I'm not sure I understand your point of this post. I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure of its relevence. Can you elaborate on the point your are trying to make
God required a death

God set up the situation, picked a time and picked a place

If god were a US citizen he would be at least an accessory to murder

Some reason to me a god that requires death to fulfill his own requirements is not worthy of worship

Nice generic non explanatory answer.

Actually, that would explain that. Find something else to doubt.

I'm not sure I understand your point of this post. I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure of its relevence. Can you elaborate on the point your are trying to make
The act of expiation represented by Christ's death was required by God alone: nobody else gave a stuff about it.

Does a women, knowing that if she has a child it will disobey her at some point, thus not choose to have a child.

Another point. If God just kept us in the garden, with no tree of the knowledge of good and evil and no way to disobey him, then Eden would be a prison, with no way out.


A better exmaple would be a parent leaving candy unattended on a table, knowing full well that their child would eat it and then beating them once they do it. God made us so we could sin, he put us in a world that makes us sin, and then tells us what we're doing is evil and threatens us with eternal punishment. Somebody call child services.

Actually, that would explain that. Find something else to doubt.
Naw I prefer to not have out of the box prefabbed generic answers to things, shows you are thinking rather then just accepting everything

Sure he can sin, he does it all the time. Murder is a sin and natural disasters kill people all the time. Hurricanes don't have free will so God is surely in charge of them. Volcanoes and tsunamis too, he sins all the time.

Would that not mean he is not perfect. Or atleast not all loving?

Thus the christian philosophical idea of God is wrong/contradictory... And when a religion describes God wrong theres not much use reading the rest?

Sure he can sin, he does it all the time. Murder is a sin and natural disasters kill people all the time. Hurricanes don't have free will so God is surely in charge of them. Volcanoes and tsunamis too, he sins all the time.

Sin means rebellion against God

God cannot logically rebel against himself. That doesnt mean he's not omnipotent. Just that the words in that context make no sense. Rather like saying "Can God bake a January"

As for why do these things happen. They happen because of sin. Before sin entered the world, it was good. Good is a very overused word nowadays and means in the context of Genesis perfect. Without flaw. However when sin entered the world it became flawed and decayed.

So why did God allow us to be able to sin. Well he gave us the ability to choose because he wanted us to love him and love requires an element of choice. You cannot force someone to love you, anymore than you can bake a January, because thats not what love means. However free will also means the choice not to love

He also allowed us to sin (IE gave Adam and Eve the tree) because if he hadnt there would have been no way out of eden and eden would have been nothing more than a very nice prision

Think about it. He sends the devil down to "Hell", but according to many Christians, he has enough power to control us and influence our lives. I mean, God actually lets people go to hell. And if you believe in the concept of original sin, it's his fault we sinned in the first place. He puts the Tree of Knowledge just right there in plain sight, and says "Don't eat that fruit." You're telling me he didn't want it to happen? And that's another thing, did God not want us to have knowledge?

God required a death

God set up the situation, picked a time and picked a place

If god were a US citizen he would be at least an accessory to murder

Some reason to me a god that requires death to fulfill his own requirements is not worthy of worship


Meh, I guess it's not murder for God. He's got human life on tap so what's the big deal about killing a few ants here and there. Human life's obviously not on his list of priorities. I just find it silly that he holds us to different standards.

A better exmaple would be a parent leaving candy unattended on a table, knowing full well that their child would eat it and then beating them once they do it. God made us so we could sin, he put us in a world that makes us sin, and then tells us what we're doing is evil and threatens us with eternal punishment. Somebody call child services.

meh, some kids would try not to eat the candy and if they did would feel sorry about it. Some kids just have a bad upbrining and would take the candy then go round searching the house for more and are screwed for life. Aristotle thinks people can only be good when they have good influences to learn from (and I'd agree to a large extent). Thus naturally some people would more likely since birth go to heaven than hell.

Meh, I guess it's not murder for God. He's got human life on tap so what's the big deal about killing a few ants here and there. Human life's obviously not on his list of priorities. I just find it silly that he holds us to different standards.
Agreed

Which statement makes more sense?

-The bible is the truth word by word, and therefore there is a God.

-The bible is not the truth word by word, and therefore there isn't a God.

Naw I prefer to not have out of the box prefabbed generic answers to things, shows you are thinking rather then just accepting everything

Sounds like you mean that if something has been said before by other people, it can't be true. I see no problem with that if there was an angel called Lucifer who got arrogant and believed himself to be able to replace God, he could rebel against God. Whether there are angels and a god is of course a wholly different matter.

Think about it. He sends the devil down to "Hell", but according to many Christians, he has enough power to control us and influence our lives. I mean, God actually lets people go to hell. And if you believe in the concept of original sin, it's his fault we sinned in the first place. He puts the Tree of Knowledge just right there in plain sight, and says "Don't eat that fruit." You're telling me he didn't want it to happen? And that's another thing, did God not want us to have knowledge?
Of course He didn't: if we didn't have knowledge, there wouldn'rt be all these evolutionists all over the place, would there?

A better exmaple would be a parent leaving candy unattended on a table, knowing full well that their child would eat it and then beating them once they do it. God made us so we could sin, he put us in a world that makes us sin, and then tells us what we're doing is evil and threatens us with eternal punishment. Somebody call child services.
I use a similar example but change beating to killing, there is no reprieve from this punishment.

A parent punishes to teach ... but like with gods punishment how can the child learn from it if he is dead.

meh, some kids would try not to eat the candy and if they did would feel sorry about it. Some kids just have a bad upbrining and would take the candy then go round searching the house for more and are screwed for life. Aristotle thinks people can only be good when they have good influences to learn from (and I'd agree to a large extent). Thus naturally some people would more likely since birth go to heaven than hell.


So some people are doomed to hell becasue of how they're born and they have no say in it? Just cuz you're born in Zambia and have never heard of God then you're doomed for eternity?! God sure is a jerk. Why would God set an equal bar for determining eternal damnation when different groups abviously have different morals. Funny how a Christian God's morals line up with European white guys and Allahs morals line up ith Middle Easter people's huh?

Think about it. He sends the devil down to "Hell", but according to many Christians, he has enough power to control us and influence our lives. I mean, God actually lets people go to hell.

God doesnt want anyone to go to hell. But to go to heaven you have to make a choice. Choice presuposes free will. God made free will and he made it so as to give Humans the abilty to love him. You cannot force love.

Also remember, hell was not originally created for humans, but for Satan and his cohorts

"But if God's omnipotent he could just say a word and we would all go to heaven" is the useally response to that. But that would not be just and it would not be treating sin as the serious thing that it is.


And if you believe in the concept of original sin, it's his fault we sinned in the first place. He puts the Tree of Knowledge just right there in plain sight, and says "Don't eat that fruit." You're telling me he didn't want it to happen?

Yes. So why did he put it there. To give us a choice. God wanted us to have free will because he wanted us to love him. But what good is free will in an enviroment where you are forced to make only one choice. To put it another way, whats the useof voting when there is only one candidate.


And that's another thing, did God not want us to have knowledge?

God didnt want us to have the knowledge of good and evil, no. Why you ask. Well look at the world since we got it. That should answer your question

Sorry just another point I'd like to make over "heven and hell" going back to the OP.

We have the good atheist who goes to heaven, the bad christian who does not go to heaven (hell right)

From what I've heard if we then got an as christian as possible person who followed every part of the bible and Gods teachings who he go to the same heaven (when hes clearly been a better person).

And how about Hitler who he suffer the same fate as this bad christian yet Hitler was a much worse person.

Seems a bit simple and wrong to just lump everyone into a you've passed welcome to heaven or you've failed. If there is one exact cut off point (which there would need to be) two almost identical people according to christianity would suffer completely opposite fates for the rest of eternity. Please correct me where I've gone wrong.

This thread is really fundamentally flawed to be honest.

Firstly, to the author, you really need to take a humanities class, particularly Western Cultural History. Take that class and you'll see your whole argument crumbles. The bible isn't one smooth transition from book to book.

The authors and ideas are completely mis-matched from book to book and there is -no- single theme throughout the entire thing. Keep in mind that the current "accepted" books of the bible were chosen by by a show of hands. It wasn't divine grace or whatever you so wish to call it.

I mean, the bible authors can't even agree on exactly what Satan is. I hope you realize that the "snake" in Genesis and the Adam and Eve were just a story. It wasn't literal and the figures were borrowed from Canaanite myth, just reversed. The "snake" isn't Satan, Satan didn't come around until the Babylonians captured the Jews.

Not only that, Satan means "He who speaks against", not "rebel". Essentially, when the Babylonians were stomping the Jews around the covenants in Deuteronomy were being broken, that is, if you follow my laws you'll pwn the other nations. Didn't happen.

What the book of Job did was put an angel in the whole mythology that spoke against god in the sense that the rest of the angels were "yes-men". Satan was also part of the whole angelic posse. So he gave permission for Satan to punk Job around. Job didn't break at first, and here we find that God got pissy at Satan.

Job 2:3

"Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause."

This so called "LOVING" god punked Job around FOR NOTHING and said it straight up. Loving? Hardly! I hope you really read the rest of Job. The whole point wasn't to test his faith. If you've done your history research you'd find that "Faith" is a Roman concept, not Jewish. So Job curses God here:

Job 3: 1-3

" 1: After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. 2: And Job said: 3: "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night which said, `A man-child is conceived.'"

"Hey! He didn't curse God directly!" Uh, yeah he did. You're using your MODERN sense of reality and are affixing it to this ancient idea. Guess what? Your life doesn't belong to you. Suicide wasn't looked well upon because it wasn't YOUR life to begin with, it was God's. Killing yourself is stealing from God.

"Huh?" Think about it for a second as a Jewish sheep herder (which is connected to as why Cain was cursed by god.). You purchased a great amount of sheep. Suddenly, you come back the next day to find that some of your sheep killed themselves. Wouldn't you be pissed? YOU owned the sheep, you paid for them.

So Job gets pissed at God and God comes down and says THIShttp://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=38&division=div1

Basically, if you dont' feel like reading, God says I'm HUGE and you can't understand me. I'm a badass, so badass you can't comprehend it! So now you have a less tangible view on God, a god that Jews were losing faith in because of the broken promise.

So what if there was a promise, right? Well, I've done a lot of studies on ancient gods and even some demonology, and in ancient times gods were bindable and you had to make deals with them. In fact, Abraham was looked well upon Yahweh because he knew his true name. If you know a god's name you can bind it to your will.

What Job did was say that God was so badass you couldn't bind him. He was free of any kind of "pact".

This is all historical guys, and why having a college education makes a difference. The Bible isn't so stupidly simple that you can crack it open and suddenly understand it all. You can't establish meaning between books and whatnot, because it doesn't work that way. This goes beyond New vs Old Testament. In between each book you have discrepencies. Hell, two New Testament authors couldn't even f'ing decide whether Jesus was pierced before or after he died.

Of course, everyone knows the book of John was written decades after the happenings written about by a guy that heard John talking about it.

Oops, sorry guys, I guess some of you didn't know the books of John were based on hearsay that was decades old. My bad.

This stuff isn't as simple as you think, and honestly I find it incredibly annoying how a lot of religions try to streamline the whole thing. You take all the mysticism out of it, all the REAL and DEEP stuff. It suddenly makes the Bible much more complex when you stop making assumptions about it.

'nuff said.

God didnt want us to have the knowledge of good and evil, no. Why you ask. Well look at the world since we got it. That should answer your question

And how could Adam and Eve obey God's commands without knowledge of good and evil?

God doesnt want anyone to go to hell.
God didnt want us to have the knowledge of good and evil.

You're treating God like he's just some guy trying to make the best of things. But he's actually all knowing and all powerful. If he didn't want us to know good and evil why in the world would he create a conveniently placed sin-tree with full knowledge that we would disobey him and eat the fruit? If he doesn't want us to go to hell why does he make us sinful and send us there? Dur. If God actually wants something it gets done. Since we ate the fruit and since we go to hell it's obvious that God wants it that way. No buts about it.

And how could Adam and Eve obey God's commands without knowledge of good and evil?

Read my post above. Adam and Eve was a borrowed tale from Canaanite culture. In fact, Genesis was written by seven different people, two of the core authors even had two different names for "God", that being "Yahweh" and "Elohim".

You're treating God like he's just some guy trying to make the best of things. But he's actually all knowing and all powerful. If he didn't want us to know good and evil why in the world would he create a conveniently placed sin-tree with full knowledge that we would disobey him and eat the fruit? If he doesn't want us to go to hell why does he make us sinful and send us there? Dur.

Your argument was fundamentally flawed. The Jews that wrote the book of Genesis didn't believe there was a hell. "From dust you are to dust you shall return."

And how could Adam and Eve obey God's commands without knowledge of good and evil?
EXACTLY how would they know it was good to listen to god and evil to listen to the snake

EXACTLY how would they know it was good to listen to god and evil to listen to the snake

Best question would be: "Why did god put two magical trees in the middle of this garden in the first place?"

Before we begin, I want to point out that this thread is NOT about the accuracy or legiamacy of the Bible. Its about what the Bible says. So I would apreciate no one quoting my entire piece and then saying "The Bible is a work of fiction" because I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing the Christian faith and what the Bible says.

This is my personal overview of the Bible

God created the world (just a brief point about science here, the Bible doesn’t say how God created the world, just that he did, so science really doesn’t have that much to say about this) and when he did he created it perfectly, it was all good as the Bible says. God then created man and women in his image. Which means (I think, and many agree with me) that we have free will, the ability to choose.
He gave us this because he wanted us to love him, and to love someone there has to be an element of choice about it. Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, where their every need was catered for. They had actual paradise.

Meanwhile in Heaven, there was an Angel called Lucifer. He was getting very over ambitious and wanted God's place (IE he wanted to be God) and so him and a group of others attempted to start a rebellion in Heaven. However God being God, they couldn't possibly succeed and so God sent them down into a place called Hell.
Hell is a place for all those who rebel against God, and it is a place without God at all.

Unfortunately, Lucifer and his co-conspirators were not the only ones to rebel against God. Adam and Eve did too. They broke the only and very simple command that God had given them. They had all their needs catered for, and that fruit of that tree was not one of their needs. So they had sinned (Sin is the word for rebellion against God) and because of that sin, we would, unless something would be done about it, all go to hell.

Now God loved us. Loved us more than we could imagine. He did not want any of us to go to hell. He loved us far too much for that. So he had to do something about it. And he did. He sent his own son Jesus into the world, a child born of a virgin birth who lived a sinless life. Sin, for humans ultimately leads to death. Jesus never sinned, yet he died. This doesn’t make any sense, so there must have been another explanation. And there was. He died because of all the
sin of everyone else in the world. He died for everyone who was, is and ever will be.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16

A clichéd verse I know, but it is clichéd for a reason. It sums up the Bible very well. Now to believe like it says, people have to do three things.

First, you have to accept your a sinner. This means that you admit that you've done wrong and in the eyes of God you are far from perfect, and what is more you regret it.

