NationStates Jolt Archive

except that's not what I meant by using not only the bible.How do you propose to find truth, then? I don't think it's possible to find the transcendant truth. I think we can try, however, through the methods I described. Do you have other suggestions?

Which is why I also said in other threads, that faith is between the person and God. the same with Sin.I wonder why he would even care.

and that is your perception. we can only discuss what we interpret, what we experience, and what we learn. we share and we discuss.Exactly. I just have trouble understanding why people even bother when it seems like such a useless exercise. To my mind, if you truly don't know, then why pretend you do?

more accuratly, he just IS.True, true.
Good question. I guess it's too bad that, in your theology, God has to be the Creator of evil.I didn't see them advocating that God was evil, and in fact he wouldn't be. He simply does what he wants. There's no other free agents to be concerned about.

I don't know if this throws a spanner in anyone's works BUT there is no evidence of any kind (historical, archaeological or geological) that the Jewish people were ever held as slaves of the Egyptians.

The only reference to this is in a series of allegorical stories collected as the Torah and incorporated as a more imaginatively told story in the Old Testament of The Bible.

It was just another parable or story made to illustrate a point, not a literal truth, and therefore should be probably best be used to describe what "God" might have done had those circumstances actually happened, if the scholars of the day understood "God's will" correctly on this type of event.

Is God petty like human beings? Does God stoop to the level of tyrants among human beings?

People who make this argument sound just like three year olds, "BUT MOOOMMMM!!!! HE DID IT FIRST!!!"

isn't that what punishment ultimately is. "we're doing this because you did that first"

you put a man in jail, take away his freedom becuase he robbed/killed someone first.

How do you propose to find truth, then? I don't think it's possible to find the transcendant truth. I think we can try, however, through the methods I described. Do you have other suggestions?Through prayer.

I wonder why he would even care.ask Him.

Exactly. I just have trouble understanding why people even bother when it seems like such a useless exercise. To my mind, if you truly don't know, then why pretend you do?to gain understanding, insight and perhaps the lesson behind the story.

I don't know if this throws a spanner in anyone's works BUT there is no evidence of any kind (historical, archaeological or geological) that the Jewish people were ever held as slaves of the Egyptians.

The only reference to this is in a series of allegorical stories collected as the Torah and incorporated as a more imaginatively told story in the Old Testament of The Bible.

It was just another parable or story made to illustrate a point, not a literal truth, and therefore should be probably best be used to describe what "God" might have done had those circumstances actually happened, if the scholars of the day understood "God's will" correctly on this type of event.

yeah thats been addressed.

its only a problem for bible literalists who would deny any acheological evidence anyway.

Haha fallacy.

Through prayer.Again, it's me that's doing it. It's me that's recieving and interpreting the message. I can't trust my own experiences any more than you or anyone else's, so I don't see how praying solves the problem of ignorance. I think that's mainly an issue with being so limited, not really because of any failure on my part.

ask Him.Like I said, would I be talking to God...or my perception of God? If I think my perception of God is God, then what stops me from believing anything I want about him? And if that's true, then there is no real meaning to what we call "god." Just a bunch of wishes.

to gain understanding, insight and perhaps the lesson behind the story.I don't think that pretending knowledge is virtuous or desirable. I've never known it to be useful to anyone. It doesn't help that a belief in one thing might affect your ability to change according to new information. No, it seems to me that pretending to know the truth just means you want to believe something. That can be correct - hell, I want to believe some things are true - but unless there's good reason to believe it I just don't see how it works out.

Again, it's me that's doing it. It's me that's recieving and interpreting the message. I can't trust my own experiences any more than you or anyone else's, so I don't see how praying solves the problem of ignorance. I think that's mainly an issue with being so limited, not really because of any failure on my part.prayer is not just you doing, but God also.

Like I said, would I be talking to God...or my perception of God? If I think my perception of God is God, then what stops me from believing anything I want about him? And if that's true, then there is no real meaning to what we call "god." Just a bunch of wishes.you will be talking to God. sometimes, you wont like his answers, but he will answer you.

I don't think that pretending knowledge is virtuous or desirable. I've never known it to be useful to anyone. It doesn't help that a belief in one thing might affect your ability to change according to new information. No, it seems to me that pretending to know the truth just means you want to believe something. That can be correct - hell, I want to believe some things are true - but unless there's good reason to believe it I just don't see how it works out.then don't pretend. ask, and question. he could've removed the knowledge after Adam and Eve bit into that fruit, but he didn't so use that. talk with others and not JUST on forums, but seek out your pastors and priests, your rabais and Imans (is that right?). question, ask and probe. find the truth out yourself. as for what is correct? only you and God can answer that.

In any case, try to put yourself in the shoes, so to speak, of a Christian. For the Christian, life is a painful term of servitude prior to entrance into Heaven after death.

Um, no it isn't.

Why would they not see death as a great gift when with death comes eternal life, and this life is but a pale and longsuffering reflection of it?

Eh?

I think the position that death is a good follows quite well from Christian thought. Hence the emphasis on the importance of martyrdom in the early church in particular.

Some Christian thought, perhaps.


What you are forgetting is that every single one of us chose to do what we wanted: God did not coerce us, nor did He possess us. He set up the scene and we did what we wanted to do when we got there. We chose to do it. And we carry the responsibility of that action. The other option was always there, but we rejected it.

"Unable to choose otherwise" != rejection.

Do they? Examples?

You don't have any, because no one is truly being forced.

People go to work, not because they want to, but because they have to in order to survive. People pretend to be straight when they are gay, not because they want to, but because society pressures them to do so. People pay their taxes, not because they want to, but because the penalty otherwise is high. And so on...

Even if I put a gun to your head and told you to steal a million dollars, you would still do it by your own choice.

But I wouldn't want to do it. I wouldn't want to be shot, and I wouldn't want to steal the money. But I wouldn't have any option that I actually wanted, so I would have to choose an option that I didn't want. Situations like that happen all the time. It's called life.

Of course, this still doesn't approximate the situation you are describing. If we were to use this as an analogy, we have to remove the person holding the gun. Instead of holding the gun, the person compelled to steal the money has no other option. They cannot choose not to do it. They will do it. Period.

I didn't see them advocating that God was evil, and in fact he wouldn't be. He simply does what he wants. There's no other free agents to be concerned about.

I didn't say they were advocating God being evil. However, their theology does require that God created and causes evil.


isn't that what punishment ultimately is. "we're doing this because you did that first"

Not if it is used responsibly. Revenge is petty and accomplishes nothing. The goal of punishment should always be to teach - to demonstrate to the punished why what they did was wrong, and to give them the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and become better people.

you put a man in jail, take away his freedom becuase he robbed/killed someone first.

Indeed. He has done something wrong. He needs to learn that it was wrong and that his actions have consequences. If we are unable to teach him that, he needs to be removed from society so that he cannot harm others.

prayer is not just you doing, but God also.

you will be talking to God. sometimes, you wont like his answers, but he will answer you.Unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem. I suppose I will still try to find the truth though, because I can hardly do otherwise and be satisfied with myself.

then don't pretend. ask, and question. he could've removed the knowledge after Adam and Eve bit into that fruit, but he didn't so use that. talk with others and not JUST on forums, but seek out your pastors and priests, your rabais and Imans (is that right?). question, ask and probe. find the truth out yourself. as for what is correct? only you and God can answer that.And that's the problem, isn't it? Transcendant truth is an entirely different thing from the apparent truth I have to work with. Rather harder to determine what path is "right" if the truth I can know doesn't have any meaning outside of a belief system. I can't do belief then knowledge, because I don't see how that means anything; I'd simply be using the assumptions of that belief as a structure to find whatever it is that the belief leads me to find. I could justify anything by believing in the right assumptions.

It would be more accurate (at least in the sense that fewer things are open to interpretation) to see things like the revelations which I was talking about, and then compare them to what I can find, but I still see no revelations that qualify. It's unfortunate, because I'm left picking either beliefs that I don't know to have any real meaning or just saying "I don't know." Personally "I don't know" is easiest for me to handle, perhaps because it's probably the most truthful thing I've ever thought in my life.

I didn't say they were advocating God being evil. However, their theology does require that God created and causes evil.I suppose what I really meant was that if God did exist in that way, there wouldn't be any meaning to the term "evil." The idea just wouldn't exist.

Not if it is used responsibly. Revenge is petty and accomplishes nothing. The goal of punishment should always be to teach - to demonstrate to the punished why what they did was wrong, and to give them the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and become better people.that's Rehabilitation, not punishment.

Indeed. He has done something wrong. He needs to learn that it was wrong and that his actions have consequences. If we are unable to teach him that, he needs to be removed from society so that he cannot harm others.
and so has Egypt. they did something wrong, and they were punished. so was Sodom, Gomorrah...

Just as Nineveh had, but they repented and was spared.

Unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem. I suppose I will still try to find the truth though, because I can hardly do otherwise and be satisfied with myself.

And that's the problem, isn't it? Transcendant truth is an entirely different thing from the apparent truth I have to work with. Rather harder to determine what path is "right" if the truth I can know doesn't have any meaning outside of a belief system. I can't do belief then knowledge, because I don't see how that means anything; I'd simply be using the assumptions of that belief as a structure to find whatever it is that the belief leads me to find. I could justify anything by believing in the right assumptions.

It would be more accurate to see things like the revelations which I was talking about, and then compare them to what I can find, but I still see no revelations that qualify. It's unfortunate, because I'm left picking either beliefs that I don't know to have any real meaning or just saying "I don't know." Personally "I don't know" is easiest for me to handle, perhaps because it's probably the most truthful thing I've ever thought in my life. you remind me of myself when I lost my faith. I wanted PROOF, Revelations I can see right there with my own two eyes. something that I cannot deny or explain away. a Truth that I cannot refute.

well, God gave it to me. unfortunatly, I can only share it verbally, so technically, it can't be your truth as you look for it since it was experienced.

all I can say is keep looking, keep praying and you will be answered.

you remind me of myself when I lost my faith. I wanted PROOF, Revelations I can see right there with my own two eyes. something that I cannot deny or explain away. a Truth that I cannot refute.

well, God gave it to me. unfortunatly, I can only share it verbally, so technically, it can't be your truth as you look for it since it was experienced.

all I can say is keep looking, keep praying and you will be answered.

I can second this. My own rediscovery of faith (a personal spirituality rather than a specific religion) was something that came to me. It simply clicked, something literally opened my eyes to what I was looking for, and from there I knew I had found what I was looking for.

It's not something that can be put in to words very easily without losing its innate qualities.

Then Adam and Eve, if the story is to be taken as truth, were not originally created in God's moral image. They did not have knowledge of good and evil (ie. right and wrong) until after eating the fruit of the tree...

I said they had responsibilty of their own actions, as well. Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil, but they did have responsibilty and now we know right and wrong, and yet we still choose wrong.

you remind me of myself when I lost my faith. I wanted PROOF, Revelations I can see right there with my own two eyes. something that I cannot deny or explain away. a Truth that I cannot refute.

well, God gave it to me. unfortunatly, I can only share it verbally, so technically, it can't be your truth as you look for it since it was experienced.

all I can say is keep looking, keep praying and you will be answered.


I agree with you both. I used to not believe in God because I thought he didn't talk to people, but then I realised how wrong I was. C.S Lewis said himself that he came to christ "kicking and screaming."

That's what someone said. so it could be that God did not hardened (unable to change, Kabad) but make it stronger in it's resolve (chazaq) thus he didn't make the heart unresponsive, but allowed the Pharaoh to keep his convictions without making the false promises he did during the first plagues.

It's possible - but I don't think it's what is implied by the text. Like I said, there are different implications in the terms used - the 'tenses' are different in as much as Pharaoh 'causes' his heart to become heavier, and God 'intends' Pharaohs heart to be harder - one is a directed action, compared to the other which is a natural progression.