Secondly, as a result of regretting it, you ask God to forgive you for all the sin you've done in your life, and to forgive you through Jesus’ death. If you know you've done wrong, and admitted your wrong, the only option really is to say sorry. So that’s what the second part of this is, saying sorry for the things you've done wrong, and asking God to let Jesus’ death count for you too. Jesus’ death on its own isn't enough. You have to accept it and ask God for it to count for you.

Thirdly, because you've accepted you've sinned, and you've asked God to forgive you for it, you should try not to sin any more and lead the life that Jesus laid out for you. I don’t mean you have to be perfect, no one can do that. Christians are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to doing wrong. The key difference is that we do our best not to and when we do fail, we don’t ignore it. We feel bad about it not only because we've done it but because we have let down God. But the good news is just because we sinned, doesn’t mean God is angry with us. He's upset but he will forgive us as long as we keep trying not to sin, and we are genuinely doing what we can

Yes, exactly! Right on the money there! This is very well thought out! Excellent job!

Yes, exactly! Right on the money there! This is very well thought out! Excellent job!

No, actually, that was a very horrible job. Why? Read my post on the page prior.

Read my post above. Adam and Eve was a borrowed tale from Canaanite culture. In fact, Genesis was written by seven different people, two of the core authors even had two different names for "God", that being "Yahweh" and "Elohim".

Pointing out the historical facts and fallabilities of the Bible won't do a thing as long as the true believers think it's the absolute word of God. To them it doesn't matter who wrote it or when.

Pointing out the historical facts and fallabilities of the Bible won't do a thing as long as the true believers think it's the absolute word of God. To them it doesn't matter who wrote it or when.

Ignorance is bliss.

EXACTLY how would they know it was good to listen to god and evil to listen to the snake


Well the snake didn't have any free will, so it's clear that God created it for the sole purpose of tempting Adam and Eve. Who else could have made it? In essence God was doing the tempting himself. First he says "Don't eat the fruit" then he hides behind a cloud and sends a snake who says "Sure go for it!" Kinda messed if you ask me.

Ignorance is bliss.


Until you get appendicitis and think that modern medicine is the work of the devil.

God required a death

God set up the situation, picked a time and picked a place

If god were a US citizen he would be at least an accessory to murder

Some reason to me a god that requires death to fulfill his own requirements is not worthy of worship

Firstly, its not murder. Murder is a human killing another human. God has the right to kill anyone at any time. Why? Because the wages of sin are death. So why is it wrong for humans. Because humans are not God and if they go about killing on the grounds of sin, then they should kill themselves since everyone is a sinner.

Secondly, the idea that God is somehow a bad person for needing Jesus to take away our sin, is somehow like saying that the person who takes a bullet for his friend is a bad person. God had to do it this way. Now I hear cries of "but he's omnipotent, he could of done it any way" to which I say that.
1) He could of but it wouldnt have been just or fair any other way
2) Could God have done it without using his omnipotent powers? Just because God is omnipontent that doesnt specify that if he can do something he has to do it in more than one way. Can God do X omipoitnet being task without being an omnoiptent being? No. So he has to use his omnipotence.

Thridly, to claim that God killed Jesus is rather like saying God kills the person who dies of old age. You could be correct in saying that the Judean authorities killed Jesus or that the Romans killed Jesus, or that the individual Roman soldier who hung Jesus on the cross killed Jesus. But to say that God killed him is the same as saying God kills everyone. Ultimately he does. God decides when we die, so he kills everyone effectively. Does that somehow make him bad. No. Because its who God is that allows him to do that. He has authority by his nature.

Yes, exactly! Right on the money there! This is very well thought out! Excellent job!

Thank you. Its always nice to be apreciated

You're treating God like he's just some guy trying to make the best of things. But he's actually all knowing and all powerful. If he didn't want us to know good and evil why in the world would he create a conveniently placed sin-tree with full knowledge that we would disobey him and eat the fruit? If he doesn't want us to go to hell why does he make us sinful and send us there? Dur.

I don't get why God doesn't show himself in a way that doesn't require "faith". If Adam and Eve could have 100% knowlege that God existed and still have the free will to sin why can't we :(

Your argument was fundamentally flawed. The Jews that wrote the book of Genesis didn't believe there was a hell. "From dust you are to dust you shall return."

That just means you will die. It doesnt say where you go after you die.

Firstly, its not murder. Murder is a human killing another human. God has the right to kill anyone at any time. Why? Because the wages of sin are death. So why is it wrong for humans. Because humans are not God and if they go about killing on the grounds of sin, then they should kill themselves since everyone is a sinner.

I understand that fact ... you know thats why I put the whole "If god was a US citizen" part in there

I guess the human part I thought was obvious being they were a citizen of a nation and I am pretty sure being a human is a requirement of that


Secondly, the idea that God is somehow a bad person for needing Jesus to take away our sin, is somehow like saying that the person who takes a bullet for his friend is a bad person. God had to do it this way. Now I hear cries of "but he's omnipotent, he could of done it any way" to which I say that.
1) He could of but it wouldnt have been just or fair any other way
2) Could God have done it without using his omnipotent powers? Just because God is omnipontent that doesnt specify that if he can do something he has to do it in more than one way. Can God do X omipoitnet being task without being an omnoiptent being? No. So he has to use his omnipotence.

Thridly, to claim that God killed Jesus is rather like saying God kills the person who dies of old age. You could be correct in saying that the Judean authorities killed Jesus or that the Romans killed Jesus, or that the individual Roman soldier who hung Jesus on the cross killed Jesus. But to say that God killed him is the same as saying God kills everyone. Ultimately he does. God decides when we die, so he kills everyone effectively. Does that somehow make him bad. No. Because its who God is that allows him to do that. He has authority by his nature.
God with full knoledge put him in the situation to die ... he like the people who did the phisical deed would be responsable

Firstly, its not murder. Murder is a human killing another human. God has the right to kill anyone at any time. Why? Because the wages of sin are death. So why is it wrong for humans. Because humans are not God and if they go about killing on the grounds of sin, then they should kill themselves since everyone is a sinner.

Secondly, the idea that God is somehow a bad person for needing Jesus to take away our sin, is somehow like saying that the person who takes a bullet for his friend is a bad person. God had to do it this way. Now I hear cries of "but he's omnipotent, he could of done it any way" to which I say that.
1) He could of but it wouldnt have been just or fair any other way
2) Could God have done it without using his omnipotent powers? Just because God is omnipontent that doesnt specify that if he can do something he has to do it in more than one way. Can God do X omipoitnet being task without being an omnoiptent being? No. So he has to use his omnipotence.

Thridly, to claim that God killed Jesus is rather like saying God kills the person who dies of old age. You could be correct in saying that the Judean authorities killed Jesus or that the Romans killed Jesus, or that the individual Roman soldier who hung Jesus on the cross killed Jesus. But to say that God killed him is the same as saying God kills everyone. Ultimately he does. God decides when we die, so he kills everyone effectively. Does that somehow make him bad. No. Because its who God is that allows him to do that. He has authority by his nature.

Somehow I got the impression the prophet Jesus suddenly realized something when horribly wrong...

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Firstly, its not murder. Murder is a human killing another human. God has the right to kill anyone at any time. Why? Because the wages of sin are death. So why is it wrong for humans. Because humans are not God and if they go about killing on the grounds of sin, then they should kill themselves since everyone is a sinner.

So if it's perfectly fine for God to kill people all he wants then how could their be any sanctity to human life? Why would God create us at all except to find ingenious ways of killing us.

There is a birth defect that makes babies born without a forebrain. They can survive for up to a day, but all they can do it cry and breathe until they die. How is their any sanctity or forgivness or heavenly love in that? If that's the work of a loving God then I must be missing something crucial.

I don't get why God doesn't show himself in a way that doesn't require "faith". If Adam and Eve could have 100% knowlege that God existed and still have the free will to sin why can't we :(

Because we have sinned and sin seperates us from God.

I don't get why God doesn't show himself in a way that doesn't require "faith". If Adam and Eve could have 100% knowlege that God existed and still have the free will to sin why can't we :(

Because, as I mentioned earlier, FAITH is a Roman concept, not a Jewish one. Faith is an injection of Roman culture that went into the Bible.

Secondly, the idea that God is somehow a bad person for needing Jesus to take away our sin, is somehow like saying that the person who takes a bullet for his friend is a bad person. God had to do it this way. Now I hear cries of "but he's omnipotent, he could of done it any way" to which I say that.
1) He could of but it wouldnt have been just or fair any other way
2) Could God have done it without using his omnipotent powers? Just because God is omnipontent that doesnt specify that if he can do something he has to do it in more than one way. Can God do X omipoitnet being task without being an omnoiptent being? No. So he has to use his omnipotence.


Surely, an omnipotent being would have an infinite number of alternatives to take away our sin that would be just and would not require him sending his own son on a kamikaze mission.

Surely, an omnipotent being would have an infinite number of alternatives to take away our sin that would be just and would not require him sending his own son on a kamikaze mission.

Uh, dude, that's why its "religion".

So if it's perfectly fine for God to kill people all he wants then how could their be and sanctity to human life? Why would God create us at all except to find ingenious ways of killing us.

Just because its fine for God to kill us doesnt mean to say he wants to.


There is a birth defect that makes babies born without a forebrain. They can survive for up to a day, but all they can do it cry and breathe until they die. How is their any sanctity or forgivness or heavenly love in that? If that's the work of a loving God then I must be missing something crucial

This kind of issue is increadably complex. I can offer some websites to help you but my own explanation would be that this sort of thing comes about because of sin. Sin entering the world and breaking it down becoming horrible things like this. Fortunetly this child will be in heaven. Only those who make an active refusal of God's salvation go to hell. Infants who have no knowledge or capablity to understand will go to heaven.

This kind of issue is increadably complex. I can offer some websites to help you but my own explanation would be that this sort of thing comes about because of sin. Sin entering the world and breaking it down becoming horrible things like this. Fortunetly this child will be in heaven. Only those who make an active refusal of God's salvation go to hell. Infants who have no knowledge or capablity to understand will go to heaven.

Where does the Bible say that?

I don't see why everyone says that it's a huge sacrifice for God to kill his only son. He just created him like he does any human being. He could have a million Jesuses down here in the blink of an eye all ready to die (whenther violently or from old age). What diffreence could one individual possibly make? In fact I don't see how God can consider anything good or bad, sad or happy, when he can do anything at any time, crush and create anything without a thought. How could you love something that could never even understand you that you can have as many as you want of at any time.

Just because its fine for God to kill us doesnt mean to say he wants to.



This kind of issue is increadably complex. I can offer some websites to help you but my own explanation would be that this sort of thing comes about because of sin. Sin entering the world and breaking it down becoming horrible things like this. Fortunetly this child will be in heaven. Only those who make an active refusal of God's salvation go to hell. Infants who have no knowledge or capablity to understand will go to heaven.

Um, why do you keep bringing up Heaven? I hope this baby falls under modern religion, because ancient Jews DIDN'T BELIEVE IN AN AFTERLIFE.

Infants who have no knowledge or capablity to understand will go to heaven.

How will these infants know that they are in heaven???

:D

Because we have sinned and sin seperates us from God.

Well ignoring the fact if a human did some of the stuff that god should be held responcible for than God would have sinned. + look at that dead baby example, it could only exist like that because of the way God made people kinda evil really.

And I'm not sure you fully addressed the point, that adam and eve were able to sin even when they knew God definatly existed. Faith may be just a catholic concept then but why am I and everyone else stuck with temptation to sin and more evidence against the idea of God then for.

Sin means rebellion against God
Excuse me sir, but in all my years of studying sin I have never heard such an erroneous definition!
Everybody knows sin is the opposite over the hypotenuse! :D

Surely, an omnipotent being would have an infinite number of alternatives to take away our sin that would be just and would not require him sending his own son on a kamikaze mission.

The wages of sin are death

Sin is rebellion against God

All those who rebel against God go to hell

Thus all those who sin go to hell

Since sin leads to death, all those who die go to hell

That would be the system if God did nothing to interviene. God did it this way because he had to. He wouldnt have done something so horrific and nasty if he didnt have to. And again you ignore my other question. Could God do X omnipotent task without himself being omnipotent? No. Does that make him weeker or not omnipotent. No, it just means we cannot understand his nature fully

I don't see why everyone says that it's a huge sacrifice for God to kill his only son. He just created him like he does any human being. He could have a million Jesuses down here in the blink of an eye all ready to die (whenther violently or from old age). What diffreence could one individual possibly make? In fact I don't see how God can consider anything good or bad, sad or happy, when he can do anything at any time, crush and create anything without a thought. How could you love something that could never even understand you that you can have as many as you want of at any time.

Because God is an ASSHOLE. If you've studied religion you'd find that a lot of Jews actually take a day to curse god. Cursing god doesn't mean anything.

God doesn't require your love, he only requires your obidience.

Excuse me sir, but in all my years of studying sin I have never heard such an erroneous definition!
Everybody knows sin is the opposite over the hypotenuse! :D

You win the thread.

This kind of issue is increadably complex. I can offer some websites to help you but my own explanation would be that this sort of thing comes about because of sin. Sin entering the world and breaking it down becoming horrible things like this.

Don't try and blame humans for things like that. If there is an all powerful God then it's entirely his working.

Infants who have no knowledge or capablity to understand will go to heaven.


WOOOOAHH??

If Hitler was killed when he was a 2 month old baby he would be in heaven then?

I think using that logic it should be okay to go to a hospital (peacfully) killing every baby. Since they would spend an eternity in heaven right and heck odds are most would have ended up in hell so you just saved them an awful fate right?...er...

Because God is an ASSHOLE. If you've studied religion you'd find that a lot of Jews actually take a day to curse god. Cursing god doesn't mean anything.
God doesn't require your love, he only requires your obidience.


Jews don't have it much better then. How could they possibly revere a God who's ambivalent at best? Why bother loving God if he doesn't love you back? Why even agree to live if you're just supposed to be an obediant plaything for an arbitrary God?

Um, why do you keep bringing up Heaven? I hope this baby falls under modern religion, because ancient Jews DIDN'T BELIEVE IN AN AFTERLIFE.

Check the Old Testement, you'll find they did

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/otheaven.htm

How will these infants know that they are in heaven???

:D

The same way an old person whos mind has deteriated or a retard could. If you die with your mind being in heaven (at the age you die) living to old age would be bad I would guess.

WOOOOAHH??

If Hitler was killed when he was a 2 month old baby he would be in heaven then?

I think using that logic it should be okay to go to a hospital (peacfully) killing every baby. Since they would spend an eternity in heaven right and heck odds are most would have ended up in hell so you just saved them an awful fate right?...er...

I asked a girl during a Intelligent design debate if she'd like to get in a fatal wreck on the way home from school so she could be in heaven with God and she said "Absolutely!" with this big smile. *shiver*

Don't try and blame humans for things like that. If there is an all powerful God then it's entirely his working.

Where is your backing for that arguement?

Mine for my arguement is in the Bible. Right after the fall several things happened to the Earth

- We needed agricultiure for our food, it wasnt just given to us, and it wouldnt always work

- Childbirth pains came about for women

- Death entered the world. Humans were no longer immortal

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=774

The same way an old person whos mind has deteriated or a retard could. If you die with your mind being in heaven (at the age you die) living to old age would be bad I would guess.

Yes, but someone whose awareness and understanding had detoriorated as a result of illness or old age still had a developed personality and the abilty to perceive at some point. If heaven exists, how would one experience it?

I asked a girl during a Intelligent design debate if she'd like to get in a fatal wreck on the way home from school so she could be in heaven with God and she said "Absolutely!" with this big smile. *shiver*

Yeah, and they want to push their religious beliefs on me! Sorry guys, I'm neutral on the whole thing. That is scary that she said that though...

Thankfully, they were pwn3d in Pennsylvania. I'm hoping they'll all go away eventually.

Infants who have no knowledge or capablity to understand will go to heaven.


In fact, why don't I murder all babies in the world right now? Sure /I'll/ go to Hell, but from now on there will be no humans to be tempted on earth and all souls will stay in heaven!!

It's just like getting 72 black eyed virgins for commmitting Jihad, this dogma is sick and twisted and doesn't line up at all with reality.

- Death entered the world. Humans were no longer immortal


I have no problem with that. I think the initial point was that God created science and everything about our bodys. And some babys are born completly abnormal unable to live a full life (through no fault of the parents or because they may have sinned) surely there was no need for this.

WOOOOAHH??

If Hitler was killed when he was a 2 month old baby he would be in heaven then?

I think using that logic it should be okay to go to a hospital (peacfully) killing every baby. Since they would spend an eternity in heaven right and heck odds are most would have ended up in hell so you just saved them an awful fate right?...er...

No

The reason being is that God told us not to murder. Murder is a sin. The only legitamate reason anyone has to kill is God and that is for sin because the wages of sin are death. All have sin, passed down from Adam and in the same way, all can be rid of sin as saved through Christ. We are not told not to sin just because sins have obserably neagative consequences. We are also told they are sins for other reasons

The wages of sin are death

Sin is rebellion against God

All those who rebel against God go to hell

Thus all those who sin go to hell

Since sin leads to death, all those who die go to hell

That would be the system if God did nothing to interviene. God did it this way because he had to. He wouldnt have done something so horrific and nasty if he didnt have to. And again you ignore my other question. Could God do X omnipotent task without himself being omnipotent? No. Does that make him weeker or not omnipotent. No, it just means we cannot understand his nature fully

Maybe we have different definitions of omnipotence. My idea would not limit God to only having one alternative.

No

The reason being is that God told us not to murder. Murder is a sin. The only legitamate reason anyone has to kill is God and that is for sin because the wages of sin are death. All have sin, passed down from Adam and in the same way, all can be rid of sin as saved through Christ. We are not told not to sin just because sins have obserably neagative consequences. We are also told they are sins for other reasons

Yes but as the post above your says. I could murder 1000 babys and go to hell but I would save a good 200 of so from hell easily. And would one soul going to hell to save 200 not be a great sacrifice/gift?

Where is your backing for that arguement?

Mine for my arguement is in the Bible. Right after the fall several things happened to the Earth

- We needed agricultiure for our food, it wasnt just given to us, and it wouldnt always work

- Childbirth pains came about for women

- Death entered the world. Humans were no longer immortal

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=774

Women get childbirth pains because of sin?! How dingus-ly archaic can you get. So you're saying because skirts are too short we have earthquakes and becasue people are having sex out of wedlock we have retarted babies?? Someone needs a reality check, either you or God I can't decide.

Someone needs a reality check, either you or God I can't decide.

Well, I've spoken to God and that dude has a massive ego, so it couldn't hurt.

Yes but as the post above your says. I could murder 1000 babys and go to hell but I would save a good 200 of so from hell easily. And would one soul going to hell to save 200 not be a great sacrifice/gift?

A but according to doctrine you wouldn't even have to go to hell as long as you went to church and repented for your sins. Everybody wins!

Yes but as the post above your says. I could murder 1000 babys and go to hell but I would save a good 200 of so from hell easily. And would one soul going to hell to save 200 not be a great sacrifice/gift?

Is it just me or are my posts all being ignored? You can rest in peace man, bible says FROM DUST YOU ARE TO DUST YOU WILL RETURN.

No soul, no heaven to go to, bam. Pwn3d everyone in one shot. :sniper:

I have no problem with that. I think the initial point was that God created science and everything about our bodys. And some babys are born completly abnormal unable to live a full life (through no fault of the parents or because they may have sinned) surely there was no need for this.

What is a normal life? Does such a thing exist?

The Bible doesnt have anything to say about it. No one has any right to live a specific ammount of time in God's eyes. The idea of a normal life is just a function of statistics.

Am I saying its therefore good that these children have short lives? Of course not. But what I am saying is the fact that they dont have long lives is nothing against God

This is an extract from a web site that examines this

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html][/url]
So, let's look at the issue of "failed expectation" (the child died "before his prime" or before she got to "even experience the joys of life").


First, let's size this problem. What % of the world's population dies 'abnormal' deaths?

Well, obviously we immediately are confronted with the problem of what do we mean by 'abnormal' or 'unexpected'. For this sizing step, let's oversimplify and ask a more general question--"What % of deaths occur by natural disaster?" This question appears surpisingly small--the percentage is less than 1-2%--hardly a significant mass of 'evil.'


(Remember, this is a theoretical document--I have experienced loss first-hand and am no detached stranger to this awesome pain. There is no 'sizing argument' that can bridge the gap between 'acceptable casualties' and the death of a young soldier.)


But how far can we expand the abnormal causes of death before we cross over into the 'normal' causes of death? What constitutes a 'normal' cause of death? Heart failure? Car accident? Drowning? The situation is just not that clear, and even if I take the most plausible of the top ten causes of death and add them together, I still am still below 10%. So, in spite of how disturbing these are, we must conclude that they are extrema and not anywhere near a norm of our experience.



The next question I have about this issue is: who promised us otherwise?!

I cannot recall any contract I have seen that said that God was obligated to protect anyone from death before some 'standard' life expectancy. Granted that the goodness of God would imply certain types of His behavior--for example, that He would not create a race of sentient beings and torture them all without relief for some malicious and deviant reason. But the limits to these implications could not plausibly extended to some 'guaranteed' life-span and pain-quota! We don't have any reason to expect that everyone will live forever (or even long at all). There are no guarantees that I know of, and this objection equates God's goodness with guaranteeing a fixed lifespan--a rather restrictive and indefensible position, I might add.



But even this point raises another issue--What is the nature of this 'expected life span'?

Why do we say that some people lived a 'long life' or lived to a 'ripe old age'? And why do we say some die 'prematurely' or 'in the prime of life' or 'before his time'?


It seems to me that we are in a statistical realm on this one. In other words, if the world's average life expectancy is 60, then 65 is a 'long life' and 50 is 'before his time'. But, if conditions in the world change, and the 'average' drops to 40, then 50 is great and 30 is 'short'. The implication of this 'averaging' should be clear--just as many people die BEFORE the average as die AFTER the average! If dying before the average is 'abnormal', then so is "after". But I don't see a lot of folk complaining that living longer than some average ("undeservedly"!) is proof against a good God(!)...


Failed expectations--although seemingly intuitive--sorta disappear into a 'floating' standard, and cannot seem to find its mark as an objection.



Now, the causes-of-death discussion above suggests another interesting approach to this. If we don't consider 'heart failure' to be an 'abnormal' thing--given our known imperfections--why would we exempt other aspects of physical reality from similar 'weaknesses'? In other words, if we can have fits of rage or misjudgment (and hurt the feelings/persons of others), why would we not 'allow' nature to have the same fragmented character--with simply larger scales? [Note that just as OUR flaws in this arena are sub-majority, so too is nature's. The number of deaths due to earthquakes and natural disasters are minuscule compared to diseases (over which we have some control).

Correspondingly, it is probably unrealistic to expect physical reality to be 'better than us'. So, any standard that says its 'okay' with us, but 'not okay' for other aspects of physicality is simply arbitrary and possibly self-serving



It should be pointed out that the standard answer to the 'natural evil' question is that it is a consequence of the absolutely essential requirement of predictability in the universe. The very factors that generate these natural disasters (e.g. plate tectonics, erosion, friction, thermal transfer) are essential to our existence, and if a god suspended these factors (seemingly randomly to us--I might add) to protect us (a not altogether intelligible concept as far as I can tell), the generalizations that we know as 'natural law' would not be possible. And, consequently, most of life as we know it would still be 'superstitious' in the most bizarre sense.

Imagine the random suspension of gravity when a child fell off a cliff. Or the suspension of the impenetrability of matter when an elderly person is hit by a car. Or the non-combustion of cotton fabrics (e.g. clothing) or gasoline when exposed to fire. There is a strong possibility that such a world is not even visualizable nor conceivable.


But, one might well object, it is not the suspension of physics that we are asking of God; only that he would keep the child away from the cliff. But this objection fares no better, for not only does it place an extremely arbitrary constraint upon our freedom (imagine unexplainable age-sensitive 'force fields' around mountains, lakes, campfires, stoves), but it also creates an inconceivable world.


Consider: we would have God create a world without dangerous inclines (ergo: no hills, mountains, caves, waterfalls, hmmm-He would have to stop us from building multi-story buildings, digging basements, making stairs or even step-stools), without drowning substances (ergo: no oceans, lakes, ponds, pools--hmmm, not even liquids that would cohere--since people drown on glasses of water), without burning processes (ergo: no fires, lightning, sunlight(?), hmmm--He would have to stop us from producing stoves or heaters or building fire or chemical acidic substances). One can quickly see how impossible (not to mention, "undesirable"!) is this demand.


But this world of beauty and diversity is ours--for good or ill. If we decide to live close to the cliffs, we bear some responsibility for such accidents. If we choose to live in 'earthquake' country, how could we complain? If we live within spewing distance of active volcanoes, why do we assume no responsibility? If we live on the ocean front, why are we surprised by hurricanes (purely natural processes!)?


But again, one might object that God could at least 'organize' the situation to minimize such situations. And my response is simple: He probably DID. If the objector allows 'exceptions' to occur, then he or she has the challenge of defending some "this many exceptions is 'fair', but that many is incompatible with a good God". I cannot imagine how one would substantiate such an argument! But the good God that I know, does place SOME boundaries on these events (hence their relative rarity), and in many documentable cases, produced extraordinary good from such events. [The stories of heroism, altruism, bravery, nobility, compassion, and character development that occur at almost EVERY such event or such misfortune are well-known.]


Although I often wonder about these individual events as they occur, I am aware that forces much larger than I are at work, and that issues much more difficult for my puny mind to master (e.g. moral governance of a universe with BOTH relatively free intelligent agents in it, AND moral directives to maintain (e.g. justice, mercy, protection), AND physical 'laws' to maintain (e.g. plate tectonics, combustion, biological processes)) are at play. I am thankful (as are most of the people who know me!) that I AM NOT GOD!


I think my response here shows that 'objection' cannot be maintained since it is inconceivable (and, I might add, a much worse condition!).

A but according to doctrine you wouldn't even have to go to hell as long as you went to church and repented for your sins. Everybody wins!

I feel a chainsaw massacre story coming on...

Well, I've spoken to God and that dude has a massive ego, so it couldn't hurt.

I didn't hear from this almighty God, but I did read his response to Job in Job.

Damn.

Maybe we have different definitions of omnipotence. My idea would not limit God to only having one alternative.

Well christians say God is perfect. And it would seem could only have one alternative (to act in the perfect way). So God has more than one alternative and is not perfect/the christian god?

Is it just me or are my posts all being ignored? You can rest in peace man, bible says FROM DUST YOU ARE TO DUST YOU WILL RETURN.

No soul, no heaven to go to, bam. Pwn3d everyone in one shot. :sniper:

Nice taking it out of context, given everything else in the Bible disagrees with you

The dust comment refers to your body.

Thus our sin is paid for. All we have to do is accept it


Rather empty message though. All you have to do is believe and it doesn't matter what else you did in your life. Great. What's the point? All it equates to is a security blanket against the bleak inevitability of death.

What is a normal life? Does such a thing exist?


Sorry to clarify. A life in the image of God right? Free will/rationality.

Well christians say God is perfect. And it would seem could only have one alternative (to act in the perfect way). So God has more than one alternative and is not perfect/the christian god?

If you read my post a few pages back dude, you'd find that God actually started off as being "imperfect", at least compared to the modern version.

Is it just me or are my posts all being ignored? You can rest in peace man, bible says FROM DUST YOU ARE TO DUST YOU WILL RETURN.

No soul, no heaven to go to, bam. Pwn3d everyone in one shot. :sniper:

oops I think attacking Christianity is more interesting + they beleive in heaven. How can I have a debate with someone I agree with.

I feel a chainsaw massacre story coming on...


And this is why Religion is screwed up. Sure a little cognitive dissonance is fine now and then as long as it makes you feel good and doesn't hurt anybody, but when you get so disconnected from reality that you can justify mass murder (our hospital example or 9/11 if you want to get specific) then you've created something sinister that's doing more harm than good.

Nice taking it out of context, given everything else in the Bible disagrees with you

The dust comment refers to your body.

Uh oh, you're applying your own beliefs. Take a Western Cultural History course ass, the ancient Jews didn't believe in the afterlife. The first culture to develop the concept of an afterlife was the Egyptians. Jews picked up the ideas later, and people like you that didn't do their research reinforced it hundreds of years later.

The Old Testament also says "The dead are conscious of nothing". Oops.

In fact, why don't I murder all babies in the world right now? Sure /I'll/ go to Hell, but from now on there will be no humans to be tempted on earth and all souls will stay in heaven!!

It's just like getting 72 black eyed virgins for commmitting Jihad, this dogma is sick and twisted and doesn't line up at all with reality.

No. You shouldn't kill babies because it is a sin

The only legitamate reason to kill a human a sentient entity has is God for sin. The wages of sin are death. All have sinned. Sin is rebellion against God. Therefore God is the only one who can pass judgement on when we die. Yes those children will go to heaven, but that doesnt help you. God is not keeping score. Sin is sin, done for a good purpose or otherwise. If you think you are doing sin for a good purpose you are deeply flawed. If you think you need to sin for a good purpose then chances are the good purpose you are thinking of is even more sinful in itself or your not trusting God enough. You dont need to sin for a good cause to be advancd. God will advance those causes he wishes to.

oops I think attacking Christianity is more interesting + they beleive in heaven. How can I have a debate with someone I agree with.

Haha, the feeling is mutual. The Old Testament says that there is no soul, and yet the Christians keep trying to draw a line to the afterlife. Not surprisingly enough not all Christians even believe in the afterlife :O

Uh oh, you're applying your own beliefs. Take a Western Cultural History course ass, the ancient Jews didn't believe in the afterlife. The first culture to develop the concept of an afterlife was the Egyptians. Jews picked up the ideas later, and people like you that didn't do their research reinforced it hundreds of years later.

The Old Testament also says "The dead are conscious of nothing". Oops.