It shows God as interventionist - an intention is acted upon - so it doesn't make sense for that to be Pharaoh's will being 'permitted' by God. The intervention implies an externally enforced change.

The very strong implication is that Pharaoh had a 'stiff upper lip' at first, and so fought against God, but that - once his will was broken, God wouldn't allow him to back down - such that the miraculous plagues could be fulfilled.

Wrong. You didn't finish the quote. "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generations of those who hate me. If you're punished by God, you're punished for you're OWN sin.

Prepared to back your assertion up by reverting to the native scripture?

Let's look at the Hebrew shall we?

Exodus 34:7 "natsar checed 'eleph nasa' 'avon pesha' chatta'ah naqah naqah paqad 'avon'ab ben ben shillesh ribbea'..."

Literally "Keeping (guarding or preserving) mercy (goodness, kindness, faithfulness) thousands forgive (lift up, carry or support) iniquity (perversity, depravity) transgression (rebellion) sin (sinful, transgression) to hold innocent (acquit, leave unpunished) to hold innocent (acquit, leave unpunished - the repetition is intentional) pay attention to (observe, seek) iniquity (perversity, depravity) father (ancestor) son (grandson, child, member of group) son (grandson, child, member of group - again, the repetition is intentional) of (or pertaining to) the third, of (or pertaining to) the fourth".

So - let's look at what it means:


Keeping mercy for thousands (the 'years' is implied, but not stated).
Forgiving iniquity, transgression, sin.
Will not 'hold innocent' or unpunished (the 'guilty' is implied, but not stated).
Will 'observe' the iniquity to father, son, son (the repetition is telling us we are using both interpretations of 'ben'... the direct, and non-direct child)
of the third, of the fourth ('generations' is implied, but not stated).


No mention in the Hebrew of the 'hate him' part - that's a fabrication of translators.

Prepared to back your assertion up by reverting to the native scripture?

Let's look at the Hebrew shall we?

Exodus 34:7 "natsar checed 'eleph nasa' 'avon pesha' chatta'ah naqah naqah paqad 'avon'ab ben ben shillesh ribbea'..."

Literally "Keeping (guarding or preserving) mercy (goodness, kindness, faithfulness) thousands forgive (lift up, carry or support) iniquity (perversity, depravity) transgression (rebellion) sin (sinful, transgression) to hold innocent (acquit, leave unpunished) to hold innocent (acquit, leave unpunished - the repetition is intentional) pay attention to (observe, seek) iniquity (perversity, depravity) father (ancestor) son (grandson, child, member of group) son (grandson, child, member of group - again, the repetition is intentional) of (or pertaining to) the third, of (or pertaining to) the fourth".

So - let's look at what it means:


Keeping mercy for thousands (the 'years' is implied, but not stated).
Forgiving iniquity, transgression, sin.
Will not 'hold innocent' or unpunished (the 'guilty' is implied, but not stated).
Will 'observe' the iniquity to father, son, son (the repetition is telling us we are using both interpretations of 'ben'... the direct, and non-direct child)
of the third, of the fourth ('generations' is implied, but not stated).


No mention in the Hebrew of the 'hate him' part - that's a fabrication of translators.

What does it matter? It means the same thing. Tell me something, what do you think of Al Quaeda? And the taliban?

I said they had responsibilty of their own actions, as well. Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil, but they did have responsibilty and now we know right and wrong, and yet we still choose wrong.
How can you have responsibility for choosing right vs. wrong if you don't know the difference between the two?

all I can say is keep looking, keep praying and you will be answered.
Why?

I mean, why should I keep looking and praying? What "answer" am I supposed to want, and why?

How can you have responsibility for choosing right vs. wrong if you don't know the difference between the two?

Read what I write carefully. Adam and Eve had responsibility over their own actions. God told them not to eat from the tree, and they did it anyway, deliberately disobeying him. And in the world of today we all know right and wrong, but we choose to sin, and we are responsible for that.

No - that just isn't in there.

Your 'revisionist' version of the scripture cuts no ice.

Don't know where you're getting that from. Grammatically, it makes perfect sense. It's in there, just read the passage and think about it for two seconds.

it falls to if you believe Adam and Eve were the first humans by saying they were created first, or that they were the ONLY humans created.


Looking at the Hebrew iof the first Genesis account, the most logical assumption is actually a pantheistic creation - with little 'gods' all over the place, creating their own little kingdoms. It doesn't fit with the claims made later about monotheism, but the evidence is there.

So - we have a conflict - did other gods create humans? Did God create more humans outside? Are we all descended ONLY from the line of Adam?

And - of course - what does Adam mean? It appears to be collective - 'Adam' doesn't necessarily imply one individual or bloodline.

However, taking a strict monotheistic approach (as claimed later), and ignoring assumptions - we know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters - so Cain could have married one of those.

(There is no necessity to believe we are being given an entire, unbroken chronology. Indeed - there is much evidence that that was not intended - otherwise the whole 'Babel' incident would appear elsewhere in text... it is not written chronologically).


So who was Cain's Wife? he left his father's lands and went to NOD. so it can't be Eve since she stayed with adam and bore seth.


And other daughters.


Who was Cain afraid would kill him? Genesis 4:14. there would be no one around to kill him if there were no other humans around.


Maybe he wasn't afraid of being killed right now, but of an 'ultimate' fate.


but to be delicious, it requires the chemical composition to envoke a favorable response on our sense of taste. Intelligence is not required of that. but intelligence is if one is to be steward.


Why? I think you are assuming stewardship requires more than there is evidence for. What a fence does is a kind of stewardship.


Adam lived for 930 years by biblical account. not forever, but certanly long lived.


But, not forever. Thus - he hadn't eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life.


yep, it was the ceremony done. but because that ceremony was done, all that is left is for those people to say "yes, that was done for ME." to be able to say that, you have to aknowledge that Jesus did die on the cross for you. and that requires faith.

if Hitler, before he put the gun to his temple, ask for forgiveness for all that he did, would he have been forgiven by God at that point and time? yes.
why? because of what Jesus did on the cross and three days later those many years ago.

That just doesn't follow. If I put a thousand dollars in your bank account, do you have to 'claim' it? You are implying a 'conditional' nature on the miracle of salvation, but, comparing it to the ceremony it is said to replace, there is no 'condition'. Once the sacrifice is made, the bloodguilt is washed away.

As such, every human, every sin, is forgiven in the vicarious substitution.

Of course - we really should be running into the problem that you can't atone for sins before they are done...

No I didn't, you're just misreading it. It means a third generation of people who hate God, and a fourth, and a fifth, etc.

No - that just isn't in there.

Your 'revisionist' version of the scripture cuts no ice.

Grave_n_idle, what DO you think of Al Quaeda and the Taliban?

God told Adam to trim a hedge.
"Okay," Adam said.
"Don't go near that hole, though, Adam," said God.
"Alright!"
"Oh, and this hedge is also the responisbility of your wife and you children, too, okay?"
"Okay."
And Adam runs over and jumps into the hole. Now Adam can't get out. He can in no way trim the hedge, but it's still his responsibility. And now he loves the hole, and teaches his children to love the hole, because that way, he doesn't have to trim that hedge, because he despises it and God.


A fine analogy. Meaningless, of course, because you have had to add an entire set of rules that God felt no need to add in the process you are creating an analogy of...

It means nothing like the same thing... and rather than discuss the fact that you were wrong (and, I mean really, badly wrong), you change the subject to taliban?

That isn't even on the topic of the thread....

You were wrong. Let's deal with the repurcussions of that shall we? Since you based your entire argument that only those who deserve punishment will be punished, on your misunderstanding of this verse.

I was not wrong. As I said, if you read the passage and think about it for two seconds it means exactly what I said.

As for my question on Al Quaeda and the Taliban, are you going to poke holes in a simple question or are you going to answer me?

What does it matter? It means the same thing. Tell me something, what do you think of Al Quaeda? And the taliban?

It means nothing like the same thing... and rather than discuss the fact that you were wrong (and, I mean really, badly wrong), you change the subject to taliban?

That isn't even on the topic of the thread....

You were wrong. Let's deal with the repurcussions of that shall we? Since you based your entire argument that only those who deserve punishment will be punished, on your misunderstanding of this verse.

Don't know where you're getting that from. Grammatically, it makes perfect sense. It's in there, just read the passage and think about it for two seconds.

Bullshit. If you can translate the Hebrew, let's see it. At the moment, we have you citing a perversion of the text, and me quoting the actual words that we are arguing God dictated.

Why should I accept your heretical assertions over the literal word of God?

Grave_n_idle, what DO you think of Al Quaeda and the Taliban?

Start a thread about it, if you wish, and I'll discuss it there. It has nothing to do with this debate.

Bullshit. If you can translate the Hebrew, let's see it. At the moment, we have you citing a perversion of the text, and me quoting the actual words that we are arguing God dictated.

Why should I accept your heretical assertions over the literal word of God?

I fail to see how they don't mean the same thing. Simply because it does not have the exact words "The third generation hated God, and so did the fourth, and so did the fifth" etc, does this mean it doesn't mean that? You're eliminating what this verse is highly likely to mean to support your argument, and obviously you think the same about me, but my interpretation is just as reasonable as yours, if not more so.

And just answer my question. A simple "good" or "bad" will do. It is relevant to this topic, as I will show you in a minute when you've answered me.

You were wrong. You are touting a mistranslation as more meaningful than the actual scripture. This makes you heretic and apostate.

Show me where the Hebrew is wrong, and why I should accept your perverted version, and we'll discuss it. It isn't me you are arguing against, it is the Word.

I am arguing with you. Please, show me the post where I said the original hebrew was wrong. I'm saying the original hebrew and my "perverted" version mean the same thing.

I was not wrong. As I said, if you read the passage and think about it for two seconds it means exactly what I said.

As for my question on Al Quaeda and the Taliban, are you going to poke holes in a simple question or are you going to answer me?

You were wrong. You are touting a mistranslation as more meaningful than the actual scripture. This makes you heretic and apostate.

Show me where the Hebrew is wrong, and why I should accept your perverted version, and we'll discuss it. It isn't me you are arguing against, it is the Word.

I fail to see how they don't mean the same thing. Simply because it does not have the exact words "The third generation hated God, and so did the fourth, and so did the fifth" etc, does this mean it doesn't mean that? You're eliminating what this verse is highly likely to mean to support your argument, and obviously you think the same about me, but my interpretation is just as reaonsable as yours, if not more so.


Your 'interpretation' has nothing to do with the Hebrew. Thus, your argument is worthless.

Show me, in the Hebrew, why I should accept your argument about people 'hating God'... fourth generation or otherwise.

You quoted a version of the scripture that invents words. You claimed I misquoted scripture.

I showed you why my 'interpretation' is better than yours. Quite simply - your bastardised version of the scripture is not supportable as a 'translation'.

Not only is your 'interpretation' inferior to mine, it isn't even based on the Hebrew. So -it isn't me you are arguing with, but God.


And just answer my question. A simple "good" or "bad" will do. It is relevant to this topic, as I will show you in a minute when you've answered me.

I've already told you, I'm not indulging your hijack. You got served, go lick your wounds or something. Or admit you were wrong, and we can discuss real scripture, rather than the pretend stuff you peddle.

Your 'interpretation' has nothing to do with the Hebrew. Thus, your argument is worthless.

Show me, in the Hebrew, why I should accept your argument about people 'hating God'... fourth generation or otherwise.

You quoted a version of the scripture that invents words. You claimed I misquoted scripture.

I showed you why my 'interpretation' is better than yours. Quite simply - your bastardised version of the scripture is not supportable as a 'translation'.