Have you checked the website I gave you? The Jews believed (and the Bible says) that those who died before Jesus went to what was then called Sheol and what is later called Hades. So no wonder they werent consious. See here

http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-believers.html

aaah. good old religious debate.

benefits of religion:
1. belief in afterlife = not coming to a foreseen end, but having eternal life (convenient?)
2. being forgiven for all the wrongs you've done in your life. Whats right and wrong? this is a product of society, so why should we ask god for forgiveness when he didnt make the guidelines for whats right and wrong? (hell if i kill someone and im sorry... i feel better :) )
3. somebody out there likes me... he's big, he's all seeing... he is .... santa claus ! err... i mean god. yup, for all those low lifes with no friends, there's comfort in one being liking you...


bad things about religion:
1. spending your time going to church or reading the bible (or some other holy book)
2. having to tick some other box on a census form etc.


im no doctor... but i think religion might just be a nice and convenient way for me to feel better about myself and not fear the impending ceasing in existence thats coming my way.



but you decide.

No. You shouldn't kill babies because it is a sin

The only legitamate reason to kill a human a sentient entity has is God for sin. The wages of sin are death. All have sinned. Sin is rebellion against God. Therefore God is the only one who can pass judgement on when we die. Yes those children will go to heaven, but that doesnt help you. God is not keeping score. Sin is sin, done for a good purpose or otherwise. If you think you are doing sin for a good purpose you are deeply flawed. If you think you need to sin for a good purpose then chances are the good purpose you are thinking of is even more sinful in itself or your not trusting God enough. You dont need to sin for a good cause to be advancd. God will advance those causes he wishes to.


Everybody read this guys post several times and bask in the poor logic. So what if your sinning, I'm saying that you could commit the sin of murder, save countless babies from hell and then confess and repent on the electric chair with no ill effects (according to Christinaity) As long as you "felt" sorry about it afterward you can get off scot free. You see how ridiculous that is?

Yes those children will go to heaven, but that doesnt help you. .

How selfish of you, not thinking of others. Plus hey if its your own son you'll love him more than yourself right.

Rather empty message though. All you have to do is believe and it doesn't matter what else you did in your life. Great. What's the point? All it equates to is a security blanket against the bleak inevitability of death.

See my original post. If you accept it then there are logical consequences

If you accept that you've sinned and regret it (which is the first step in becoming a Christian) then the logical thing to do is to attempt to stop sinning. After all why accept you've sinned if you dont do anything about it. Its like knowing you have a huge and highly embasing paint stain on a very expensive suit but not washing it off.

The whole freewill thing makes absolutely no sense though. God knew Satan would rebel against him and cause all that trouble before he even created him (he had to, he's all knowing) So if he knew he would turn to evil why create him and set him up as his highest angel. Similarly, why would God provide us with both the ability to be tempted and the temptation to do it if he knew before hand that we would turn to evil just so he could punish us for it later.

Because God is a novelist. He wrote the story of the universe, and he was bored reading it and rereading it, so he made a live action movie about it.

Because God is a novelist. He wrote the story of the universe, and he was bored reading it and rereading it, so he made a live action movie about it.

So you take the view that God knows if I'll end up in heaven or not before I'm born?

aaah. good old religious debate.

benefits of religion:
1. belief in afterlife = not coming to a foreseen end, but having eternal life (convenient?)
2. being forgiven for all the wrongs you've done in your life. Whats right and wrong? this is a product of society, so why should we ask god for forgiveness when he didnt make the guidelines for whats right and wrong? (hell if i kill someone and im sorry... i feel better :) )
3. somebody out there likes me... he's big, he's all seeing... he is .... santa claus ! err... i mean god. yup, for all those low lifes with no friends, there's comfort in one being liking you...


bad things about religion:
1. spending your time going to church or reading the bible (or some other holy book)
2. having to tick some other box on a census form etc.


im no doctor... but i think religion might just be a nice and convenient way for me to feel better about myself and not fear the impending ceasing in existence thats coming my way.



but you decide.


Sounds a bit like good old Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager) to me. Too bad it's been refuted to death already.

See my original post. If you accept it then there are logical consequences

If you accept that you've sinned and regret it (which is the first step in becoming a Christian) then the logical thing to do is to attempt to stop sinning. After all why accept you've sinned if you dont do anything about it. Its like knowing you have a huge and highly embasing paint stain on a very expensive suit but not washing it off.

To the doctrinal liberal Christian, yes, you are correct. To the Calvinist, like myself, you are not.

However, as to not pollute this thread, I won't try and refute you. It seems the athiests are doing a nice job at that.

Everybody read this guys post several times and bask in the poor logic. So what if your sinning, I'm saying that you could commit the sin of murder, save countless babies from hell and then confess and repent on the electric chair with no ill effects (according to Christinaity) As long as you "felt" sorry about it afterward you can get off scot free. You see how ridiculous that is?

The fact that you can be forgiven of your sins does not make them not sins. Also I suspect that if you believe that you are saving children by killing them then you are not being genuinely repentent. If you are a Christian then you try not to sin. Killing loads of children is not trying not to sin.

Have you checked the website I gave you? The Jews believed (and the Bible says) that those who died before Jesus went to what was then called Sheol and what is later called Hades. So no wonder they werent consious. See here

http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-believers.html

Sheol was a common grave, often attributed to a massive pile of trash that is found outside the city walls. Check and mate, I study religion in college.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.

Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.

Psalm 146:4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish.

aaah. good old religious debate.

benefits of religion:
1. belief in afterlife = not coming to a foreseen end, but having eternal life (convenient?)
2. being forgiven for all the wrongs you've done in your life. Whats right and wrong? this is a product of society, so why should we ask god for forgiveness when he didnt make the guidelines for whats right and wrong? (hell if i kill someone and im sorry... i feel better :) )
3. somebody out there likes me... he's big, he's all seeing... he is .... santa claus ! err... i mean god. yup, for all those low lifes with no friends, there's comfort in one being liking you...


bad things about religion:
1. spending your time going to church or reading the bible (or some other holy book)
2. having to tick some other box on a census form etc.


im no doctor... but i think religion might just be a nice and convenient way for me to feel better about myself and not fear the impending ceasing in existence thats coming my way.



but you decide.




Bad things about religion continued:

1. Even if you and your kids are getting a set of morals to follow they're morals from 2000 years ago that don't apply in many situations.

2. You justify all kinds of crazy junk with religion that actually makes no rational sense

3. You waste a bunch of gas driving to the most current puddle of water that looks like the virgin mary.

4. You might be really unlucky and be born to a Christian Science family during flu season.

5. A hunk of your cash every week goes to replacing the brass candle sticks with gold ones cuz god seriously cares.

Good things:

1. The singing is nice.

The fact that you can be forgiven of your sins does not make them not sins. Also I suspect that if you believe that you are saving children by killing them then you are not being genuinely repentent. If you are a Christian then you try not to sin. Killing loads of children is not trying not to sin.

Again, is the sacrifice of yourself not worth getting your kids and 100's of babies a guarenteed spot in heaven?

Good things:

1. The singing is nice.

Yay I can finally disagree with you about something.

Women get childbirth pains because of sin?! How dingus-ly archaic can you get. So you're saying because skirts are too short we have earthquakes and becasue people are having sex out of wedlock we have retarted babies?? Someone needs a reality check, either you or God I can't decide.

No.

Sin cannot be shown to directly cause it in the kind of scientific way that you suggest. But the fact is that sin made the world imperfect when it was perfect. Its like taking a wall that is perfectly clean and pristine and then hammering a massive great nail into it. Look at what happens. Cracks, fractures. These grow in size beyond the original incision. Thats what sin is like

No.

Sin cannot be shown to directly cause it in the kind of scientific way that you suggest. But the fact is that sin made the world imperfect when it was perfect. Its like taking a wall that is perfectly clean and pristine and then hammering a massive great nail into it. Look at what happens. Cracks, fractures. These grow in size beyond the original incision. Thats what sin is like

Last time I checked earthquakes and tsunamis were caused by plate tectonics and hurricanes and tornades were created by standard weather systems...

NOT SIN.

Sheol was a common grave, often attributed to a massive pile of trash that is found outside the city walls. Check and mate, I study religion in college.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun..

Note the words UNDER THE SUN. The whole theme of Ecclesiates is that life without God (IE what is above/beyond the sun) is meaningless.


Ezekiel 18:4 Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die

You not heard the phrase "The second death" see revelation


Psalm 146:4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish.

Going to Hades. No contridiction. In Hades souls lie dormant, waiting. The faithful ones were risen with Jesus into heaven

No.

Sin cannot be shown to directly cause it in the kind of scientific way that you suggest. But the fact is that sin made the world imperfect when it was perfect. Its like taking a wall that is perfectly clean and pristine and then hammering a massive great nail into it. Look at what happens. Cracks, fractures. These grow in size beyond the original incision. Thats what sin is like

Hey you give humans far to much credit. Please can with scrap the literal interpritation I think we're past that.

The earth existed before the first human, so did earthquakes and all that stuff. The fact our bodys are suseptable to viruses like H.I.V and people can be born completly retarded is nothing to do with anything humans have done.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that those who believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16

Adriatitca, please explain the logic of this.

Mankind are sinners according to God, so God must punish his son/himself?

Makes no sense at all.

Here is a simple enough explination. The wage of sin is death. Yes i know that that to is a clicheded verse. and since the sin was against god what could pay that wage. Now as no man is free from sin no man can pay for another mans sinnes since he is already condemed to his own death. And angels are themselfes not infinite enough to pay the wage for all men. and since men made the sin a man must pay the debt. Only god is vast enough and infinite enough to cover all men but he himself was not man. So he had to be incarnated as man and take our form. he then took this forigen form of man up into heaven through his reserection and assention and made it viable for man to reconect with god.

No.

Sin cannot be shown to directly cause it in the kind of scientific way that you suggest. But the fact is that sin made the world imperfect when it was perfect. Its like taking a wall that is perfectly clean and pristine and then hammering a massive great nail into it. Look at what happens. Cracks, fractures. These grow in size beyond the original incision. Thats what sin is like


Well if our freewill can completely change the nature of the universe and despite God's efforts he's unable to do a thing about it (hw would obviously choose good over evil right?), then it's clear that God isn't all powerful. Either God isn't all powerful or hurricane Katrina, dead kittens, and retarted babies are all his fault. Your pick.

Last time I checked earthquakes and tsunamis were caused by plate tectonics and hurricanes and tornades were created by standard weather systems...

NOT SIN.

What did I say

I recall saying that sin cannot be shown to be the cause of these events in the scientific fashion. My point is that Sin made the world imperfect. When it was perfect these things didnt happen. Now it isnt perfect they do.

Note the words UNDER THE SUN. The whole theme of Ecclesiates is that life without God (IE what is above/beyond the sun) is meaningless.



You not heard the phrase "The second death" see revelation



Going to Hades. No contridiction. In Hades souls lie dormant, waiting. The faithful ones were risen with Jesus into heaven

LMFAO! I knew you'd reference Revelation! I hope you realize it was all focused on the fall of the Romans, nothing else! I knew you'd eventually go for that eventually! Also, don't try to connect two books of the bible when they're hundreds of years apart and in two different cultures.

What did I say

I recall saying that sin cannot be shown to be the cause of these events in the scientific fashion. My point is that Sin made the world imperfect. When it was perfect these things didnt happen. Now it isnt perfect they do.

If you can't prove it then what kind of logos does your words have? NONE.

You have no proof for anything, and I read what you said, don't think I'm being ignorant. I'm making you dig your own grave.

Well if our freewill can completely change the nature of the universe and despite God's efforts he's unable to do a thing about it (hw would obviously choose good over evil right?), then it's clear that God isn't all powerful. Either God isn't all powerful or hurricane Katrina, dead kittens, and retarted babies are all his fault. Your pick.

Logicall falacy. You are presenting only two choices when in fact there are more

God is all powerful, but he wishes us to have free will. For us to have free will gives us the ability to sin. Sin causes the world to be imperfect so these things happen. However that isnt to say that God is indiffrent to these things happening. God is in complete control of the world and most lilkly prevents disasters happening on a daily basis. Why he lets the ones happen that he does, I dont know. But we must remember that the world is imperfect since sin entered it. That is why these things happen

If you can't prove it then what kind of logos does your words have? NONE.

You have no proof for anything, and I read what you said, don't think I'm being ignorant. I'm making you dig your own grave.

This thread wasnt about proving the Bible true. It is about discussing what the Bible says.

This thread wasnt about proving the Bible true. It is about discussing what the Bible says.

The bible says a whole bunch of things, and you're quick to misinterpret them.

I put a post on one of the earlier pages, a really lenghty one. Read it, I'll wait for your rebuttal.

LMFAO! I knew you'd reference Revelation! I hope you realize it was all focused on the fall of the Romans, nothing else! I knew you'd eventually go for that eventually! Also, don't try to connect two books of the bible when they're hundreds of years apart and in two different cultures.

1. Revelation cant be based on the fall of the Romans. I do not see a transparant gold lined city in Jerusuluem do you?

2. The books are logically connected since the same God inspired them both

If you can't prove it then what kind of logos does your words have? NONE.

You have no proof for anything, and I read what you said, don't think I'm being ignorant. I'm making you dig your own grave.


It's funny because religious people have absolutely no proof at all to back up any of their arguments and yet they ask everyone else to try and prove what they're saying.

People who tromp around in the Himilayas looking for the ark make me laugh.

LMFAO! I knew you'd reference Revelation! I hope you realize it was all focused on the fall of the Romans, nothing else!

WTF? No, not at all. It's an impossibility.

Well, actually, if you take my stance, you're partially right. kinda sorta not really.

So you take the view that God knows if I'll end up in heaven or not before I'm born?

Correct.

2. The books are logically connected since the same God inspired them both

The same god that made the quran as well or was that a different one, :rolleyes:

People who tromp around in the Himilayas looking for the ark make me laugh.

Indianna Jones?

Logicall falacy. You are presenting only two choices when in fact there are more

God is all powerful, but he wishes us to have free will. For us to have free will gives us the ability to sin. Sin causes the world to be imperfect so these things happen. However that isnt to say that God is indiffrent to these things happening. God is in complete control of the world and most lilkly prevents disasters happening on a daily basis. Why he lets the ones happen that he does, I dont know. But we must remember that the world is imperfect since sin entered it. That is why these things happen

Well /your/ logical mistep was "Sin causes the world to be imperfect so these things happen." The old "I'm right......becasue" argument. Aside from relying on vague metaphors do you have any reasoning, any "logic" that shows how sins are magically converted into genetic dysfunction or the shifting of techtonic plates. No, I didn't think so. If God is omnipotent then it's his fault that bad things happen. There's no way around it.

1. Revelation cant be based on the fall of the Romans. I do not see a transparant gold lined city in Jerusuluem do you?

2. The books are logically connected since the same God inspired them both

1. Logical fallacy on your part. I'm surprised you come here talking about the symbolisms of all the books and making a bunch of conclusions based on half truths... yet when I say Revelations was talking about the Roman empire you suddenly take it literally?