Not only is your 'interpretation' inferior to mine, it isn't even based on the Hebrew. So -it isn't me you are arguing with, but God.

I've already told you, I'm not indulging your hijack. You got served, go lick your wounds or something. Or admit you were wrong, and we can discuss real scripture, rather than the pretend stuff you peddle.

Watch you temper. It's making me laugh.:D
My version is hardly bastardised because it doesn't support you're views.
If you think I've been "served," you flatter yourself too much.

Keeping mercy for thousands
Forgiving iniquity, transgression, sin.
Will not 'hold innocent' or unpunished.
Will 'observe' the iniquity to father, son,
of the third, of the fourth.

Doesn't say that the third and fourth generation hate God, but it is generally implied. Let's remember that it says that God will forgive iniquity, implying that those who are not sinful will not be punished.

Now, because you won't answer my question and are being very childish, I'll have to answer it for you. I'm assuming you don't approve of Al Quaeda or the Taliban. You hate them, and so you will teach your children to hate them too. And they would teach that to their children, etc. That's how that kind of thing works, and that's what the verse is about. Each generation was teaching their children to hate God, and they taught theirs to hate God, and went on like this, so God has had to punish every generation in turn for the sins they had committed against him.

There you go. A reason for saying that every generation was sinful, using your hebrew translation.

I am arguing with you. Please, show me the post where I said the original hebrew was wrong. I'm saying the original hebrew and my "perverted" version mean the same thing.

And that is why you are wrong.

And that is why you are wrong.

Blah, blah, blah. Read my new post.

I feel a schism coming on!

Watch you temper. It's making me laugh.:D


Temper? Hardly. If you think it is a display of temper because I'm not wearing kid gloves with you in every post, I'd say you are overly sensitive.


My version is hardly bastardised because it doesn't support you're views.


No - it is bastardised because it doesn't support the Hebrew.


If you think I've been "served," you flatter yourself too much.


If you think you haven't, you are blissfully unaware.


Keeping mercy for thousands
Forgiving iniquity, transgression, sin.
Will not 'hold innocent' or unpunished.
Will 'observe' the iniquity to father, son,
of the third, of the fourth.

Doesn't say that the third and fourth generation hate God, but it is generally implied.


It doesn't say the first generation hated god. It says that iniquities of the fathers will be visited upon the sons, and the sons of the sons. It says your children will suffer for your transgressions.

I don't know where you get your 'implication' from, but it is nothing to do with the words written in the Hebrew scripture.


Let's remember that it says that God will forgive iniquity, implying that those who are not sinful will not be punished.


God will forgive transgression - but, when he doesn't, he applies a harsh punishment - one that condemns consecutive generations.

But, this is a better line of argument. You should have used this approach, rather than that 'hate God' thing. At least here, you can claim scriptural backing, and argue we are just approaching our difference semantically.


Now, because you won't answer my question and are being very childish, I'll have to answer it for you.


I won't answer your question... thus I am being childish? No - I wont answer your question because it is off-topic, and I have no dsire to further another hijack -especially on a subject I've no real interst in.

I'm assuming you don't approve of Al Quaeda or the Taliban. You hate them, and so you will teach your children to hate them too. And they would teach that to their children, etc. That's how that kind of thing works, and that's what the verse is about. Each generation was teaching their children to hate God, and they taught theirs to hate God, and went on like this, so God has had to punish every generation in turn for the sins they had committed against him.

Understand me now?

I don't hate anyone. I do not teach my children to hate anyone.

I find it surprising that you'd even suggest it... but, maybe that's because I thought you were Christian.

Temper? Hardly. If you think it is a display of temper because I'm not wearing kid gloves with you in every post, I'd say you are overly sensitive.

You're losing your temper. I can tell. Name something that makes me sensitive. I'm just putting up an argument, same as you.

No - it is bastardised because it doesn't support the Hebrew.

Supports it better than you think. They have the basic similarities I've been pointing out.

If you think you haven't, you are blissfully unaware.

Shyeah. OK. I've been served by some guy to ignorant to see the basic similarities between two versions of the same verse. I never said yours was wrong, dude.

It doesn't say the first generation hated god. It says that iniquities of the fathers will be visited upon the sons, and the sons of the sons. It says your children will suffer for your transgressions.

I don't know where you get your 'implication' from, but it is nothing to do with the words written in the Hebrew scripture.

No. No it doesn't. Show me where it says "Because of your father's sins, you must suffer."

God will forgive transgression - but, when he doesn't, he applies a harsh punishment - one that condemns consecutive generations.

He always forgives if we ask him to. None of these generations did, they hated hi, and they kept on sinning, and God punished them. Simple enough.

But, this is a better line of argument. You should have used this approach, rather than that 'hate God' thing. At least here, you can claim scriptural backing, and argue we are just approaching our difference semantically.

What I used originally was scripture, but you don't seem to accept anything but the exact words, even though they're saying the same thing.

I won't answer your question... thus I am being childish? No - I wont answer your question because it is off-topic, and I have no dsire to further another hijack -especially on a subject I've no real interst in.


I told you I would connect it to our current topic, and you still didn't answer.

I don't hate anyone. I do not teach my children to hate anyone.

I find it surprising that you'd even suggest it... but, maybe that's because I thought you were Christian.

Whatever. You still don't agree with them, and would rather do something to stop them than help them in what they do.

How many angels was that on the head of a pin again?

:headbang: See this, Grave_n_idle?? It's me crushing your argument with my HEAD!! Muahahahahahahaha!

Just kidding

Read what I write carefully. Adam and Eve had responsibility over their own actions. God told them not to eat from the tree, and they did it anyway, deliberately disobeying him.

Yes, but they had no concept of right or wrong, so they had no way of knowing that disobeying God was wrong while obeying God was wring.


And in the world of today we all know right and wrong, but we choose to sin, and we are responsible for that.
Sure. And, according to your theology, we only have that ability because humans disobeyed God. So God actually doesn't want humans to know right from wrong; he intended us to be a race of sociopaths instead.

Grave_n_idle, what DO you think of Al Quaeda and the Taliban?
:rolleyes:

I think there needs to be a new version of Godwin, only for references to Islam and terrorism.

sometimes i wish that the forum had a little side utility that woud allow the bystanders to vote on who is or has won a particular argument.

that's Rehabilitation, not punishment.

Without rehabilitation, punishment is pointless.

and so has Egypt. they did something wrong, and they were punished. so was Sodom, Gomorrah...

Pharaoh is equivalent to all of Egypt? Besides, God is clear that he intentionally made Pharaoh continue in the wrong path. Can Pharaoh be blamed for God's decision?


I said they had responsibilty of their own actions, as well. Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil, but they did have responsibilty and now we know right and wrong, and yet we still choose wrong.

How can one have responsibility without understanding?

You're losing your temper. I can tell. Name something that makes me sensitive. I'm just putting up an argument, same as you.


I'm really not losing my temper, my friend... you evoke no strong emotion in me either way.

Supports it better than you think. They have the basic similarities I've been pointing out.


No - they don't. You keep saying they do - but you are basing that assertion on the idea that the Hebrew text says something that just isn't there.

Shyeah. OK. I've been served by some guy to ignorant to see the basic similarities between two versions of the same verse. I never said yours was wrong, dude.


I said yours was wrong.

Because it is. What you are saying, is not supported by the Hebrew text... and I have no need to accept any assertion made in any so-called Bible, that doesn't even match the origional text it is supposed to be a translation from.


No. No it doesn't. Show me where it says "Because of your father's sins, you must suffer."


It doesn't say that - but it does say that your sins will exact a punishment that will continue on to your children.


He always forgives if we ask him to. None of these generations did, they hated him, and they kept on sinning, and God punished them. Simple enough.


None of that is in the text, there. You can make all the assumptions you want, but don't rpetend they correspond to what is actually written.

The Hebrew theology did allow for one to buy back from sin, and yet that clause isn't mentioned here - what is said, is that the punishment for certain transgression might be carried out on successive generations. There isn't a loophole stated - you are adding that yourself, because it doesn't conform to your milk-and-cookies theology.

What I used originally was scripture, but you don't seem to accept anything but the exact words, even though they're saying the same thing.


They don't say the same thing. Your 'version' adds in a whole element of 'hating god', which isn't in the Hebrew scripture.

Whatever. You still don't agree with them, and would rather do something to stop them than help them in what they do.

What is it they 'do'? Teach their children there is one true god? I've encountered that elsewhere.

sometimes i wish that the forum had a little side utility that woud allow the bystanders to vote on who is or has won a particular argument.

Hey, if you think it's me that got the wrong end of the stick, vote with your fingers. :) I'm used to being told I'm the unpopular end of these discussions. I promise not to be offended.

:)

Hey, if you think it's me that got the wrong end of the stick, vote with your fingers. :) I'm used to being told I'm the unpopular end of these discussions. I promise not to be offended.

:)

well ya know grave, i must have read a thousand of your posts on one religious topic or other. maybe more...

i dont remember a time when i thought you were wrong.

Fight, fight, fight

well ya know grave, i must have read a thousand of your posts on one religious topic or other. maybe more...

i dont remember a time when i thought you were wrong.

Oh, I don't know about that... I've thought I was 'wrong' a number of times... I've just thought that the 'wrong' answer was the one better supported by scripture - so that's what I've argued.

Example - do children 'go to hell' if they haven't yet been saved. I wish the answer in the scripture was something cute and comforting (and I think it should be, in order that the 'spirit' of the law should match the 'letter' of the law), but it's not - so my scriptural argument is (I think) wrong, but it is scriptural. :)

But, thanks. :) I know what you mean.

Oh, I don't know about that... I've thought I was 'wrong' a number of times... I've just thought that the 'wrong' answer was the one better supported by scripture - so that's what I've argued.

Example - do children 'go to hell' if they haven't yet been saved. I wish the answer in the scripture was something cute and comforting (and I think it should be, in order that the 'spirit' of the law should match the 'letter' of the law), but it's not - so my scriptural argument is (I think) wrong, but it is scriptural. :)

But, thanks. :) I know what you mean.

there may have been an actual post where i thought you were wrong in you interpretation. it might have happened. i sure dont remember one.

i dont mind when people's theology leads them in different directions than mine. i only mind when in order to get to their conclusion they have to pretend that certain scriptures don't exist or, as in this thread, that god is something like "all loving" when their theology has him damning the innocent.

It's just friggin' amazing how so many Christians have the ability to just ignore links in the chain of their logic.

"God caused everything, knows everything, and has planned everything. But none of it is his fault."

Wow. Just, wow. Holy shit wow. At that point, I have nothing more to say to the person. Honestly, if you're that far deluded from logic and reality, then you need to seek medical help. Serious medical help.

There've been lots of analogies flung around in this thread, and half of them have made sense, and half of them haven't - guess which half have made sense (in before some smartass Christian claims it was theirs) - now one from me.

If your mother is killed because a mob boss ordered her to be killed, who are you pissed off at? The thug who actually killed her, or the guy who made the thug do it?

And some of you aren't too great at reading and using connective logic, so lemme break it down for you: God is a mob boss, pulling the strings and pushing the buttons from backstage where nobody can see him, even though he controls and commands everything that happens. You see the thug, the virus, the sin, the bible, whatever - it's all god. All of it. There is no action, no death, no murder, no cancerous tumor that happens without the OK from god, but the key you're missing and the link you ignore is that he OK'd it all from the beginning.

You accept that he planned it out and that he has the power to change hearts and actions through changing hearts, yet he chooses not to. He specifically chooses who to change, who to allow to kill, who to give birth to and what his mindset will be like when he grows.

And don't gimme that free will/agency/choice stuff, because it's bull. When god can influence anyone on a whim, or give someone an epiphany of religion (like some of you claim to have gotten), or destroy an entire city because it was sinful, he is violating - RAPING - free will, choice, and agency, because he gets involved even more than he can be blamed for through his involvement in the creation of it all.

God DID create evil. God IS evil. He's EVERYTHING. I can't understand what's so hard to contemplate. If it exists, it came from god, and acts under god's will. The raccoons, the birds, the dogs, the humans, they're all here because god wanted them to be here, and they act the way they do because god wants them to act that way. No action can exist without god wanting it to, because god is the source of all creation - all of it. Every single thing. He took the time to make it so blood would spurt a certain way when slashed with a blade because he wanted it to spurt that specific way when cut that specific way with a certain blade.

Follow the logic all the way up the chain. Don't just stop at the chicken that made itself sick, use your head - keep going, what made that chicken sick? Where did the chicken come from? Why was there something around the chicken to be able to make it sick, and who put it there?

It's all god's fault. Many of you will still deny it even after it being put so plainly as it's been, but that's a personal problem and I just hope it doesn't extent to other areas of logic you claim to be able to use, because it doesn't work.

It's just friggin' amazing how so many Christians have the ability to just ignore links in the chain of their logic.

To be fair, most people have that ability - and use it. What changes is the subject matter.

There've been lots of analogies flung around in this thread, and half of them have made sense, and half of them haven't - guess which half have made sense (in before some smartass Christian claims it was theirs) - now one from me.

My analogies make no sense? =(

God DID create evil. God IS evil.

Depends on how you define evil. To some, evil not a palpable force or object in and of itself. It is a movement away from good - away from God, if you will. By that definition, God didn't create evil, nor is God evil. But God did allow the capacity for evil and, as you point out, set things up such that evil would occur.

To be fair, most people have that ability - and use it. What changes is the subject matter.

Indeed, but I have rarely seen such huge testicles being utilized in doing so.

My analogies make no sense? =(

You're the exception, smartass. =)

Depends on how you define evil. To some, evil not a palpable force or object in and of itself. It is a movement away from good - away from God, if you will. By that definition, God didn't create evil, nor is God evil. But God did allow the capacity for evil and, as you point out, set things up such that evil would occur.

If one were to define evil through the simple definition of "away from god", then they would have quite the predicament on their hands, because you can never be "away from god". You're always within his grasp, and within his control. In this definition, evil does not exist, because good does not exist. Even me, the person defacing god himself as a fraud and a jealous psychopath, has been born with the mindset to give me the thoughts I have now, put in the environment to give me the experiences and thought patterns I have now, all by god.

He created me to make this post, among other things.

Gah, someone post. This thread is too good to just let die without anyone admitting some sort of defeat. -_- (like that'll happen)

Looking at the Hebrew iof the first Genesis account, the most logical assumption is actually a pantheistic creation - with little 'gods' all over the place, creating their own little kingdoms. It doesn't fit with the claims made later about monotheism, but the evidence is there.Even god said other Gods in the english translation of the bible. ;)

So - we have a conflict - did other gods create humans? Did God create more humans outside? Are we all descended ONLY from the line of Adam?I say no. for the mere fact that while it says God created Adam and Eve first, it doesn't state ONLY. and the term Mother of us all can be because she was the first.

And - of course - what does Adam mean? It appears to be collective - 'Adam' doesn't necessarily imply one individual or bloodline.true, but Adam is used as an individual when talking about the actions within the garden. but I will allow that this too may be due to translation.

However, taking a strict monotheistic approach (as claimed later), and ignoring assumptions - we know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters - so Cain could have married one of those.a possiblitiy. and added to the fact that after 100+ years, eve was still bearing children.

(There is no necessity to believe we are being given an entire, unbroken chronology. Indeed - there is much evidence that that was not intended - otherwise the whole 'Babel' incident would appear elsewhere in text... it is not written chronologically). true, except Seth was concieved after Cain killed Abel, and through the wording Seth is the Thrid Male child born of Adam and Eve.



Maybe he wasn't afraid of being killed right now, but of an 'ultimate' fate.Except when he mentions his fear to God, he says "everyone who Findeth me will kill me." if Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel (and daughters) are the only ones around, and considering that woman was made to serve man "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. " would mean that any Daughters would be at that camp/town/settlement that they call home. so by leaving, even with his sister-wife, there would be no one else. for Generations

unless they were long lived, as if they ate of the tree of life.

thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Why? I think you are assuming stewardship requires more than there is evidence for. What a fence does is a kind of stewardship.
"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. " to dress it and to keep it. The Garden was Adam's Responsibility. what do you define "Dress and Keep"

But, not forever. Thus - he hadn't eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life.Proof? God only said they couldn't eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and feared he would eat of the tree of life only AFTER they had eaten from the tree of knowledge. where else does it state that they couldn't eat of the tree of life?

That just doesn't follow. If I put a thousand dollars in your bank account, do you have to 'claim' it? You are implying a 'conditional' nature on the miracle of salvation, but, comparing it to the ceremony it is said to replace, there is no 'condition'. Once the sacrifice is made, the bloodguilt is washed away.no, you put a thousand dollars into my account, I don't have to claim it. infact, I can reject it.

As such, every human, every sin, is forgiven in the vicarious substitution.but only when you ask for forgiveness.

Of course - we really should be running into the problem that you can't atone for sins before they are done...true. but that opens a whole knew argument.

Hey, if you think it's me that got the wrong end of the stick, vote with your fingers. :) I'm used to being told I'm the unpopular end of these discussions. I promise not to be offended. :)
then let me be the first... or after typing this long response... not quite the first. to say...

I would rather discuss religion with you and dem and a few others here. you're not condesending, resulting in trollish and flambaitish remarks and you keep to the topic without resulting in personal attacks.

Gah, someone post. This thread is too good to just let die without anyone admitting some sort of defeat. -_- (like that'll happen)

No one's stopping you from admitting defeat that is...

:D :D :D ;)

Gah, someone post. This thread is too good to just let die without anyone admitting some sort of defeat. -_- (like that'll happen)

what is this "defeat" you write of?

what is this "defeat" you write of?

Dangerous mice afoot.

You're the exception, smartass. =)

=)

If one were to define evil through the simple definition of "away from god", then they would have quite the predicament on their hands, because you can never be "away from god". You're always within his grasp, and within his control. In this definition, evil does not exist, because good does not exist. Even me, the person defacing god himself as a fraud and a jealous psychopath, has been born with the mindset to give me the thoughts I have now, put in the environment to give me the experiences and thought patterns I have now, all by god.

He created me to make this post, among other things.

It really all depends on the definition of God. Even if God is omnipotent, God could certainly decide not to control certain thing - to give autonomy to God's creations. Yes, the idea of an all-controlling God is incompatible with this definition of evil. But if one believes that God has granted that autonomy in some way, then it is possible to move away from God (not to fully separate oneself from God, but to move away). In a truly deterministic universe, this wouldn't be true, and it gets strange.

But people both want to believe that the universe is deterministic and not want to. Most essentially argue that the universe and its rules are deterministic, but that we are also somehow outside of that - that our will and our consciousness is not fully controlled by those deterministic processes. Does that hold up to scrutiny? I'm not sure, really, but it is an idea.


Even god said other Gods in the english translation of the bible.

I have to ask. Is that the capitalization you meant to type? =)

I would rather discuss religion with you and dem and a few others here. you're not condesending, resulting in trollish and flambaitish remarks and you keep to the topic without resulting in personal attacks.

=)

Religious discussion, in my mind, does nobody any good when it is largely adversarial (is that really how that is spelled? my computer corrected it that way). Sure, there will be arguments and debates, but it should be about crushing your opponent or anything like that. It should be about learning and teaching and, hopefully, coming to at least some understanding.

Yes, but they had no concept of right or wrong, so they had no way of knowing that disobeying God was wrong while obeying God was wrong.

Sure. And, according to your theology, we only have that ability because humans disobeyed God. So God actually doesn't want humans to know right from wrong; he intended us to be a race of sociopaths instead.

Wrong. Even though they didn't know right from wrong, Adam and Eve were told not to eat from the tree. God, who had created them and given them a home and a partner, had asked this one thing of them. And in the bible, they hesitated. The fact that they hesitated shows that they did not have to give in to temptation, so after they ate, they realised they had done wrong, and because they disobeyed him, God punished them.

Gah, someone post. This thread is too good to just let die without anyone admitting some sort of defeat. -_- (like that'll happen)

Trust me. You're side is stubborn, my side is stubborn, God only knows how long this thread will be. :p

(pardon the pun. It was awful, I know.)

Trust me. You're side is stubborn, my side is stubborn, God only knows how long this thread will be. :p

(pardon the pun. It was awful, I know.)

My side is.....flexibly stubborn.

I think one of the things is that there are no set "sides". This isn't a football game. We didn't choose up teams. We all agree on some things and disagree on others. Of course, having some agreement can make an argument even longer, because it means you have some common ground, but you still have disagreement. It's much easier to simply agree to disagree with someone when you have no common ground in the first place.

Wrong. Even though they didn't know right from wrong, Adam and Eve were told not to eat from the tree. God, who had created them and given them a home and a partner, had asked this one thing of them.

Yes. And, not having any knowledge of right and wrong, they had absolutely no way of knowing whether obeying God was a good thing or a bad thing. They had no way of knowing if it's good to obey people when they ask you to do things. For all they knew, disobeying God was the good thing to do.


And in the bible, they hesitated.

Well, they were weighing options, weren't they? And given that they had no concept of right and wrong, they didn't have much to go on. I'd probably hesitate in that situation, too.


The fact that they hesitated shows that they did not have to give in to temptation,

Of course they didn't "have to." All God did was make a very tempting tree full of tempting fruit, place it smack in the middle of a garden that was (in Adam and Eve's experience) exclusively full of wonderful and charming things, and then say to his children (who had no concept of morality at all), "By the way, don't eat that."

You're right, they had a choice. They simply had no foundation on which to evaluate whether or not their choice was right until AFTER THE FACT. As you yourself point out:

so after they ate, they realised they had done wrong,

Before they ate, they had no way of knowing right from wrong. After they ate, they did.

If God wanted them to choose to do right instead of wrong, then he probably should have given them the capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, don't you think? And if he intentionally created them without this capacity, don't you think it's a bit odd for him to punish them for failing to exercise the moral judgment that he deliberately refrained from giving them?


and because they disobeyed him, God punished them.
Your God is no different from a parent who believes it is appropriate to throw their newborn against the wall because it poops itself. He punishes his children in a completely outrageous way for simply acting in a manner that is appropriate to their level of development.

If you want to worship a child-abuser, you go right ahead. Just don't lie to yourself about what you are worshipping.

Fight, fight, fight

Do shut up.

I'm really not losing my temper, my friend... you evoke no strong emotion in me either way.

OK. Can't really tell over the internet, you just seemed really pissed off.

No - they don't. You keep saying they do - but you are basing that assertion on the idea that the Hebrew text says something that just isn't there.

"Forgiving iniquity, transgression, sin."

So we know God forgives those who are sorry for thier sin.

Will 'observe' the iniquity to father, son,
of the third, of the fourth.
This could mean God punishing the son for the father's sins, but it could ALSO mean a father passing his iniquity to his son; making his son sinful and worthy of God's punishment.

None of that is in the text, there. You can make all the assumptions you want, but don't rpetend they correspond to what is actually written.

The Hebrew theology did allow for one to buy back from sin, and yet that clause isn't mentioned here - what is said, is that the punishment for certain transgression might be carried out on successive generations. There isn't a loophole stated - you are adding that yourself, because it doesn't conform to your milk-and-cookies theology.

Assuming what I have stated above is true - and just assume, for a minute, that it is - then the children can't have been punished for thier parent's sins, because, they too hated God.

They don't say the same thing. Your 'version' adds in a whole element of 'hating god', which isn't in the Hebrew scripture.