What is wrong with you? :rolleyes: Seriously now, you're all about symbolisms and suddenly you deny it when it suits you. Yeah, you're REAL smooth.

2. If I remember correctly, the Tower of Babel story was taken directly out of Babylonian literature. Inspired by MAN, not "God." I'm surprised you would claim that "borrowed/stolen" culture is suddenly inspired by God.

"Oh, my writers upon the surface of the earth, go forth to the land of Babylon and steal the tales of their culture, for they are very cool and would be righteous."

5
4
3
2
1
...

The same god that made the quran as well or was that a different one, :rolleyes:

God did not make the quran that was lusifer IE satan that took the bible preverted it and lied to muhamed and convincied him to start writing it.

Piekrom']God did not make the quran that was lusifer IE satan that took the bible preverted it and lied to muhamed and convincied him to start writing it.

Ahahahah!

Wow, things have reeeeally gone downhill.

This thread is really fundamentally flawed to be honest.

Firstly, to the author, you really need to take a humanities class, particularly Western Cultural History. Take that class and you'll see your whole argument crumbles. The bible isn't one smooth transition from book to book.

The authors and ideas are completely mis-matched from book to book and there is -no- single theme throughout the entire thing. Keep in mind that the current "accepted" books of the bible were chosen by by a show of hands. It wasn't divine grace or whatever you so wish to call it.

How do you know that God did not control or influence what people voted for? You cannot prove that it was a show of hands only. You cannot take God out of the equation

I mean, the bible authors can't even agree on exactly what Satan is. I hope you realize that the "snake" in Genesis and the Adam and Eve were just a story. It wasn't literal and the figures were borrowed from Canaanite myth, just reversed. The "snake" isn't Satan, Satan didn't come around until the Babylonians captured the Jews.

So the Cannanites had the same story as the Jews. That suggests support for it, not doubt. If two independent witnesses see the same (or a very simmilar) thing, it suggests its more truthful


Not only that, Satan means "He who speaks against", not "rebel". Essentially, when the Babylonians were stomping the Jews around the covenants in Deuteronomy were being broken, that is, if you follow my laws you'll pwn the other nations. Didn't happen.

I'm not sure where you are refering to but in Deutornomy there are plenty of times when Israel does not follow the commands.


What the book of Job did was put an angel in the whole mythology that spoke against god in the sense that the rest of the angels were "yes-men". Satan was also part of the whole angelic posse. So he gave permission for Satan to punk Job around. Job didn't break at first, and here we find that God got pissy at Satan.

Job 2:3

"Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause."

This so called "LOVING" god punked Job around FOR NOTHING and said it straight up. Loving? Hardly! I hope you really read the rest of Job. The whole point wasn't to test his faith. If you've done your history research you'd find that "Faith" is a Roman concept, not Jewish. So Job curses God here:.

"Faith is the substance for things hoped for. The evidence of what is not seen"

Hebrews 11:1

Faith may have been recorded concept only in Roman times, but the concept of faith has always existed. Abrabham had faith when he took Issac up to the alter. Daniel had faith when he was thrown into the den of lions. Faith is a concept linked to no one. Its like love. As for why God poked at Job, it was a test


Job 3: 1-3

" 1: After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. 2: And Job said: 3: "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night which said, `A man-child is conceived.'"

"Hey! He didn't curse God directly!" Uh, yeah he did. You're using your MODERN sense of reality and are affixing it to this ancient idea. Guess what? Your life doesn't belong to you. Suicide wasn't looked well upon because it wasn't YOUR life to begin with, it was God's. Killing yourself is stealing from God.

He didnt curse God. He was angry about what had happened but he didnt blame God for it. That is what cursing God meant in this context


"Huh?" Think about it for a second as a Jewish sheep herder (which is connected to as why Cain was cursed by god.). You purchased a great amount of sheep. Suddenly, you come back the next day to find that some of your sheep killed themselves. Wouldn't you be pissed? YOU owned the sheep, you paid for them.

So Job gets pissed at God and God comes down and says THIShttp://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=38&division=div1

Basically, if you dont' feel like reading, God says I'm HUGE and you can't understand me. I'm a badass, so badass you can't comprehend it! So now you have a less tangible view on God, a god that Jews were losing faith in because of the broken promise.

God said that he was beyond Job's comprehention. Which is true. God is beyond our comprehention and so its wrong for us to presume that we know better than him


So what if there was a promise, right? Well, I've done a lot of studies on ancient gods and even some demonology, and in ancient times gods were bindable and you had to make deals with them. In fact, Abraham was looked well upon Yahweh because he knew his true name. If you know a god's name you can bind it to your will.

What Job did was say that God was so badass you couldn't bind him. He was free of any kind of "pact".

God made many promises to many people. All of them have come true so far as I can see. I'd like you to show me some specific examples of where they didnt.


Of course, everyone knows the book of John was written decades after the happenings written about by a guy that heard John talking about it.

Oops, sorry guys, I guess some of you didn't know the books of John were based on hearsay that was decades old. My bad.

This stuff isn't as simple as you think, and honestly I find it incredibly annoying how a lot of religions try to streamline the whole thing. You take all the mysticism out of it, all the REAL and DEEP stuff. It suddenly makes the Bible much more complex when you stop making assumptions about it.

'nuff said.

John may have been written later, but Mark and the other Gospels can be proven to having been written between AD 30-50.

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

Piekrom']God did not make the quran that was lusifer IE satan that took the bible preverted it and lied to muhamed and convincied him to start writing it.

Hey, jackass, guess what? Islam is getting more popular. It seems peoples preferences are starting to shift, God or not.

Besides, YOUR religion is a branching off of the Jews. You're as much a heathen as the Islamic religions.

1. Logical fallacy on your part. I'm surprised you come here talking about the symbolisms of all the books and making a bunch of conclusions based on half truths... yet when I say Revelations was talking about the Roman empire you suddenly take it literally?

What is wrong with you? :rolleyes: Seriously now, you're all about symbolisms and suddenly you deny it when it suits you. Yeah, you're REAL smooth.

I'd like you to show me where I took the bible to be a metaphor because so far I cant see it.


2. If I remember correctly, the Tower of Babel story was taken directly out of Babylonian literature. Inspired by MAN, not "God." I'm surprised you would claim that "borrowed/stolen" culture is suddenly inspired by God.

"Oh, my writers upon the surface of the earth, go forth to the land of Babylon and steal the tales of their culture, for they are very cool and would be righteous."

So two independtent eye witnesses see the same thing. What does that tell you?

Ahahahah!

Wow, things have reeeeally gone downhill.

:headbang:
They don't need evidence (other than a man written and edited book) while we need to counter and disprove something they haven't proven themselves yet,

it can never work :( I should go target some commies where I know I can win.

So two independtent[sic] eye witnesses see the same thing. What does that tell you?

It tells me they were smoking the same crop. :D

And how could Adam and Eve obey God's commands without knowledge of good and evil?

The commandment of eating the furit or not was not a moral based command. In the same way a mother telling a child not to eat a particular sweet is not a moral command. Obeying it or disobeying it has no moral implications as the action of itself has no consequences. What has consequences is disobeying the command of the authority figure in question. The command itself was irrelevent, what matters is that it was broken. God could have equally said "Dont bathe in X river" or "Dont walk into Y region of the garden" etc. The point is not the action, but the command. Its not the doing of the action that has consequneces (thus you do not need morals to listen to it) its breaking the command.

Hey, jackass, guess what? Islam is getting more popular. It seems peoples preferences are starting to shift, God or not.

Besides, YOUR religion is a branching off of the Jews. You're as much a heathen as the Islamic religions.

1. Insulting people will get you no where here

2. Actually the Bible shows us how Christianity is the logical progression of the Jewish faith. Its just that the Jews then didnt like the messiah they were presented with, despite him fufilling all the propheicies made about him

Actually the Bible shows us how Christianity is the logical progression of the Jewish faith. Its just that the Jews then didnt like the messiah they were presented with, despite him fufilling all the propheicies made about him

And I'm sure arguments can be made to show how Islam is the next logical progression from scholars of Islam.

1. Insulting people will get you no where here

2. Actually the Bible shows us how Christianity is the logical progression of the Jewish faith. Its just that the Jews then didnt like the messiah they were presented with, despite him fufilling all the propheicies made about him

wasn't the propheicie supposed to singlehandidly defeat the roman empire.

And I'm sure arguments can be made to show how Islam is the next logical progression from scholars of Islam.

Not really. Since Jesus fufilled all the prophieces and did everything that was needed to be done, that is why there are no more prohets after Jesus. Thats why in the Christian mind, Mohammad and Joseph Smith are on a par.

And also another unconnected point (which should really get another thread about it) Islam requires much more faith than does Christianity. Chiristianity bases its idea on over 50 authors writiting on the same subject for over a milliena. Its not just a 'religious text' either, the writing is not all of one style. Legal documents, archetectural schematics, poetry, philosphical expostulations, eye witness accounts. They all fit. Islam bases its idea on one man in a cave who claimed to have visions of God.

wasn't the propheicie supposed to singlehandidly defeat the roman empire.

No

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2649.htm

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/12MostCommon.html

Not really. Since Jesus fufilled all the prophieces and did everything that was needed to be done, that is why there are no more prohets after Jesus.

Why couldn't a Muslim argue the same about Mohammed?

[I realise my memory is a shit source, but] I once watched a documentary regarding the relationships between The Big Three and I'm sure I saw Muslim scholar claiming there are prophecies of Muhammed in the Bible.

And also another unconnected point (which should really get another thread about it) Islam requires much more faith than does Christianity. Chiristianity bases its idea on over 50 authors writiting on the same subject for over a milliena. Its not just a 'religious text' either, the writing is not all of one style. Legal documents, archetectural schematics, poetry, philosphical expostulations, eye witness accounts. They all fit. Islam bases its idea on one man in a cave who claimed to have visions of God.

Come on look at the time period. Someone says mabey the world isn't flat and hes put in prison, we have people write these books and everyone embraces it. I can't trust an eyewitness account from a lot of people today, no doubt I can't trust the people that were about 2000 years ago.
Atleast with Islam you accept it as the word of God or you don't believe it, I don't like how some christians dip between "don't take that bit of the bible as literal truth" then spout me a quote 2 min later.

One thing i would like to ask you jews is what exactly is it that you are expecting of the messia in comparison to all the prophisies i tried asking one once but he just left me giving me some excuse about having work he needs to do i have yet to get a straight answer about that.

No

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2649.htm

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/12MostCommon.html

My religious knowledge is fairly limited. But would I be right in that Jews are still waiting for "the real" prophicie to come.

Well /your/ logical mistep was "Sin causes the world to be imperfect so these things happen." The old "I'm right......becasue" argument. Aside from relying on vague metaphors do you have any reasoning, any "logic" that shows how sins are magically converted into genetic dysfunction or the shifting of techtonic plates. No, I didn't think so. If God is omnipotent then it's his fault that bad things happen. There's no way around it.

Wrong.

God is ominopient and he allowed us free will. Free will means that WE make choices. The responability is ours as humans.

As for being able to prove it is sin that causes the world to be like this, look at the world after the fall. Before I go into the biblical described problems, there are also some scientificly proven changes that happened to the world. Such as the oxygen content in the atmosphere decreasing to 20% as opposed to 40% and the atmospheric pressure doubbling. Not to mention the biblically described changes such as childbirth and the problem with plants.

Childbirth pains raises an interesting point. They dont make any sense. Pain only occurs when something is happening that isnt supposed to be in the body (IE the body is not working properly, something is wrong). For example if you bend your left arm so it touches your left sholder and then extend it out straight you (should) not feel any pain. If you do feel pain it means there is something wrong in your arm somewhere. So the fact that women expericance pain when they give birth is a mystry. Since birth is supposed to be a natural function, so shouldnt the brain shut off the pain receptors or something?

My religious knowledge is fairly limited. But would I be right in that Jews are still waiting for "the real" prophicie to come.

Yes, and the Bible shows how they are mistaken. He already has

Why couldn't a Muslim argue the same about Mohammed?

[I realise my memory is a shit source, but] I once watched a documentary regarding the relationships between The Big Three and I'm sure I saw Muslim scholar claiming there are prophecies of Muhammed in the Bible.

Well I would like to see them to confirm them. As of yet I havent seen a prophecie that isnt fufilled already outside of the apocolylipic.

Not really. Since Jesus fufilled all the prophieces and did everything that was needed to be done, that is why there are no more prohets after Jesus.

Umm, right. Then how come prophecy is still a gift from God? I think you're trying to say that, because Jesus did all the prophecies, we don't really need them anymore? (Correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but) In my church, there are prophecies made on a daily basis. Or at least weekly.

Okay, I'm confused, so I'll just shut up now before something bad happens to me. *shifteh eyes*

I still have not gotten a straight answer on what you jews are waiting for

Firstly, its not murder. Murder is a human killing another human. God has the right to kill anyone at any time.

I refuse to bow down and worship anybody or anything.

If there is a god, and this god believes it has the right to kill me, then this god must be stopped.

I say we kill this god before it kills us!

Who's with me?

I refuse to bow down and worship anybody or anything.

If there is a god, and this god believes it has the right to kill me, then this god must be stopped.

I say we kill this god before it kills us!

Who's with me?

While I mean not to poke at the fire, woulldn't you agree that it is absolutely foolish to attempt, for would you not have any hope to defeat a being that possesses omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence? Again, not trying to bark orders at you here, but stop and think about this; can a mere mortal defeat God? I would think that is a definite "no way".

Firstly, this rebelion is in the Bible.

See here: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lucifer.html

And secondly, the Bible isnt specific on what created the angels. I would imagine so but I dont know.

Seriously, I think the site's webmaster has some sort of mental issues...

He will deceive man in any way he can. Some are deceived by the New Age Movement, others are deceived by Humanists, Evolutionary lies, etc.

:rolleyes:

Rukaine, just because your posts are so damn interesting, I'll make an official 'thank you' sentence here. Which has just been written.

Anyway, Free Will. If God is omnipotent but tries to introduce a random element that he ultimately controls but he rather prefers to not know the answers except that, being omnipotent, he does, how is Free Will free?

Just pointing out logical fallacies, mate.

Just would also like to say that unfortunately logic doesn't play much in arguing about the Bible because God and the angels have their hand in everything, or so Christians would argue.

Personally, I wonder whether or not Lucifer had a hand in things, because it would just be the ultimate irony; pretending to be God and playing up all the mortals. And God, being omnipotent, notices but really doesn't care.

Because if you're God, why spend all your time on one race, when there are trillions (or how many you created, since you're God) out there!

I'm just thinking, God might have introduced the whole general idea of Godly being to us mere humans, but after that we wrote on what we thought about it and then it probably became a muddle. That He knew about.

Then of course we get into the whole thing whether or not Christianity is the only 'true' religion because, hey-ho, we've been around a while and made lots of religions along the way.