Oh, yes. Of course. The hebrew translation doesn't use those exact words, so it CAN'T be true. Yours are the words of blind ignorance.


What is it they 'do'? Teach their children there is one true god? I've encountered that elsewhere.

I was referring to the suicide bombings.

Moowah.

I have to ask. Is that the capitalization you meant to type? =) no, typo on my part. :(



=)

Religious discussion, in my mind, does nobody any good when it is largely adversarial (is that really how that is spelled? my computer corrected it that way). Sure, there will be arguments and debates, but it shouldn't be about crushing your opponent or anything like that. It should be about learning and teaching and, hopefully, coming to at least some understanding.
*nods* Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Protestant... etc... all worship the same God.

My side is.....flexibly stubborn.

I think one of the things is that there are no set "sides". This isn't a football game. We didn't choose up teams. We all agree on some things and disagree on others. Of course, having some agreement can make an argument even longer, because it means you have some common ground, but you still have disagreement. It's much easier to simply agree to disagree with someone when you have no common ground in the first place.

Fair enough. I hope you all realise though, eventually I will get bored and leave this thread alone, but when I do my beliefs will be unaffected and I will still believe that those of you who are arguing against God are wrong.

Fair enough. I hope you all realise though, eventually I will get bored and leave this thread alone, but when I do my beliefs will be unaffected and I will still believe that those of you who are arguing against God are wrong.

we arent arguing against god, just your version of god.

we arent arguing against god, just your version of god.

Same difference. I still think you're wrong.

Fair enough. I hope you all realise though, eventually I will get bored and leave this thread alone, but when I do my beliefs will be unaffected and I will still believe that those of you who are arguing against God are wrong.

(a) If you leave religious discussions with your beliefs completely unaffected, that is truly sad. Everyone has something to learn from others.

(b) "Those of you"? I'm not arguing against God. Far from it, in fact. I am arguing in light of Christ's message.

we arent arguing against god, just your version of god.
Same difference. I still think you're wrong.

It isn't the same difference, unless you are, in fact, God.

Are you claiming to be God? I hope not. And if you aren't, then arguing with you is not the same thing as arguing with or against God.

Yes. And, not having any knowledge of right and wrong, they had absolutely no way of knowing whether obeying God was a good thing or a bad thing. They had no way of knowing if it's good to obey people when they ask you to do things. For all they knew, disobeying God was the good thing to do.

That's just plain stupid. No further comment.

Well, they were weighing options, weren't they? And given that they had no concept of right and wrong, they didn't have much to go on. I'd probably hesitate in that situation, too.

Of course they didn't "have to." All God did was make a very tempting tree full of tempting fruit, place it smack in the middle of a garden that was (in Adam and Eve's experience) exclusively full of wonderful and charming things, and then say to his children (who had no concept of morality at all), "By the way, don't eat that."

Who says it was all that tempting? Were you there? Anyway, they had responsibilty for their actions. God said "Do NOT eat." They could easily have followed this instruction, as they did when God told Adam to name the animals and care for the garden. He understood that he was to do these things, so eating from the tree was no different.

Your God is no different from a parent who believes it is appropriate to throw their newborn against the wall because it poops itself. He punishes his children in a completely outrageous way for simply acting in a manner that is appropriate to their level of development.

If you want to worship a child-abuser, you go right ahead. Just don't lie to yourself about what you are worshipping.

God did nothing of the sort. Adam and Eve understood that they were not to eat from the tree, because Eve said to the snake "Look, God's told us we can't eat it." And Adam understood and followed God's instructions to care for the garden and name the animals. Later in the bible, God sends his son to heal the sick, raise the dead, make the deaf hear and the blind see, and Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins so that we could be forgiven. I'm not lying to myself about what I'm worshipping, you're creating an incorrect idea of God by not looking at the whole picture.

(a) If you leave religious discussions with your beliefs completely unaffected, that is truly sad. Everyone has something to learn from others.

(b) "Those of you"? I'm not arguing against God. Far from it, in fact. I am arguing in light of Christ's message.

(a) I have nothing to learn from athiests. They have something to learns from God.

(b) Did I say you weren't? Did I mention "Dempublicents1" in particular? I wasn't even thinking of you at the time.

It isn't the same difference, unless you are, in fact, God.

Are you claiming to be God? I hope not. And if you aren't, then arguing with you is not the same thing as arguing with or against God.

I argue in God's defence. I am fully aware that I am not God, and I never said I was.

Moowah.

(a) I have nothing to learn from athiests. They have something to learns from God.

Arrogance usually isn't a good trait.

(b) Did I say you weren't? Did I mention "Dempublicents1" in particular? I wasn't even thinking of you at the time.

You were replying to me and you said, "Those of you". That typically includes the person being addressed.

I argue in God's defence. I am fully aware that I am not God, and I never said I was.

You argue in defense of your personal beliefs against God. There is a difference. Thus, when people argue with you, they are not arguing against God. They are arguing against you and, being fallible, you may very well be wrong about God. In fact, all of us are probably at least partially wrong about God, as none of us has infallible knowledge.

People go to work, not because they want to, but because they have to in order to survive. People pretend to be straight when they are gay, not because they want to, but because society pressures them to do so. People pay their taxes, not because they want to, but because the penalty otherwise is high. And so on...

They want to survive, so they want to go to work in order to survive. Given the options, that is the option they want.

But I wouldn't want to do it. I wouldn't want to be shot, and I wouldn't want to steal the money. But I wouldn't have any option that I actually wanted, so I would have to choose an option that I didn't want. Situations like that happen all the time. It's called life.

Given the options, you would want to obey the command to steal the money (for whatever reason).

Of course, this still doesn't approximate the situation you are describing. If we were to use this as an analogy, we have to remove the person holding the gun. Instead of holding the gun, the person compelled to steal the money has no other option. They cannot choose not to do it. They will do it. Period.

They do choose to do it.

I feel a schism coming on!

This does model Christian history quite well in some respects.

They want to survive, so they want to go to work in order to survive. Given the options, that is the option they want.

Survival is what they want. Work is not. They have to work to survive, even though they don't want to. Hence, they do something they do not want to do.

Given the options, you would want to obey the command to steal the money (for whatever reason).

Wrong. I might decide that it was the best option available, but it would not be anything I wanted to do.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "want"?

They do choose to do it.

Impossible, if there is no other option available. If you can only take one option, then there is no choice to be made.

Depends on how you define evil. To some, evil not a palpable force or object in and of itself. It is a movement away from good - away from God, if you will. By that definition, God didn't create evil, nor is God evil. But God did allow the capacity for evil and, as you point out, set things up such that evil would occur.

This is why I prefer the earliest Hebrew take on God - as the root of everything, the good and the bad. Does that make God 'good' or 'bad'? No - because 'he' is all and nothing, and 'good' and 'bad' are just things that originate with him, not aspects of him.

Even god said other Gods in the english translation of the bible. ;)


Very true - and on numerous occassions. Not least, of course, in the group of rules we call the Ten Commandments (although, of course, I could start yet another hijack here about how they aren't...).


I say no. for the mere fact that while it says God created Adam and Eve first, it doesn't state ONLY. and the term Mother of us all can be because she was the first.


Very true. Joseph is 'father' to Jesus without being 'related' in any way. Parental relationships are not necessarily biological.


true, but Adam is used as an individual when talking about the actions within the garden. but I will allow that this too may be due to translation.


Part of it is - in Genesis 1:27 ("So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...") the word translated as 'man' is 'adam.

The same is true in Genesis 2:7 ("And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul...).

In the first case, it is very obvious that 'adam, if translated the same way that it is most of the time - would give Adam as a collective term.


a possiblitiy. and added to the fact that after 100+ years, eve was still bearing children.


And it doesn't actually say when Cain married - just, sometime after he headed off on his own.


true, except Seth was concieved after Cain killed Abel, and through the wording Seth is the Thrid Male child born of Adam and Eve.


This may be true - but Cain doesn't have to have been married immediately - and the distorted chronology, coupled with no specified interval, leaves the question open.


Except when he mentions his fear to God, he says "everyone who Findeth me will kill me." if Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel (and daughters) are the only ones around, and considering that woman was made to serve man "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. " would mean that any Daughters would be at that camp/town/settlement that they call home. so by leaving, even with his sister-wife, there would be no one else. for Generations


He might have been afraid of the vengeance of his own family - immediate family, I mean. After all, though he wandered off, that is no guarantee he wouldn't bump into any of his relations.


unless they were long lived, as if they ate of the tree of life.


Or just long lived - like all the early bible patriarchs are.


"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. " to dress it and to keep it. The Garden was Adam's Responsibility. what do you define "Dress and Keep"


Cut the branches? Rake the leaves?

How 'smart' does one really need to be?


Proof? God only said they couldn't eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and feared he would eat of the tree of life only AFTER they had eaten from the tree of knowledge. where else does it state that they couldn't eat of the tree of life?


I'm not saying they couldn't. It just looks like they didn't... else they would have had the immortality that God needed to deprive them of, once they had knowledge of good and evil.


no, you put a thousand dollars into my account, I don't have to claim it. infact, I can reject it.


But I don't have to ask you to put it there, and - if you don't object, it stays there.


but only when you ask for forgiveness.


I still don't see this. The ceremony of atonement requires no 'asking'. The scapegoat requires no 'asking' - and the vicarious substitution is a direct parallel to the scapegoat. The only person who has to have any direct relation to the offering is the high priest, and we are being told Jesus is the high priest for his own sacrifice (again, another potential hijack, about whether the sacrifice can officiate...?) so no interaction is required from the individual believer/non-believer.

Look up the scapegoat - see if the 'offering' of the scapegoat only applies to those who choose to accept it.


true. but that opens a whole knew argument.


Which is why I am avoiding pursuing it, right now. :)


then let me be the first... or after typing this long response... not quite the first. to say...

I would rather discuss religion with you and dem and a few others here. you're not condesending, resulting in trollish and flambaitish remarks and you keep to the topic without resulting in personal attacks.

Why, thankyou. :) There is a small (elite) cadre that I will happily debate religion with, knowing I will get something worthwhile from it, even if not agreement. You are definitely on that list. :)

Fair enough. I hope you all realise though, eventually I will get bored and leave this thread alone, but when I do my beliefs will be unaffected and I will still believe that those of you who are arguing against God are wrong.

So, no matter how good the argument... you can never be swayed?

What you are doing, then, is not 'debating' - it is preaching.

OK. Can't really tell over the internet, you just seemed really pissed off.


Not at all, sometimes I can play nicey-nice, sometimes I don't feel inclined to the frivolity.

"Forgiving iniquity, transgression, sin."
So we know God forgives those who are sorry for thier sin.


No - we know he has the capacity to do so - that doesn't equate to saying he always will.


Will 'observe' the iniquity to father, son,
of the third, of the fourth.
This could mean God punishing the son for the father's sins, but it could ALSO mean a father passing his iniquity to his son; making his son sinful and worthy of God's punishment.


It doesn't say that, though - the 'active' part of the verse is God exercising his deity, not the behaviour of the fathers or sons.


Assuming what I have stated above is true - and just assume, for a minute, that it is - then the children can't have been punished for thier parent's sins, because, they too hated God.


And yet, nowhere in the verse, or any surrounding verse, does it mention 'hating God'. That was added in to the verse you stated was the 'correct' version (telling me I'd misquoted, no less), and is not justified in the native tongue.


Oh, yes. Of course. The hebrew translation doesn't use those exact words, so it CAN'T be true. Yours are the words of blind ignorance.


Ahem... so, the 'un-ignorant' thing to do, would be to add concepts to the Hebrew?

This 'hating God' thing isn't even suggested... why should I accept it as relating to this verse?

I was referring to the suicide bombings.

And that connects to the entirety of Al Qaeda? And that defines 'taliban'?

I think you'll find that - like the Hitler Youth - not everyone who has an 'alleigance' to Al Qaeda, and not every talib, is involved in, or even supports, suicide bombing.

Cut the branches? Rake the leaves?

How 'smart' does one really need to be?isn't making and using of Tools a sign of intelligence? rudementary, sure, but intelligence nonetheless.

I'm not saying they couldn't. It just looks like they didn't... else they would have had the immortality that God needed to deprive them of, once they had knowledge of good and evil.and seeing how nowdays, the lines between "Good" and "Evil" are blurring, I say the effects of the Fruit are not long lasting. ;)

But I don't have to ask you to put it there, and - if you don't object, it stays there.exactly my point. Salvation is there, but one has to claim it. you put the money in my account, and to make it appropos, the account is a non interest bearing account no taxes and accounting for it. so it sits there unused, unclaimed. until I use the money or claim the salvation, it's not doing me any good. when the reconing comes, the saving grace would not do me any good because I didn't claim it.

so I reach out my hand and say, Jesus sacrificed himself for me. my sins are cleansed away. then I have claimed it and now I am saved.

A bullet proof vest won't save a Police Officer UNTIL s/he puts it on.


I still don't see this. The ceremony of atonement requires no 'asking'. The scapegoat requires no 'asking' - and the vicarious substitution is a direct parallel to the scapegoat. The only person who has to have any direct relation to the offering is the high priest, and we are being told Jesus is the high priest for his own sacrifice (again, another potential hijack, about whether the sacrifice can officiate...?) so no interaction is required from the individual believer/non-believer.

Look up the scapegoat - see if the 'offering' of the scapegoat only applies to those who choose to accept it.it's not a ceremony. as you said, the salvation is made available to all. so you claim the salvation. now does that mean you can sin all you want from then on? of course not, but being human we will sin. so what then. we ask God to forgive our shortcomings and failures.

isn't making and using of Tools a sign of intelligence? rudementary, sure, but intelligence nonetheless.


Or programming?

Maybe Adam is nothing more than a well programmed lawnmower.

I've seen birds drop shelled animals to break them open, I've seen otters hitting food on a rock. That is sign of 'intelligence', but is it intelligence enough? Could the otter 'pass' God's little Eden test?

isn't
and seeing how nowdays, the lines between "Good" and "Evil" are blurring, I say the effects of the Fruit are not long lasting. ;)


I'd say the lines between 'good' and 'evil' have always been blurry. The road to hell paved with good intentions, and all that.

isn't
exactly my point. Salvation is there, but one has to claim it. you put the money in my account, and to make it appropos, the account is a non interest bearing account no taxes and accounting for it. so it sits there unused, unclaimed. until I use the money or claim the salvation, it's not doing me any good. when the reconing comes, the saving grace would not do me any good because I didn't claim it.


I still don't see it - once the money is in your account, it doesn't matter if you want to use it, or if you even know it is there - you've got it. You don't have to claim it to be 'in that state of being', it happened, already.

isn't
so I reach out my hand and say, Jesus sacrificed himself for me. my sins are cleansed away. then I have claimed it and now I am saved.


Or, alternatively, Jesus died for all sins, and all sins are cleansed away. I wonder what you think became of all those who died before Jesus?

isn't
it's not a ceremony. as you said, the salvation is made available to all. so you claim the salvation. now does that mean you can sin all you want from then on? of course not, but being human we will sin. so what then. we ask God to forgive our shortcomings and failures.

How is it not a ceremony? Jesus is often symbolised as the High Priest (indeed, Hebrews 6:20 states it explicitly, even making the comparison to Melchisedec). Jesus is called 'the lamb' (John 1:29).

Hebrews 9:24-6 explicitly states the nature of the 'ceremony', by direct correlation to the 'high priest' who 'entereth into the holy place every year':

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself".

Jesus is Lamb and High Priest, the Cross is the Altar. It is both implicit, and explicit, that the vicarious substitution is a 'type' of the Hebrew scripture blood sacrifices.

And so, as the Hebrew scripture blood sacrifices required nothing more from the sinner than that the sacrifice be made - I see no reason to assume that the Greek scripture blood sacrifice should be any different.

Or programming?

Maybe Adam is nothing more than a well programmed lawnmower.

I've seen birds drop shelled animals to break them open, I've seen otters hitting food on a rock. That is sign of 'intelligence', but is it intelligence enough? Could the otter 'pass' God's little Eden test?who knows? maybe they will/did.

I'd say the lines between 'good' and 'evil' have always been blurry. The road to hell paved with good intentions, and all that.which indicates that the fruit they ate, was probably overripe. :p

I still don't see it - once the money is in your account, it doesn't matter if you want to use it, or if you even know it is there - you've got it. You don't have to claim it to be 'in that state of being', it happened, already.Ownership is claiming it. if you claim posession of it, then it's yours. the problem with the money analogy is that the account is mine, but not the money UNLESS I claim it. You cannot put money into MY account unless I give permission to do so. you find a dollar on the ground, is it yours? no, untill you pick it up and put it into your pocket. then it becomes YOURS. someone drops a dollar on the ground. you can pick it up and return it to the owner, then he reclaims it saying it's his. God made salvation possible through the actions of Jesus. the Saving Grace, if you will. so now, instead of offering the first lamb/calf/harvest/whatnot, you now say Jesus died for my sins and I am saved. that's claiming what God has laid out to be claimed.

Or, alternatively, Jesus died for all sins, and all sins are cleansed away. I wonder what you think became of all those who died before Jesus?before Jesus? They had to do the rituals and the burnt offerings.

if everyone is saved, why then did Jesus teach using many examples of people not being saved.
Mathew 24: he warns against following false prophets.
Mathew 25: 1-13, the women who were not prepared were shut out.
Mathew 25: 14 - 30, the foolish servant was cast out
Mathew 25: 31 - 46 the goats were cast away from the King.

if everyone is saved, why were the unprepared left out? the foolish man who squandered what he was given cast away? the Goats were sent towards eternal punishment?

Unless they weren't saved. they were not prepared, they squandered that which they were given.

How is it not a ceremony? Jesus is often symbolised as the High Priest (indeed, Hebrews 6:20 states it explicitly, even making the comparison to Melchisedec). Jesus is called 'the lamb' (John 1:29).

Hebrews 9:24-6 explicitly states the nature of the 'ceremony', by direct correlation to the 'high priest' who 'entereth into the holy place every year':

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself".

Jesus is Lamb and High Priest, the Cross is the Altar. It is both implicit, and explicit, that the vicarious substitution is a 'type' of the Hebrew scripture blood sacrifices.

And so, as the Hebrew scripture blood sacrifices required nothing more from the sinner than that the sacrifice be made - I see no reason to assume that the Greek scripture blood sacrifice should be any different.
that's Blood sacrifice. Jesus did that. and as I agree with you, Jesus's sacrifice was the FINAL sacrifice. thus no more burnt offereings were needed. however, as the Saving Grace of Jesus is now available to all, it has to be claimed in order for you to be saved.

who knows? maybe they will/did.


Indeed, good point. I shouldn't assume that the 'lesser' life forms failed the test, because - let's face it, they seem to be in a state of grace, compared to us...


which indicates that the fruit they ate, was probably overripe. :p


I think that's the one about what the road to the bathroom is paved with...


Ownership is claiming it. if you claim posession of it, then it's yours. the problem with the money analogy is that the account is mine, but not the money UNLESS I claim it. You cannot put money into MY account unless I give permission to do so. you find a dollar on the ground, is it yours? no, untill you pick it up and put it into your pocket. then it becomes YOURS. someone drops a dollar on the ground. you can pick it up and return it to the owner, then he reclaims it saying it's his. God made salvation possible through the actions of Jesus. the Saving Grace, if you will. so now, instead of offering the first lamb/calf/harvest/whatnot, you now say Jesus died for my sins and I am saved. that's claiming what God has laid out to be claimed.


Two things - I'm not sure I do need your 'permission' to put money in your account... just your bank details.

Secondly - and maybe it's a deceptiveness caused by my example of money - but I don't see that one needs to 'own' salvation. It isn't something we 'have', it is something about us. Can God change us, at a whim? I'd say we have to say yes... so why can't he 'save' us, without us giving him the nod?


before Jesus? They had to do the rituals and the burnt offerings.

if everyone is saved, why then did Jesus teach using many examples of people not being saved.
Mathew 24: he warns against following false prophets.
Mathew 25: 1-13, the women who were not prepared were shut out.
Mathew 25: 14 - 30, the foolish servant was cast out
Mathew 25: 31 - 46 the goats were cast away from the King.

if everyone is saved, why were the unprepared left out? the foolish man who squandered what he was given cast away? the Goats were sent towards eternal punishment?

Unless they weren't saved. they were not prepared, they squandered that which they were given.


Well, looking at Matthew 24, one has to wonder what 'saved' means in that context - is it the 'salvation' of eternal life? Or - just being safeguarded against the poison of the false prophet?

In Matthew 25, I'll have to say it looks like there is an argument to be made for being able to 'lose' salvation - I'm not sure that's the same as being deprived of it [u]unless[/i] one choose to embrace it...

It certainly doesn't fit with the Hebrew scripture - and how is one supposed to reconcile inconsistency?


that's Blood sacrifice. Jesus did that. and as I agree with you, Jesus's sacrifice was the FINAL sacrifice. thus no more burnt offereings were needed. however, as the Saving Grace of Jesus is now available to all, it has to be claimed in order for you to be saved.

I don't see that: "as the Saving Grace of Jesus is now available to all, it has to be claimed in order for you to be saved..." That doesn't follow in any logical way, it only follows if you already have the assumption made.

Indeed, good point. I shouldn't assume that the 'lesser' life forms failed the test, because - let's face it, they seem to be in a state of grace, compared to us...to paraphrase Douglas adams, both Man and dolphin thought themselves superior for the exact same reasons. :p

Two things - I'm not sure I do need your 'permission' to put money in your account... just your bank details.actually, I think you do. you can put the money in, but I would be notified of the transaction and given the option to negate it, making it void.

Secondly - and maybe it's a deceptiveness caused by my example of money - but I don't see that one needs to 'own' salvation. It isn't something we 'have', it is something about us. Can God change us, at a whim? I'd say we have to say yes... so why can't he 'save' us, without us giving him the nod?It's not Owning Salvation, but accepting that it happened for you and me. an athiest, who doesn't believe in God, won't accept the salvation because he won't accept that Jesus died for our sins. the faith isn't there.

Well, looking at Matthew 24, one has to wonder what 'saved' means in that context - is it the 'salvation' of eternal life? Or - just being safeguarded against the poison of the false prophet?but if everyone is saved, why worry about false prophets? You're Saved!

In Matthew 25, I'll have to say it looks like there is an argument to be made for being able to 'lose' salvation - I'm not sure that's the same as being deprived of it [u]unless[/i] one choose to embrace it...but how can you loose something that you haven't claimed in the first place?

It certainly doesn't fit with the Hebrew scripture - and how is one supposed to reconcile inconsistency?That's one of the problems... in my opinion, it really doesn't matter.
One believes that everyone is saved. the other believes that only the faithful are saved.

the important thing is tho is living the life God tells us.

I don't see that: "as the Saving Grace of Jesus is now available to all, it has to be claimed in order for you to be saved..." That doesn't follow in any logical way, it only follows if you already have the assumption made.
Think of it as a special at a store. "Walk into the door and receive a FREE GIFT CARD." it's available to anyone who walks in. no matter what age, what profession, no purchase necessary (non transferable.) anyone who walks into the door gets a free gift card. those that walk in, recieves the card. those that choose not to, don't get one.

accept Jesus as your savior and Follow the word of God, and recieve the salvation Jesus secured for you. don't and.... well, don't.