Christianity has become so widespread thanks to its anti-Roman appeal (to imagine, that once Christianity was the faith espoused by the punks and the rebels. Irony!) and that the creed offered something that no one else had managed to spread fast enough: the idea of life after death! Accepting Rukaine's evidence, which I currently have no evidence to really deny, it was something pushed on by Paul and co. more than actual written evidence.

Furthermore, Christianity eventually took the Byzantine-Roman Empire and well, from there, missionaries and the like now had the whole political, military and propagandistic power of a centuries-long organisation behind them.

Christianity just was in the right place, right time. Prior to Christianity there were strong religions, but they didnt just have this placement. Switch around some dates and maybe we would be all revelling in Dionysius/Bacchus's festival, and offering animals to Zeus so that he please do not throw another lightning bolt this way. Or when devastation occurs, offerings to Shiva. Etc, etc.

Hell, did you know, if it hadnt been for the Renaissance, Europe would have been Muslim-ized? That's right, early Renaissance the Turkish had pushed far, far into Eastern Europe and were making their way towards West. The Crusades were only a temporary stopgap because the Crusaders got overconfident and fucked up royally.

Then the Renaissance occured and Italy especially got immense economic might that managed to bankrupt the completely militarised islamic states. Yea, the Islamic states were THE military might of the age, not including the Chinese because, let's face it, the Chinese could have fucked up anyone at that time since they held gunpowder before anyone else, and were wielding cannons while the English and French battled out with longbows and knights.

But back on topic.

Message in the Bible: overtly seems alright. Good solid backing, though of course since I am from a judeo-christian background of course I think its rather moral. Still, I can't think of a good reason NOT to follow 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' or 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Just that when you read on and you start discovering that God isn't as loving as the media portray him that you begin to wonder whether 'Love' is the foundation.

I'm babbling, anyway. Onward.

I refuse to bow down and worship anybody or anything.
If there is a god, and this god believes it has the right to kill me, then this god must be stopped.
I say we kill this god before it kills us!
Who's with me?
"God is dead. We have killed him, you and I" :D

...the Chinese could have fucked up anyone at that time since they held gunpowder before anyone else, and were wielding cannons while the English and French battled out with longbows and knights.

The Chinese had gunpowder, however they didn't develop advanced enough weapons using gunpowder to make it decisive.

The Chinese circa 1400 fought with swords and crossbows like the rest of the world, backed up with a number of rockets and fireworks.

God is loving but also just

The wages of sin are death. Thus if people sin they must die. Not only the physical death but the spiritual death in Hell. Hell was a place created for all those who rebelled against God (IE sinned)

God had to break this cycle. So he sent his son into the world who had no sin. He had no sin, yet he died. So it couldnt have been his sin that caused him to die. Seing as their is no limit to how much sin you can carry in your death, he carried all the sin of the world, that was, is and every will be.

The cycle was broken. The man without sin dies

Thus our sin is paid for. All we have to do is accept it

This doesn't make sense.

God made all the rules. He could have "broken the cycle" without killing himself.

You need to do a little less repetition of dogma and a little more thinking.

Not really. Since Jesus fufilled all the prophieces and did everything that was needed to be done, that is why there are no more prohets after Jesus. Thats why in the Christian mind, Mohammad and Joseph Smith are on a par.

And also another unconnected point (which should really get another thread about it) Islam requires much more faith than does Christianity. Chiristianity bases its idea on over 50 authors writiting on the same subject for over a milliena. Its not just a 'religious text' either, the writing is not all of one style. Legal documents, archetectural schematics, poetry, philosphical expostulations, eye witness accounts. They all fit. Islam bases its idea on one man in a cave who claimed to have visions of God.

ROTFLASTC

The commandment of eating the furit or not was not a moral based command. In the same way a mother telling a child not to eat a particular sweet is not a moral command. Obeying it or disobeying it has no moral implications as the action of itself has no consequences. What has consequences is disobeying the command of the authority figure in question. The command itself was irrelevent, what matters is that it was broken. God could have equally said "Dont bathe in X river" or "Dont walk into Y region of the garden" etc. The point is not the action, but the command. Its not the doing of the action that has consequneces (thus you do not need morals to listen to it) its breaking the command.

Nice try.

Without knowledge of right and wrong, one cannot know it is wrong to disobey a command.

The Chinese had gunpowder, however they didn't develop advanced enough weapons using gunpowder to make it decisive.

The Chinese circa 1400 fought with swords and crossbows like the rest of the world, backed up with a number of rockets and fireworks.

Leave it to the Turks to come up with the handcannon.

According to some information that I am trying to find again, the Chinese did have actual cannons, but not in particularly large numbers since the Chinese had no major external foe. Mostly internal rebellions all over. Of course, always the mongols and what not, but cannons were not made for slaughtering horsemen.

Again, I'll verify the information.

Still, the Chinese armies were much more organised than European counterparts.

Islam bases its idea on one man in a cave who claimed to have visions of God.

Christianity bases its faith on the concept of one man preaching Heavenly grace, wandering around the desert for (I believe) 80 days and getting crucified...LIKE EVERY OTHER PUBLIC NUISANCE TO THE ROMANS.

Stop being a bloody hypocrite, mate.

Satan was created by god to serve the human race, instead, he viewed himself as greater and wanted to rule over humans.At the very same time though, God, Satan, angels and demons(although demons are really just fallen angels) Fear humans and try to control us. they fear us because we have physical bodies, something they were not graced with. Instead, they influence our minds and try to warp us to their will.

http://www.cablectrix.co.uk/products/product-images/medium/lock-out-tag-out.jpg
You know, I think it's about time we locked this thread...

http://www.cablectrix.co.uk/products/product-images/medium/lock-out-tag-out.jpg
You know, I think it's about time we locked this thread...

Why? Threads are not usually locked just because they are inane.

But...but its fun!

And also an educational thread.

Lots of stuff being said here, very interesting.

Why? Threads are usually locked just because they are inane.
It seems like this thread has devolved into extremeism, like many religious threads I read...

There are elements of extremism, but you can find that anywhere in this kind of issue. Most of the replies have been fairly well-mannered and while there have been outbursts, as long as we continue to act in a staid manner I think this thread should continue.

1. Insulting people will get you no where here

2. Actually the Bible shows us how Christianity is the logical progression of the Jewish faith. Its just that the Jews then didnt like the messiah they were presented with, despite him fufilling all the propheicies made about him

Frankly that's a huge insult to Jews. Why don't you put away your Christian dogma and actually try to think for yourself for once. Christianity is NOT the logical progression of Jewish faith.

That is probably the most foolish thing I've heard in this entire thread, bar none. Your pathetic attempt to right your own peronal opinions and "beliefs" has led you nowhere. Your points have no merit and have no class. Christianity wasn't put forth my Jesus. Keep in mind Jesus was a JEW.

NOT a Christian. The religion came up after his death and his followers idolized him. Your opinion is biased, and therefore causes you to err in judgement. Good day.

Actually, I;m pretty sure the lucifer story is just tradition, not actually in the bible. The part about the snake is in the bible, but the whole part about the rebellion against god is not in the bible.

I'd like you to show me where I took the bible to be a metaphor because so far I cant see it.



So two independtent eye witnesses see the same thing. What does that tell you?

Oh, and on top of this, if you actually did some research it was not an eyewitness to anything. Of course, you're too mired in people's rather sad attempts to make any sort of logic out of the scripture to think for yourself.

Firstly, the entire book of Revelations is symoblic. Most of the entire bible is symbolic in some form or sense. And I won't show you where, because they're in all your posts and you're too blind to see, because that's not the point. You're moving away from the topic at hand.

And they're not eye witnesses. The "tower" is a zigguraut, and in the scripture it says :

"And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter."

"But what about it?!?" you might whine. Well, if you studied anything outside your single book you'd find that Jews used stones, not bricks for construction. Also, this is taken right out of Mesopotamian lore, not Jewish.

But you dont' care where this came from. Caananite, Mesopotamian, you'll just say the same cap without even looking it up. It isn't like you even put up any counter evidence except throw the scripture in my face, which is the whole point of the argument.

"How did this guy die?" "Well, he left a corpse"

This is your train of logic.

Oh, and on top of this, if you actually did some research it was not an eyewitness to anything. Of course, you're too mired in people's rather sad attempts to make any sort of logic out of the scripture to think for yourself.

Firstly, the entire book of Revelations is symoblic. Most of the entire bible is symbolic in some form or sense. And I won't show you where, because they're in all your posts and you're too blind to see, because that's not the point. You're moving away from the topic at hand.

And they're not eye witnesses. The "tower" is a zigguraut, and in the scripture it says :

"And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter."

"But what about it?!?" you might whine. Well, if you studied anything outside your single book you'd find that Jews used stones, not bricks for construction. Also, this is taken right out of Mesopotamian lore, not Jewish.

But you dont' care where this came from. Caananite, Mesopotamian, you'll just say the same cap without even looking it up. It isn't like you even put up any counter evidence except throw the scripture in my face, which is the whole point of the argument.

"How did this guy die?" "Well, he left a corpse"

This is your train of logic.

Rukaine, I must say, your remarks are giving me the impression that you have some sort of beef with Christianity, and Adriatica. Why? He has, as far as my knowledge goes, done nothing of the sort to purposefully evoke your rage.But I am afraid I must stand against you due to this post you have made, for you see, I am afraid that your train of logic has its flaws as well.

To start, you blatantly assume the Tower of Babel to be a Ziggurat. Jow? Can you prove it in the frame of actual logic? Were you even there, much less? Well, if you are alive now, and were not living then, where does the support of your argument go? I would think that it therefore ceases to be, yes?

Next, you go on to somehow draw the conclusion that the book of Revelation is entirely symbolic. I disagree. How can you be sure of this? Have you ever read that book or even the Bible itself in its entirety to confirm your conclusion? You know, if you read it, the times described in that book are eerily similar to ours. I reccommend you get the New King James Version of the bible and read up; it is extremely interesting to divulge it all. ;)

In short, it is fairly safe to conclude that you are therefore assuming what the meaning of the scripture is, and replacing it with your own opinions and inclinations. Think about what you are saying before you say it.

Actually, I;m pretty sure the lucifer story is just tradition, not actually in the bible. The part about the snake is in the bible, but the whole part about the rebellion against god is not in the bible.

I could only find one reference to lucifer in the KJV. However i don't believe that Lucifer is intended to refer to an actual person or personality. Instead i believe that lucifer represents the materialist nature of humanity. The part of humans that prefers to ignore the message of God's Holy Prophets can be considered the ego. Lucifer is merely a vehicle used to present the concept of the duality on humanity to people who needed simple stories to explain complex ideas.


14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

(King James Bible, Isaiah)

Rukaine, I must say, your remarks are giving me the impression that you have some sort of beef with Christianity, and Adriatica. Why? He has, as far as my knowledge goes, done nothing of the sort to purposefully evoke your rage.But I am afraid I must stand against you due to this post you have made, for you see, I am afraid that your train of logic has its flaws as well.

To start, you blatantly assume the Tower of Babel to be a Ziggurat. Jow? Can you prove it in the frame of actual logic? Were you even there, much less? Well, if you are alive now, and were not living then, where does the support of your argument go? I would think that it therefore ceases to be, yes?

[QUOTE]Next, you go on to somehow draw the conclusion that the book of Revelation is entirely symbolic. I disagree. How can you be sure of this? Have you ever read that book or even the Bible itself in its entirety to confirm your conclusion? You know, if you read it, the times described in that book are eerily similar to ours. I reccommend you get the New King James Version of the bible and read up; it is extremely interesting to divulge it all. ;)

I was watching a program on the History Channel where a Christian minister was being interviewed and he also said that the Book of Revelations was completely true and factual and not metphor or allegory. He then he went on to say that the four horsemen represent certain things. I am sorry but isn't the horsemen representing something besides horsemen metphor and allegory?

The Book of Revelations has been interpetated by many different people for hundreds of years and they all seem to have different ideas of what the Book means. That fact alone proves to me that the the book is full of metphor and allegory.

Rukaine, do not be angered because of the diverse opinions people emit. You simply assume that your theories will bring you automatic approval.

First off, you fail to support any of your alleged findings. Your claims that the bible has derived the story of Babylon from a myth, and that faith was only a roman concept are unsupported. How are you so perspicacious? Are you convinced that you have reached extraordinary intelligence levels as for you to degrade people by insulting them? If you are so educated, surely you would resort to other words during your senseless mutterings. Let me not go astray here. The bible is based on pure faith, it says so itself – as it also mentions briefly about visible signs:

Matthew 16:4 “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it”

Oh, and as irrelevant as it may seem, the quote below is my personal favorite:

Job 26:7 “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

I have chalenged you jews time and again to answer my question and you have not what are you waiting for the messia to come and do and back it up with the prophiceis.

Piekrom']I have chalenged you jews time and again to answer my question and you have not what are you waiting for the messia to come and do and back it up with the prophiceis.

I'm only aware of one jewish guy on the forum and he doesn't tend to come onto religous threads, can I direct you to Stormfront.:rolleyes:

It starts in a fairly rambly way with far too much unneccessary backstory, the main character doesn't even enter until halfway through and then he's killed off nearly straight away. The ressurection was frankly 'deus ex machina' incarnate and, the final mistake, rather than ending it there on an high note it then rambles on and starts talking about the end of the world and everyone dying!

Overall, the tone is a bit moralising and preachy, the plot feels contrived at times and the length of it makes it very hard to remember the characters' names.

Verdict: read The Lord of the Rings instead

I'm only aware of one jewish guy on the forum and he doesn't tend to come onto religous threads, can I direct you to Stormfront?:rolleyes:

I forgot the question mark, I'm afraid my Jolt account is screwed so I can't edit it.

I was watching a program on the History Channel where a Christian minister was being interviewed and he also said that the Book of Revelations was completely true and factual and not metphor or allegory. He then he went on to say that the four horsemen represent certain things. I am sorry but isn't the horsemen representing something besides horsemen metphor and allegory?

The Book of Revelations has been interpetated by many different people for hundreds of years and they all seem to have different ideas of what the Book means. That fact alone proves to me that the the book is full of metphor and allegory.

Revelations is a very curious book. It is difficult to piece out where exactly it is metaphorical or literal but there is one inescapable conclusion. That at the end there will be heaven on Earth. At present that hasnt happened, unless you call what we have now heaven. There are plenty of flaws in doing that

Anyway, Free Will. If God is omnipotent but tries to introduce a random element that he ultimately controls but he rather prefers to not know the answers except that, being omnipotent, he does, how is Free Will free?

"You havent come here to make the choice, you've allready made it. Now you have to understand why you made it" (The Oracle, The Matrix Reloaded)

The point I am making with that quote is that God sees everything we do, but that doesnt mean he forces us to do it. Just because he knows that in the future we will do X that doesnt mean we have been forced into doing it. Just that at some point in time we will choose to do it. As Stephen Hawking said "Are we predestined, yes. But since we cannot see the future, it doesnt matter".


Just would also like to say that unfortunately logic doesn't play much in arguing about the Bible because God and the angels have their hand in everything, or so Christians would argue.