Anyway, Grave, you'd know that your hebrew translation supports my argument more than it supports yours, assuming you even know what "iniquity" means.

Will observe the iniquity to father, son,
of the third, of the fourth.

I'm sure someone of your intelligence knows that iniquity means sinfulness, so really it supports my argument. It basically says:

Will see the sinfulness of the father, son, third and fourth.

Or maybe it's "observe" That you don't understand.

ANYWAY, the time where I have become bored with you people has finally come. Don't bother replying to this as I probably won't read what you say.

Anyway, Grave, you'd know that your hebrew translation supports my argument more than it supports yours, assuming you even know what "iniquity" means.

Will observe the iniquity to father, son,
of the third, of the fourth.

I'm sure someone of your intelligence knows that iniquity means sinfulness, so really it supports my argument. It basically says:

Will see the sinfulness of the father, son, third and fourth.

Or maybe it's "observe" That you don't understand.

ANYWAY, the time where I have become bored with you people has finally come. Don't bother replying to this as I probably won't read what you say.
Feel free to come back any time. We're always open to the discussion and consideration of different views.

Feel free to come back any time. We're always open to the discussion and consideration of different views.
Best laugh I had all day.

to paraphrase Douglas adams, both Man and dolphin thought themselves superior for the exact same reasons. :p


And they were both wrong. :)


actually, I think you do. you can put the money in, but I would be notified of the transaction and given the option to negate it, making it void.


Again - I'm not sure that is true... at least, I'm rpetty sure it's not true at my bank. I'm sure they'd let me refuse a 'gift' if I really wanted to, and I'm sure that a cash transaction in or out would show up on my statement... but I've had money put into my account before by family, and I don't remember them asking me if I would 'accept' the transaction.


It's not Owning Salvation, but accepting that it happened for you and me. an athiest, who doesn't believe in God, won't accept the salvation because he won't accept that Jesus died for our sins. the faith isn't there.


But, I don't see that the 'faith' needs to be there. That's my bone of contention, here. Salvation by grace is God's grace, not man's grace. I don't understand why the mechanism of God's grace would require human acceptance. He can make you alive without your acceptance, or dead without your acceptance. He can change Pharaoh's heart without acceptance, and make Caesar count his people, without acceptance.

I don't get the argument for 'special exception' for this one thing.


but if everyone is saved, why worry about false prophets? You're Saved!


Big 's' versus little 's'.


but how can you loose something that you haven't claimed in the first place?


I never 'claimed' my head. And yet, if a sharp enough implement comes wending it's way towards my neck, I think I could lose it.

I never claimed my virginity, either...


That's one of the problems... in my opinion, it really doesn't matter.
One believes that everyone is saved. the other believes that only the faithful are saved.

the important thing is tho is living the life God tells us.


Oy... trying not to follow another hijack here. (What if God is 'telling' me to be an Atheist?)

To the Hebrew scripture - we are all equally saved or damned. The concept of 'salvation by grace' seems perfectly compatible with this motif, so it seems logical (to me) to wonder if, just maybe, that isn't still the case.


Think of it as a special at a store. "Walk into the door and receive a FREE GIFT CARD." it's available to anyone who walks in. no matter what age, what profession, no purchase necessary (non transferable.) anyone who walks into the door gets a free gift card. those that walk in, recieves the card. those that choose not to, don't get one.


But, again - why do I need to go to that store? I'm sure that store wants to make a big deal of it in their advertising, and wants to claim that they have the route to the gift card... but isn't it also possible that those who don't go to the store (even, have never heard of the store), might also have the gift cards? You might not check your mail (after all, you might not know about that mailbox), but you have the card, and could use it?


accept Jesus as your savior and Follow the word of God, and recieve the salvation Jesus secured for you. don't and.... well, don't.

But, I don't see the specific 'secured for you' part. The sacrifice on calvary was a sin offering. Depending on how you feel about the Great Commission, he either died for all the sins of Israel (which fits so much betetr with the details of the ceremony), or for all the sins of the Jew and the Gentile. And, in the old law - the sacrifice covered everyone that the High Priest did the offering for - whether or not they 'wanted' it. The scapegoat took all the sins of that people. And now, this new scapegoat, serves as sacrifice for all the sins of all people.

Anyway, Grave, you'd know that your hebrew translation supports my argument more than it supports yours, assuming you even know what "iniquity" means.

Will observe the iniquity to father, son,
of the third, of the fourth.

I'm sure someone of your intelligence knows that iniquity means sinfulness, so really it supports my argument. It basically says:

Will see the sinfulness of the father, son, third and fourth.

Or maybe it's "observe" That you don't understand.

ANYWAY, the time where I have become bored with you people has finally come. Don't bother replying to this as I probably won't read what you say.


A couple of insults, a parting-shot, and a claim that any response is going to be ignored. Hmmm.

I'm a little disappointed. Maybe I should have been a good little automaton, and let the nice man preach at me.

A couple of insults, a parting-shot, and a claim that any response is going to be ignored. Hmmm.

I'm a little disappointed. Maybe I should have been a good little automaton, and let the nice man preach at me.

you crushed him so long ago that its OK to be relieved that you dont have to cover the same points one more time.

for a guy who claims to believe that the bible in the inerrant word of god he sure did think he knew more than the inerrant word said.

you crushed him so long ago that its OK to be relieved that you dont have to cover the same points one more time.

for a guy who claims to believe that the bible in the inerrant word of god he sure did think he knew more than the inerrant word said.

Heh - that's the bit that still has me confused. How often is a translation as accurate as the native tongue? That's got to be pretty rare. And yet, here we had someone arguing that the translation wasn't just 'as accurate' as the native tongue, but somehow more accurate...?

And, because I don't see the bits the English translators added on, in the Hebrew... I'm at fault?

I'm not going to miss arguing the point, I'll admit... but it does sadden me that this person admits their mind can't be changed... and so, they came here to preach, not debate.

That means I failed to get through, and that same person is now going to continue spreading their 'edited' idea of scripture to other people. I feel a little saddened. :(

Heh - that's the bit that still has me confused. How often is a translation as accurate as the native tongue? That's got to be pretty rare. And yet, here we had someone arguing that the translation wasn't just 'as accurate' as the native tongue, but somehow more accurate...?

And, because I don't see the bits the English translators added on, in the Hebrew... I'm at fault?

I'm not going to miss arguing the point, I'll admit... but it does sadden me that this person admits their mind can't be changed... and so, they came here to preach, not debate.

That means I failed to get through, and that same person is now going to continue spreading their 'edited' idea of scripture to other people. I feel a little saddened. :(


if that saddens you i recommend that you avoid TV evangelists.

if that saddens you i recommend that you avoid TV evangelists.

Oh, don't even get me started... :)

That's why I appreciate our regulars, I guess. I might not agree with them on the religious issues, but at least if you point out "Dude, the scripture says *this*...", you get the feeling they noticed. Maybe even cared. A bit.

Oh, don't even get me started... :)

That's why I appreciate our regulars, I guess. I might not agree with them on the religious issues, but at least if you point out "Dude, the scripture says *this*...", you get the feeling they noticed. Maybe even cared. A bit.

yeah at least some are willing to think it through enough to discuss why you are wrong. enough to make the discussion worth it anyway.

personally ive gotten a lot out of the theology discussions here. nothing that changed me from being an atheist but some better (in my mind) perspective on the whole thing.

But, I don't see that the 'faith' needs to be there. That's my bone of contention, here. Salvation by grace is God's grace, not man's grace. I don't understand why the mechanism of God's grace would require human acceptance. He can make you alive without your acceptance, or dead without your acceptance. He can change Pharaoh's heart without acceptance, and make Caesar count his people, without acceptance.

I don't get the argument for 'special exception' for this one thing.
So does Jesus Lie?
John 3:14-21

John 4:14

Mathew 10:32-33

and many more verses that indicate Faith and belief are needed. please show where it says that it's not.

Big 's' versus little 's'.answer the Question. why fear false prophets if Faith doesn't matter in being Saved?

I never 'claimed' my head. And yet, if a sharp enough implement comes wending it's way towards my neck, I think I could lose it.

I never claimed my virginity, either...

you just did. by using the word MY.

so how can one loose their salvation if they don't know it's there?

Oy... trying not to follow another hijack here. (What if God is 'telling' me to be an Atheist?)

To the Hebrew scripture - we are all equally saved or damned. The concept of 'salvation by grace' seems perfectly compatible with this motif, so it seems logical (to me) to wonder if, just maybe, that isn't still the case.where in the Hebrew Scripture?

But, again - why do I need to go to that store? I'm sure that store wants to make a big deal of it in their advertising, and wants to claim that they have the route to the gift card... but isn't it also possible that those who don't go to the store (even, have never heard of the store), might also have the gift cards? You might not check your mail (after all, you might not know about that mailbox), but you have the card, and could use it?you don't NEED to go to the store if you DON'T WANT to claim your card. no one is FORCING you to GO anywhere. you can CHOOSE TO CLAIM your card or you can CHOOSE NOT TO. same with Salvation. you can CHOOSE TO accept it, or you can CHOOSE NOT TO.

But, I don't see the specific 'secured for you' part. The sacrifice on calvary was a sin offering. Depending on how you feel about the Great Commission, he either died for all the sins of Israel (which fits so much betetr with the details of the ceremony), or for all the sins of the Jew and the Gentile. And, in the old law - the sacrifice covered everyone that the High Priest did the offering for - whether or not they 'wanted' it. The scapegoat took all the sins of that people. And now, this new scapegoat, serves as sacrifice for all the sins of all people.
so we are free to do whatever we want then? is that what you're saying? no need to do good deeds since we're all going to Heaven anyway? I can build a Gold statue and worship it because I'm going to heaven no matter what I do since I'm Saved and ALL my sins are cleansed? please show me where it says that, you say Hebrew scriptures, please list them.

So does Jesus Lie?
John 3:14-21

John 4:14

Mathew 10:32-33

and many more verses that indicate Faith and belief are needed. please show where it says that it's not.


I don't see why Jesus shouldn't 'lie', as you put it. Jesus claims to be Messiah, and he must have been familiar with the hebrew scripture (we have the story of him 'getting lost', and they find him asking questions in the temple, after all) - so he must have known that he does not meet the Hebrew scripture requirements for Messiah.

Either God lies, or Jesus lies - or one or both scriptures are inaccurate records. I can't claim to be sure which is which.


answer the Question. why fear false prophets if Faith doesn't matter in being Saved?


The distinction I was trying to make is that a false prophet makes no difference to being 'Saved', but could make a big difference to being 'saved'.

As for why false prophets would be a bad thing, if one reviews what Jesus considered most important during his earthly ministry, one sees a catalogue of love, kindness and generosity. I think that's a good message, no matter what the truth of the Jesus story - but a 'false prophet' could pick the verses about hating brothers and families, bringing division, and selling everything to buy weapons.

One interpretation brings the earthly ministry of Jesus to life, and one betrays it utterly. Nothing to do with 'salvation' needed.


you just did. by using the word MY.


So what, I wasn't a virgin when I was an infant?


so how can one loose their salvation if they don't know it's there?


When I came to America, some of my stuff got left in my apartment, for my friends to sort out. I later found out that my CD and vinyl singles had been misappropriated, because my friend forgot they were in a cupboard.

I 'lost' my record collection, despite not knowing it was 'there'.


you don't NEED to go to the store if you DON'T WANT to claim your card. no one is FORCING you to GO anywhere. you can CHOOSE TO CLAIM your card or you can CHOOSE NOT TO. same with Salvation. you can CHOOSE TO accept it, or you can CHOOSE NOT TO.


Okay. That's what you say. And that's what you believe scripture tells you.