Personally, I wonder whether or not Lucifer had a hand in things, because it would just be the ultimate irony; pretending to be God and playing up all the mortals. And God, being omnipotent, notices but really doesn't care.

Doubtful. Since Jesus is the 'serpent crusher' that we are told about in Genesis.


Message in the Bible: overtly seems alright. Good solid backing, though of course since I am from a judeo-christian background of course I think its rather moral. Still, I can't think of a good reason NOT to follow 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' or 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Just that when you read on and you start discovering that God isn't as loving as the media portray him that you begin to wonder whether 'Love' is the foundation.

I'm babbling, anyway. Onward.

I'd be happy to discuss with you why God isnt loving. But you'll have to give some specific examples as to where you think thats the case.

Oh, and on top of this, if you actually did some research it was not an eyewitness to anything. Of course, you're too mired in people's rather sad attempts to make any sort of logic out of the scripture to think for yourself.

Firstly, the entire book of Revelations is symoblic. Most of the entire bible is symbolic in some form or sense. And I won't show you where, because they're in all your posts and you're too blind to see, because that's not the point. You're moving away from the topic at hand.

1. Revelation clearly states that at the end, there will be heaven on Earth. Unless you call what we are now expericing heaven, I suggest you look again at Revelation and see why it cant have been fufilled yet.


And they're not eye witnesses. The "tower" is a zigguraut, and in the scripture it says :

"And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter."

"But what about it?!?" you might whine. Well, if you studied anything outside your single book you'd find that Jews used stones, not bricks for construction. Also, this is taken right out of Mesopotamian lore, not Jewish.

But you dont' care where this came from. Caananite, Mesopotamian, you'll just say the same cap without even looking it up. It isn't like you even put up any counter evidence except throw the scripture in my face, which is the whole point of the argument.

"How did this guy die?" "Well, he left a corpse"

This is your train of logic.

2. Of course its not taken out of Jewish folklore. Look at the Bible. Israel as a specific group of people, didnt exist yet.

This doesn't make sense.

God made all the rules. He could have "broken the cycle" without killing himself.

You need to do a little less repetition of dogma and a little more thinking.

God did indeed make the rules. He would have had to break them if he wanted to use another method to save us. Do you not think if God could have done it another way he would have. Don't you remember Jesus praying to God, asking him to take this cup from him if it could be done

Nice try.

Without knowledge of right and wrong, one cannot know it is wrong to disobey a command.

You didnt listen to a single word I said

Right or wrong is a function of morality. You do not need an understanding of morality to obey an amoral command (by amoral I mean having no positive or negative moral consequences). You just need to understand the command.

Frankly that's a huge insult to Jews. Why don't you put away your Christian dogma and actually try to think for yourself for once. Christianity is NOT the logical progression of Jewish faith.

That is probably the most foolish thing I've heard in this entire thread, bar none. Your pathetic attempt to right your own peronal opinions and "beliefs" has led you nowhere. Your points have no merit and have no class. Christianity wasn't put forth my Jesus. Keep in mind Jesus was a JEW.

NOT a Christian. The religion came up after his death and his followers idolized him. Your opinion is biased, and therefore causes you to err in judgement. Good day.

Of course Jesus was a Jew. Jesus was the saviour of the Jewish faith that the Torah points out. Just because Jeudaism is still around that doesnt make it any less true. Christianity is a diffrent faith to Jeudaism now but that doesnt change the fact that they are the same before Jesus

The point I am making with that quote is that God sees everything we do, but that doesnt mean he forces us to do it. Just because he knows that in the future we will do X that doesnt mean we have been forced into doing it. Just that at some point in time we will choose to do it. As Stephen Hawking said "Are we predestined, yes. But since we cannot see the future, it doesnt matter".


Like it or not, God does force us to do anything and everything we do. He is OMNIPOTENT. He might not be actively conscious of it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If we assume God is literally in everything, from the quark to the stars, then we have to assume he is guiding every little detail. That's the deal with omnipotence, and creating life and whatnot - you are the originator. I believe that it was God that says something along the lines of 'I am the Alpha, I am the Omega' etc? I am guessing that it does mean he is simply in everything, everywhere.

Oh, and the Stephen Hawking quote. As far as I can guess, it has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand. He acknowledges that we are predestined but from our point of view, a human point of view, it doesn't matter. That's not the point of this particular debate, the point is whether or not Free Will is free. Please, don't throw quotes around just to sound impressive. I would rather have your argument than a non-relevant quote.

Right or wrong is a function of morality. You do not need an understanding of morality to obey an amoral command (by amoral I mean having no positive or negative moral consequences). You just need to understand the command.

I believe that you are incorrect. If a command is given to you but you have no concept of whether it is right or wrong to follow/disobey it, then you cannot be guilty of breaking that command because you have no moral system to guide you.

Say you're a baby. Mum hasnt taught you what's bad, what's good. She just says, don't eat the cookie. Now, how does do not factor into you? You have no idea that obeying orders is a GOOD thing, because you will be punished otherwise. You see cookies and go, mmm, yummy, take them.
Hardly the baby's fault. Teach the children first, introduce discipline, and then you have the ability to really feel justified in punishment because they actively disobeyed a command.

Doubtful. Since Jesus is the 'serpent crusher' that we are told about in Genesis.

Jesus wasn't around at the time of writing the Bible. Who knows what finicky stuff has been done in Lucifer's hand...

I'd be happy to discuss with you why God isnt loving. But you'll have to give some specific examples as to where you think thats the case.

I'll try my best, though I freely acknowledge that I do NOT know the Bible very well. Therefore, please correct me if you can

-The killing of Egypt's sons (the Pharaoh was wicked, according to Bible; does that make it fair to kill the firstborns?)
-Preventing Moses from entering the Holy Land (he does a bitching amount for God, and then gets turned away at the last second)
-giving free reign for the Israelites to slaughter their neighbors (forget which other culture)
-Destroyed a city or two. Can't remember which.

Rukaine, I must say, your remarks are giving me the impression that you have some sort of beef with Christianity, and Adriatica. Why? He has, as far as my knowledge goes, done nothing of the sort to purposefully evoke your rage.But I am afraid I must stand against you due to this post you have made, for you see, I am afraid that your train of logic has its flaws as well.

Have to agree. While your posts are some of the most interesting, Rukaine, you need to be less confrontational. Personal insults get nowhere.


Next, you go on to somehow draw the conclusion that the book of Revelation is entirely symbolic. I disagree. How can you be sure of this? Have you ever read that book or even the Bible itself in its entirety to confirm your conclusion? You know, if you read it, the times described in that book are eerily similar to ours. I reccommend you get the New King James Version of the bible and read up; it is extremely interesting to divulge it all.

Well, if the Bible is based on faith, is it really any matter whether or not it is entirely symbolic? It is, after all, a gross stupidity to assume just because the Bible is the primary source of written script of the age that it is actually correct. The Bible has undergone so many transitions, changes, edits, etc. that it would be a poor historian that actually uses the Bible as a literal passage of days, and an unfortunate fool who believes the Bible a historical document of ultimate veracity.

Somehow I got the impression the prophet Jesus suddenly realized something when horribly wrong...

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
He'd probably just forgotten his safeword.

You didnt listen to a single word I said

Right or wrong is a function of morality. You do not need an understanding of morality to obey an amoral command (by amoral I mean having no positive or negative moral consequences). You just need to understand the command.

Of course you need the understanding of right and wrong. If you don't know it's wrong, you have no reason to obey. Without right and wrong you get that "obeying god" and "not obeying god" are basically the same thing.

God gave them free will, but without the knowledge of right and wrong they had no adequate tools of making decisions.

Besides it clearly was a "moral command" by your definition:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Dieing is surely a negative consequence?

Of course you need the understanding of right and wrong. If you don't know it's wrong, you have no reason to obey. Without right and wrong you get that "obeying god" and "not obeying god" are basically the same thing.

God gave them free will, but without the knowledge of right and wrong they had no adequate tools of making decisions.

Besides it clearly was a "moral command" by your definition:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Dieing is surely a negative consequence?
It is, but they didn't actually die of eating from the tree, did they?

It is, but they didn't actually die of eating from the tree, did they?

How could they know? From God's wording it sounds like the apples were poisened.

While I mean not to poke at the fire, woulldn't you agree that it is absolutely foolish to attempt, for would you not have any hope to defeat a being that possesses omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence? Again, not trying to bark orders at you here, but stop and think about this; can a mere mortal defeat God? I would think that is a definite "no way".

Is it truly omnipotent or has it brainwashed us all to think it is? Either way, I would rather die fighting for my freedom than living as a slave.

We need to destroy this fascist god now!

Rise up people!

Is it truly omnipotent or has it brainwashed us all to think it is? Either way, I would rather die fighting for my freedom than living as a slave.

We need to destroy this fascist god now!

Rise up people!

Now that you mention it:

1) He hasn't been democratically elected.

2) He could be considered a weapon of mass destruction.

3) According to Pat Robertson, he attacked the USA with hurricane Katrina.

:p

Somehow I got the impression the prophet Jesus suddenly realized something when horribly wrong...

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

It was in direct reference to one of the psalms look it up it is psalm 22. you will see all of the things that happened on the cross to him writen in it.

Of course you need the understanding of right and wrong. If you don't know it's wrong, you have no reason to obey. Without right and wrong you get that "obeying god" and "not obeying god" are basically the same thing.

God gave them free will, but without the knowledge of right and wrong they had no adequate tools of making decisions.

Besides it clearly was a "moral command" by your definition:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Dieing is surely a negative consequence?

You dont understand again. They had knowledge of right and wrong. What they didnt have knowledge of was morality. And before you say anything, morality is not the same as right and wrong. They understood the command. They understood that they had been told not to eat the fruit of the tree and that it would result in death eventually. You are treating it as if God created them like animals with no understanding at all. What they didnt understand was morality. They had full understanding of the command, and of everything God said in relation to it.

Like it or not, God does force us to do anything and everything we do. He is OMNIPOTENT. He might not be actively conscious of it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If we assume God is literally in everything, from the quark to the stars, then we have to assume he is guiding every little detail. That's the deal with omnipotence, and creating life and whatnot - you are the originator. I believe that it was God that says something along the lines of 'I am the Alpha, I am the Omega' etc? I am guessing that it does mean he is simply in everything, everywhere.

If God was forcing us to make our choices then logically we wouldnt be able to sin now would we? Sin is rebelling against God and God doesnt want that. But we do sin. That means that logically God is not forcing us to do anything as we are doing things that he doesnt want. So on that level it doesnt work.


Oh, and the Stephen Hawking quote. As far as I can guess, it has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand. He acknowledges that we are predestined but from our point of view, a human point of view, it doesn't matter. That's not the point of this particular debate, the point is whether or not Free Will is free. Please, don't throw quotes around just to sound impressive. I would rather have your argument than a non-relevant quote.

Its fully relevent. You were claiming that because God knows the future we cant make choices because God knows the future so we are forced into it. Execpt one small problem. Choices are part of that future. We have already made the choices and so of course we can make them. The fact that we cant see the future means we are capable of making choices free from inteferance. If we could see the future then we would be forced. But we cant so we arnt. So are we forced? Only by ourselves. IE Us in the future has already made those choices. We just havent got there yet.


I believe that you are incorrect. If a command is given to you but you have no concept of whether it is right or wrong to follow/disobey it, then you cannot be guilty of breaking that command because you have no moral system to guide you

Say you're a baby. Mum hasnt taught you what's bad, what's good. She just says, don't eat the cookie. Now, how does do not factor into you? You have no idea that obeying orders is a GOOD thing, because you will be punished otherwise. You see cookies and go, mmm, yummy, take them.
Hardly the baby's fault. Teach the children first, introduce discipline, and then you have the ability to really feel justified in punishment because they actively disobeyed a command.

Several flaws. Firstly, Adam and Eve were not children. They were adults. They had an understanding of the command. What they lacked was an understanding of morality. But they did not need that since the command was amoral (IE the command of itself had no moral consequences) the fruit of itself had no magic or power. What was powerful was God's command behind it. It was the breaking of God's command, not the eating of the fruit that was the serious thing. Now you might think "They are the same thing" but they are not. If God had said "dont go to that part of the garden" or "Dont drink from this river" or "dont pick that flower" and they had, the result would have been the same. It was the command that was not to be broken. They had no understanding of morality but the command itself was not of a moral nature.


Jesus wasn't around at the time of writing the Bible. Who knows what finicky stuff has been done in Lucifer's hand....

Jesus fufills all the prophecies about the messiah in the old testement.


I'll try my best, though I freely acknowledge that I do NOT know the Bible very well. Therefore, please correct me if you can

-The killing of Egypt's sons (the Pharaoh was wicked, according to Bible; does that make it fair to kill the firstborns?)

God had given Pharaoh 9 other chances to let the hebrews go. He had ignored them. God was just and fair. Also remember, God has the right of himself to kill anyone at any time. The wages of sin are death, and all have sinned


-Preventing Moses from entering the Holy Land (he does a bitching amount for God, and then gets turned away at the last second)

God gave moses a specific command which he disobeyed. Moses had to be punished. Any parent punishes their child.


-giving free reign for the Israelites to slaughter their neighbors (forget which other culture)
-Destroyed a city or two. Can't remember which.

Again, God has the full right to kill anyone at any time. Because the wages of sin are death, and all have sinned. For a more detailed examinaton look here

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

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

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

How could they know? From God's wording it sounds like the apples were poisened.

The fruit had no magic or poision. It was the fact that Gods command had specificed do not eat it was the power behind it

You dont understand again. They had knowledge of right and wrong. What they didnt have knowledge of was morality. And before you say anything, morality is not the same as right and wrong. They understood the command. They understood that they had been told not to eat the fruit of the tree and that it would result in death eventually. You are treating it as if God created them like animals with no understanding at all. What they didnt understand was morality. They had full understanding of the command, and of everything God said in relation to it.

But why is it wrong to disobey God? Because rebelling against God is a sin and therefore evil. So without understanding the concept of "evil" you cannot understand why it is wrong to disobey him.

Your understanding of right and wrong as described above would allow deductions like "it is right that a river consists of water" or "it is wrong that fire is cold" - but nothing you can base a decision on.

The fruit had no magic or poision. It was the fact that Gods command had specificed do not eat it was the power behind it

First, that's not true, the fruit clearly had special powers: giving them the knowledge about good and evil.

And God clearly says:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So: don't eat it, because you will die if you do.

Sounds like a poisened apple.

Let's use some logic. God says "eat it and you will die" - therefore eating it is a moral decision, because commiting suicide is a sin and therefore evil. Therefore eating the apple is evil.

But why is it wrong to disobey God? Because rebelling against God is a sin and therefore evil. So without understanding the concept of "evil" you cannot understand why it is wrong to disobey him.

Your understanding of right and wrong as described above would allow deductions like "it is right that a river consists of water" or "it is wrong that fire is cold" - but nothing you can base a decision on.

Rebeling against God is not of itself evil. Evil is a morality linked concept. Since the fall, opposing God has been evil but before the fall because it was linked to morality it was something that shouldn't be done. The fruit itself was not magical in any way. It was God's command that gave it the power. They knew who God was and that they shouldnt disobey him. That wasnt because the command had any obsevable negative or positives, but because of who God was.

First, that's not true, the fruit clearly had special powers: giving them the knowledge about good and evil


Again, no it didnt. What it had was God's command around it. The fruit was not powerful, but God had said that if you eat it you will gain knowledge of good and evil and cease to be immortal.


And God clearly says:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So: don't eat it, because you will die if you do.

Sounds like a poisened apple.

A poisioned apple would have killed them through biological means. Some form of toxin or bactira or virus or something killing them. The fruit was just a fruit. Like any other. Of itself, it would not harm them. However it is the breaking of God's command that harms them.


Let's use some logic. God says "eat it and you will die" - therefore eating it is a moral decision, because commiting suicide is a sin and therefore evil. Therefore eating the apple is evil.

Sin is rebelling aginst God. Since the fall that was based on a moral concept. However before the fall it wasnt. Eating the fruit of itself had no moral consequences. However breaking Gods command does. God punished them not because the fruit was precious or important in some way, but because they had broken his command. Again like a parent to its child, a parent will sometimes tell a child to do something that isnt absolutely nessecary. But they still should do it, because their parent told them to. Its not about the content of the command, its about the origin.

You dont understand again. They had knowledge of right and wrong. What they didnt have knowledge of was morality. And before you say anything, morality is not the same as right and wrong. They understood the command. They understood that they had been told not to eat the fruit of the tree and that it would result in death eventually. You are treating it as if God created them like animals with no understanding at all. What they didnt understand was morality. They had full understanding of the command, and of everything God said in relation to it.
What is morality?

(Sorry if this has already been addressed.)

Rebeling against God is not of itself evil. Evil is a morality linked concept. Since the fall, opposing God has been evil but before the fall because it was linked to morality it was something that shouldn't be done. The fruit itself was not magical in any way. It was God's command that gave it the power. They knew who God was and that they shouldnt disobey him. That wasnt because the command had any obsevable negative or positives, but because of who God was.

So their rebelling against God was a sin, but not evil? I guess the same can then be said about Lucifer. Can you back up your statement with the Bible?

And if it was not evil, why make all the fuss about it?

Besides, if they knew about right and wrong as you claim, but not about good and evil, as it is written, how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? And how could they know that it was wrong to trust the serpent?

And your saying about God's command gave the apple its powers, how do you read that into this line:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

I can't find it.

A poisioned apple would have killed them through biological means. Some form of toxin or bactira or virus or something killing them. The fruit was just a fruit. Like any other. Of itself, it would not harm them. However it is the breaking of God's command that harms them.

But you use your knowledge about the history after the incident to come to this conclusion. You know that it was not poisonous, because you read the whole story. But Adam and Eve could not see into the future. All they knew was, that they would die in case they ate the apple.

Your "the fruit was just a fruit" has been adressed above. To be honest, this must be one the weirdest claims I've ever heard someone make about the Genesis story.

EDIT:

Since the fall, opposing God has been evil but before the fall because it was linked to morality it was something that shouldn't be done.

Aha. It was not evil before the fall, but became evil after the fall. So for something being evil it depends if the person has a sense of morality. If Adam had killed Eve before he ate the apple - would he (or his action) have been evil?

The death talked about is a seperation from god not the physical death you are all talking about. The seperation from god the sorce of life is a death of sorts.

Piekrom']The death talked about is a seperation from god not the physical death you are all talking about. The seperation from god the sorce of life is a death of sorts.
Ahhh so it is a metaphor
So genesis is not literally true

Ahhh so it is a metaphor
So genesis is not literally true

Well it is true in so far as they will now die where as previously they wouldnt

Well it is true in so far as they will now die where as previously they wouldnt
So.. it's not a metaphor. It's literally true.

Ahhh so it is a metaphor
So genesis is not literally true

Hey Upward,
Check your homepage.


And yes Genesis is not literally true. IMHO!!!

Jesus fufills all the prophecies about the messiah in the old testement.

You ignore the context of the statement. Jesus was not around at the time of the writing of the Bible, neither Old nor New Testament.

If God was forcing us to make our choices then logically we wouldnt be able to sin now would we? Sin is rebelling against God and God doesnt want that. But we do sin. That means that logically God is not forcing us to do anything as we are doing things that he doesnt want. So on that level it doesnt work.

What gives you the right to say what God desires? Can you claim to know what goes on in His thoughts and mind? Maybe He does desire sin, to prove a point that only He, in his magnifiscence, has not deigned to allow us poor mortals knowledge of.

Its fully relevent. You were claiming that because God knows the future we cant make choices because God knows the future so we are forced into it. Execpt one small problem. Choices are part of that future. We have already made the choices and so of course we can make them. The fact that we cant see the future means we are capable of making choices free from inteferance. If we could see the future then we would be forced. But we cant so we arnt. So are we forced? Only by ourselves. IE Us in the future has already made those choices. We just havent got there yet.

Again, the debate is whether or not Free Will is truly 'free'. As you acknowledge yourself the future has already been made, our choices merely lead up to them. Do not look at the issue from our own human perspective, as that is not my question. From a Free Will point of view, we do not have this supposed Free Will because it is pre-determined. We are wilfully and quite happily ignorant of what our future will be due to our choices.

Several flaws. Firstly, Adam and Eve were not children. They were adults. They had an understanding of the command.

Adam and Eve were the equivalent of children. God allowed both to frolic around without giving any commands. I have yet to see a line where God declares to both any commands other than, do not touch the Tree, nor eat an apple from it.

Also, according to the Bible, Eve was grown from Adam's rib (which is curiously like the birth mythology of ANOTHER religion..oops!). FULLY grown. They had no living experience, they lived in perpetual bliss; thus, they were children. Becoming an adult means development and growth in physical, mental, emotional and psychological levels, which were denied both. That is because Paradise does not require one to become an adult. Adulthood developed from sin.

God was just and fair. Also remember, God has the right of himself to kill anyone at any time. The wages of sin are death, and all have sinned

You again ignore the context of the problem. I stated that God was not all-loving, you asked me for examples, I give them and you repeat that he is just and fair and is justified in killing anyone at any time. You have proven me right; God is as God does. He can be loving if He chooses, as well as terrible in His wrath.
Another proof to his wrath: if He is loving, I can assume that forgiveness is included in this? So Moses makes a small mistake, but has otherwise made God a powerful force amongst His people. Is it not fair to forgive Moses after a time of penance?
Ultimately, God can be loving, but as you have proven yourself, He is justified in any of his actions for He is God.

I think that's a point in my favour.

I shall debate your other points at a later point, as this is becoming much too long a post already.

Genissis is very real. it is not a metaphor. it is talking about a worse death then what one normly thinks. It is a death of the spirit.

Well it is true in so far as they will now die where as previously they wouldnt
But that did not cause them to dye ... that allowed them to die there is a difference

Its like saying being born caused me to die

In the usually case it allowed me to not caused me to.

Hey Upward,
Check your homepage.


And yes Genesis is not literally true. IMHO!!!
You mean my webpage? yeah I know it is fubar lol stupid apache upgrade

I am redoing it in php now anyways

the moment they ate the apple their spirits died. there bodys still lived but their spirits died. there bodys could live for a time with out the spirit but only for a few thousand years.

Piekrom']the moment they ate the apple their spirits died. there bodys still lived but their spirits died. there bodys could live for a time with out the spirit but only for a few thousand years.

Their spirits? I thought people had (immortal) souls? Where is there any mention that people had spirits?

And more to the point, if God was all powerful then why would Lucifer be retarded enough to try to beat him?

That all depends on what version of the rebellion you buy into, as there are several out there. Lucifer trying to get God's position is as far as I know one of the lesser accepted ones. The one I personally believe goes something like this, and I don't recall where I saw it. God creates angels, and tells them to bow before none but him. God creates the world and humans. After creating humans, God says "Behold, these are my final and greatest creation, made in my own image. Bow before them, for I have placed them above you." Lucifer and his gang was pissed. War ensued, Lucifer lost and was cast down to hell with all his buddies.

Their spirits? I thought people had (immortal) souls? Where is there any mention that people had spirits?
Seconded

Their spirits? I thought people had (immortal) souls? Where is there any mention that people had spirits?

Actually - if you read scripture in Hebrew... every body has both 'soul' and 'spirit'.

However, the other poster is barking up completely the wrong tree... since both 'spirit' and 'soul' are needed for the life of the flesh.

(According to the Hebrew - the 'spirit' is the sacred breath of life.... so, also, the air we breathe - and the 'soul' is the 'life in the flesh'... the hunger, the burning in the blood... vitality).

The idea that Adam and Eve could survive without either 'soul' or 'spirit' shows a basic failure to understand the Hebrew scriptures.

You mean my webpage? yeah I know it is fubar lol stupid apache upgrade

I am redoing it in php now anyways

No, I don't give tinkers damn what it looks like. I am trying to get a message to you and can never got through to your NS TG. I left my email for you to contact me.

Adam was the start of a cycle of religious knowledge (history if you prefer) that ended with Muhammed that is why Muhammed is called the Seal of the Prophets. A new cycle started with Baha'u'llah.

No, I don't give tinkers damn what it looks like. I am trying to get a message to you and can never got through to your NS TG. I left my email for you to contact me.

Adam was the start of a cycle of religious knowledge (history if you prefer) that ended with Muhammed that is why Muhammed is called the Seal of the Prophets. A new cycle started with Baha'u'llah.
Sent you a tg with my email

Sent you a tg with my email

mmmucho thanks.

So their rebelling against God was a sin, but not evil? I guess the same can then be said about Lucifer. Can you back up your statement with the Bible?

And if it was not evil, why make all the fuss about it?

Besides, if they knew about right and wrong as you claim, but not about good and evil, as it is written, how could they know that it was wrong to disobey God? And how could they know that it was wrong to trust the serpent?

They knew to trust God and not the serpent because they knew who God was. God was closer to us then than he is now.

Eating the apple was not evil. Breaking the command was. But they did not need to know it was evil to know not to do it. The authority of God was enough


And your saying about God's command gave the apple its powers, how do you read that into this line:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Because God had commanded it. God had made the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and because of the command he gave about it, it was true. However he could equally have given a command of the same nature about one of the rivers or a region of the garden and it would have been true about those things. The command gave it the power.


But you use your knowledge about the history after the incident to come to this conclusion. You know that it was not poisonous, because you read the whole story. But Adam and Eve could not see into the future. All they knew was, that they would die in case they ate the apple.

Because God had told them. They didnt need to know if it was posinous or if it was a command. All they needed to know was that God had told them. Thus they shouldnt do it.

snip


Because God had told them. They didnt need to know if it was posinous or if it was a command. All they needed to know was that God had told them. Thus they shouldnt do it.
But to know that it was right to follow god they already would have to know good from evil

They had to know it was good to follow god but not the serpant

So what did the tree do again?

But to know that it was right to follow god they already would have to know good from evil

They had to know it was good to follow god but not the serpant?

No. They had to know that the should follow God and not the serpent. People have to stop using the words good and evil and right and wrong out of context. They didnt need to know about good or evil to follow God. They just needed to know who and what he was. That was enough.


So what did the tree do again?

The tree itself did nothing. Gods command gave it the power.

People think that God was punising them for breaking the command. But let me ask you this, does a parent punish his child for touching a hot stove by allowing the stove to burn him. No. You see what happened in Eden is like if a child is told by his parent to not touch a hot stove, because if he does, it will burn him. The child does and it burns him. In the same way God told Adam and Eve not to break the command because if they did they would die. It is not a punishment extra. It is just what happens when you do it. Getting a burn from touching a stove isnt a punishment for toucing the stove, its just what happens. In the same way being cast out of eden and being made mortal is not God's punishment for breaking the command. But it is what would happen to them because of the nature of the command. In the same way being burnt by a stove is what happens to you because of the hot nature of the stove

No. They had to know that the should follow God and not the serpent. People have to stop using the words good and evil and right and wrong out of context. They didnt need to know about good or evil to follow God. They just needed to know who and what he was. That was enough.



But why does a person follow another?

Its not enough enough to know what a person is asking .... you have to know you are SUPOSED to follow them

You have to know it is the right decision to follow them

People do this using their concepts of what is good and evil

They knew to trust God and not the serpent because they knew who God was. God was closer to us then than he is now.

Eating the apple was not evil. Breaking the command was. But they did not need to know it was evil to know not to do it. The authority of God was enough


Can I get an answer this time? How could they know that it was wrong to disobey God?


Because God had commanded it. God had made the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and because of the command he gave about it, it was true. However he could equally have given a command of the same nature about one of the rivers or a region of the garden and it would have been true about those things. The command gave it the power.

I ask you again: Where does it say in the Bible that God's command to Adam not to eat from the tree of good&evil gave the fruit of this tree their powers?

All I get from

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

is: This is the tree of knowledge. Don't eat its fruit, because you die if you do.

It does not say: Don't eat from this tree and by saying this its fruit gain special powers to grant the knowledge of good&evil and kill people.

People think that God was punising them for breaking the command. But let me ask you this, does a parent punish his child for touching a hot stove by allowing the stove to burn him. No. You see what happened in Eden is like if a child is told by his parent to not touch a hot stove, because if he does, it will burn him. The child does and it burns him. In the same way God told Adam and Eve not to break the command because if they did they would die. It is not a punishment extra. It is just what happens when you do it. Getting a burn from touching a stove isnt a punishment for toucing the stove, its just what happens. In the same way being cast out of eden and being made mortal is not God's punishment for breaking the command. But it is what would happen to them because of the nature of the command. In the same way being burnt by a stove is what happens to you because of the hot nature of the stove.

Your analogy is false, since God did punish them (you just redefine what punishment is). And how he did:

3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

EDIT: By your analogy the burning would be equal to becomming mortal. Not cursing them both - that would be the parent beating them.

Rebeling against God is not of itself evil.

Eating the apple was not evil. Breaking the command was.

Which one is it now? Evil or not?

They knew to trust God and not the serpent because they knew who God was. God was closer to us then than he is now.

Eating the apple was not evil. Breaking the command was. But they did not need to know it was evil to know not to do it. The authority of God was enough
How could it be 'evil' of them to break the command if they did not participate in doing evil?

EDIT: I probably should explain my question. If they did not know about evil then there was no active participation on their part in doing evil, so they should not be held accountable for evil.

Now let's move the 'evil' outside of them, as something apart from them. If they participated unwittingly in an act deemed 'evil' by someone else, then again the 'evilness' of that act is none of their doing; it is, rather, a judgement applied by someone else.

So either 'evil' is a judgement, or something they do. If the latter, and they are not aware of it, then they are not actively doing it. If the former, then it is none of their doing. Either way, they are unjustly blamed.

No. They had to know that the should follow God and not the serpent. People have to stop using the words good and evil and right and wrong out of context. They didnt need to know about good or evil to follow God. They just needed to know who and what he was. That was enough.
So 'good' and 'evil' exist apart from them?