I think that the earthly ministry of Jesus is schizophrenic, if it is all recorded accurately, and that the main thrust of Jesus' teaching opposes the idea of an acquired salvation.

Thus, logically - I think that salvation is available to all - you don't have to make special claims to get it. Do I think it can be revoked? Yeah, sure... maybe. But I beleive the vicarious substitution cannot logically be read to apply forward in time, for all sins - but only for people who pass this test.

I don't see why Jesus shouldn't 'lie', as you put it. Jesus claims to be Messiah, and he must have been familiar with the hebrew scripture (we have the story of him 'getting lost', and they find him asking questions in the temple, after all) - so he must have known that he does not meet the Hebrew scripture requirements for Messiah.

Either God lies, or Jesus lies - or one or both scriptures are inaccurate records. I can't claim to be sure which is which.Yet Jesus knew his fate and what God had in store for him. so again, where in the Hebrew scripture does it support your claim.

The distinction I was trying to make is that a false prophet makes no difference to being 'Saved', but could make a big difference to being 'saved'.according to you, we're all saved, Faith and Belief are not necessary for that salvation. thus anyone saying you need to have faith in God and Jesus isn't causing any real harm.

As for why false prophets would be a bad thing, if one reviews what Jesus considered most important during his earthly ministry, one sees a catalogue of love, kindness and generosity. I think that's a good message, no matter what the truth of the Jesus story - but a 'false prophet' could pick the verses about hating brothers and families, bringing division, and selling everything to buy weapons.but as you said, everyone is saved. reguardless of faith and Belief. all sins forgiven due to the blood of christ. so all that hatred preached is washed away.

One interpretation brings the earthly ministry of Jesus to life, and one betrays it utterly. Nothing to do with 'salvation' needed.but according to you we're all saved, so it doesn't matter which ministry, True or false, is followed since man is now free from sin.

So what, I wasn't a virgin when I was an infant?were you?

When I came to America, some of my stuff got left in my apartment, for my friends to sort out. I later found out that my CD and vinyl singles had been misappropriated, because my friend forgot they were in a cupboard.

I 'lost' my record collection, despite not knowing it was 'there'.but they were yours. you said it yourself. "my stuff got left..." you claimed ownership of it. that's why you consider it "lost".


Okay. That's what you say. And that's what you believe scripture tells you.

I think that the earthly ministry of Jesus is schizophrenic, if it is all recorded accurately, and that the main thrust of Jesus' teaching opposes the idea of an acquired salvation.

Thus, logically - I think that salvation is available to all - you don't have to make special claims to get it. Do I think it can be revoked? Yeah, sure... maybe. But I beleive the vicarious substitution cannot logically be read to apply forward in time, for all sins - but only for people who pass this test.and where is the scriptures of what you say? where does it say that all men, faithful and otherwise, are saved and will be brought before the father?

Best laugh I had all day.
When in doubt, dry irony solves all.

Yet Jesus knew his fate and what God had in store for him. so again, where in the Hebrew scripture does it support your claim.


How does this adress whether Jesus fulfilled the requirements of Messiah? You asked if I was saying Jesus lied - and I pointed out that there are inconsistencies (that I see as irreconcilable), if you assume that the text is literal, that God and Jesus are one and the same, and that neither of them lie.


according to you, we're all saved, Faith and Belief are not necessary for that salvation. thus anyone saying you need to have faith in God and Jesus isn't causing any real harm.


No - let's back up - I'm not saying we are 'all saved'. I don't believe in 'salvation', so it'd be a pretty weird claim to make if I was saying it was something I 'believed'. I'm saying I see it as the most logical argument, based on Jesus' earthly ministry.


but as you said, everyone is saved. reguardless of faith and Belief. all sins forgiven due to the blood of christ. so all that hatred preached is washed away.


No, you aren't getting what I'm saying here - I'm saying that verse about the false prophet, isn't about 'big S salvation', but about being 'little s saved'. To keep asking me how this relates to 'big S salvation' is to ask me a question I can't answer - because I don't think it does relate - that's the point.


but according to you we're all saved, so it doesn't matter which ministry, True or false, is followed since man is now free from sin.


That's not the point. I'm saying I don't think Jesus would want us killing each other in the here-and-now. I'm not talking about what might come after.

Jesus would (I think) be anti-false-prophets, because they are damaging to the here-and-now world. It doesn't have to be about heaven.


were you?


You said I 'owned' virginity, because I claimed it. I'm saying that you can be in a certain state without 'claiming' that state.

As a simple test - I believe I was a 'virgin' even before I 'claimed' that state.

I say this is true. That's why I'm asking you. Was I?


but they were yours. you said it yourself. "my stuff got left..." you claimed ownership of it. that's why you consider it "lost".


Again - I'm not sure you are arguing with what is being 'said'. You were talking about losing things you didn't 'know where there. I showed a situation where I, empirically, 'lost' things I sure as hell didn't know where 'there'.


and where is the scriptures of what you say? where does it say that all men, faithful and otherwise, are saved and will be brought before the father?

I'm not sure that is consonant with the Hebrew scripture. Very few were brought before the father, as far as I can tell. What... two? Enoch and... Elijah, maybe?

No - let's back up - I'm not saying we are 'all saved'. I don't believe in 'salvation', so it'd be a pretty weird claim to make if I was saying it was something I 'believed'. I'm saying I see it as the most logical argument, based on Jesus' earthly ministry.

No, you aren't getting what I'm saying here - I'm saying that verse about the false prophet, isn't about 'big S salvation', but about being 'little s saved'. To keep asking me how this relates to 'big S salvation' is to ask me a question I can't answer - because I don't think it does relate - that's the point.so let's back it up.

What do you 'believe' was the result of Jesus's Death and Resurrection?

so let's back it up.

What do you 'believe' was the result of Jesus's Death and Resurrection?

What I 'believe' is unlikely to help the scriptural debate, since I think that 'Jesus' is the focal point of a collection of 'urban legends' of the time, rather than a literal person... and that the crucifixion and resurrection are metaphorical.

wow this is stupid...

What I 'believe' is unlikely to help the scriptural debate, since I think that 'Jesus' is the focal point of a collection of 'urban legends' of the time, rather than a literal person... and that the crucifixion and resurrection are metaphorical.in other words you just debating here for the sake of debating. since you haven't answered this as well as several of my other questions.

in other words you just debating here for the sake of debating. since you haven't answered this as well as several of my other questions.

that seems rather harsh.

arent you debating for the sake of debating? if you want a religious debate there are better places for it than here. places that remove anyone who espouses heretical thoughts.

and i think he answered a different question than you asked but not because he wanted to dodge your question.

that seems rather harsh.

arent you debating for the sake of debating? if you want a religious debate there are better places for it than here. places that remove anyone who espouses heretical thoughts.

and i think he answered a different question than you asked but not because he wanted to dodge your question.
normally when one debates, its to pit one viewpoint, one definition of facts or in this case beliefs, against another.

he's been saying "in the Hebrew scriptures" but when ask to provide those scriptures, he fails to do so. now when ask what his definition or viewpoint of Jesus's sacrifice, he answered that he believed it to be metaphorical, meaning he's not even giving what he understands what the Hebrew scriptures are saying.

so when I say he's debating for the sake of debating. it's him just being contrary.

in other words you just debating here for the sake of debating. since you haven't answered this as well as several of my other questions.

I actually did just answer the question you just asked.

I'm not sure why you wanted me to answer that question - I've been fairly long-established as an Atheist in these parts, I suspect - so I don't know why you specified what I 'believe'.

I actually did answer this question - I explained what I 'believe' is that the story is a collection of myths, and the crucifixion and resurrection are metaphors. That is what I believe, and that is the question I answered.

I don't know which answer you wanted... but that is the answer to the question you asked.

normally when one debates, its to pit one viewpoint, one definition of facts or in this case beliefs, against another.

he's been saying "in the Hebrew scriptures" but when ask to provide those scriptures, he fails to do so. now when ask what his definition or viewpoint of Jesus's sacrifice, he answered that he believed it to be metaphorical, meaning he's not even giving what he understands what the Hebrew scriptures are saying.

so when I say he's debating for the sake of debating. it's him just being contrary.

And, again - you don't seem consistent in what you want me to answer.

I'll admit, since I get on NS for a few minutes at a time, a couple of times a day, I haven't been hitting this thread in real depth. I haven't been going looking for verses, but relying on a general 'overview' of the Hebrew scripture.

Perhaps I should dig deeper, but I'm not sure how to answer when you change the goalposts to satisfy answers you want, rather than anything I said.

Looking through the Hebrew scripture (and again, this is overview), I'm not seeing the same kind of 'salvation' arguments that the Greek scripture makes. The general consensus seems to be that most of us just stop, and get put in the earth. A couple of very special people (like Enoch) get preferential treatment of some kind, but most of us have no clearly defined afterlife to look forward to (according to the Hebrew scripture). What I gather is - if there is some afterlife, then... it must be fairly universal - at least for Israel - which is the focus of that text.

But you don't want that answer - that the Hebrew scripture is pretty breezy on the details, and that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of Christian-style 'heaven' and 'salvation'. That we all get much the same fate - and it might just be getting buried. You want me to answer "where does it say that all men, faithful and otherwise, are saved and will be brought before the father?" - which isn't something I've ever stated. Indeed, I pointed out that I'm pretty sure the Hebrew scripture doesn't say that - and that 'being brought before the father' is a very great exception - not the rule.

You accuse me of not answering, fair enough. I've answered each question you've asked. Maybe you aren't asking the questions you think you are asking?

erm ...

A:Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
B:Yes, but that's not just saying, "No, it isn't."
A:Yes it is!
B:No it isn't!

Sorry for the late reply, there was an Incident that happened at work that pissed me off, so I decided to take some time away since my anger was starting to show on this thread.

And, again - you don't seem consistent in what you want me to answer.

I'll admit, since I get on NS for a few minutes at a time, a couple of times a day, I haven't been hitting this thread in real depth. I haven't been going looking for verses, but relying on a general 'overview' of the Hebrew scripture.

Perhaps I should dig deeper, but I'm not sure how to answer when you change the goalposts to satisfy answers you want, rather than anything I said.

Looking through the Hebrew scripture (and again, this is overview), I'm not seeing the same kind of 'salvation' arguments that the Greek scripture makes. The general consensus seems to be that most of us just stop, and get put in the earth. A couple of very special people (like Enoch) get preferential treatment of some kind, but most of us have no clearly defined afterlife to look forward to (according to the Hebrew scripture). What I gather is - if there is some afterlife, then... it must be fairly universal - at least for Israel - which is the focus of that text.

But you don't want that answer - that the Hebrew scripture is pretty breezy on the details, and that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of Christian-style 'heaven' and 'salvation'. That we all get much the same fate - and it might just be getting buried. You want me to answer "where does it say that all men, faithful and otherwise, are saved and will be brought before the father?" - which isn't something I've ever stated. Indeed, I pointed out that I'm pretty sure the Hebrew scripture doesn't say that - and that 'being brought before the father' is a very great exception - not the rule.

You accuse me of not answering, fair enough. I've answered each question you've asked. Maybe you aren't asking the questions you think you are asking?

I asked you to provide hebrew scriptures that supported your claim that Jesus's sacrifice Saved everyone since you said it seemed that way in the Hebrew scriptures,

I also asked you for your interpretation (yes, I said what you believed) of the sacrifice of Jesus. that does not require faith but your interpretation of the result of the Sacrifice.


What I 'believe' is unlikely to help the scriptural debate, since I think that 'Jesus' is the focal point of a collection of 'urban legends' of the time, rather than a literal person... and that the crucifixion and resurrection are metaphorical. this I took as a dogde (and i was pissed at the time, so apologies.) since I meant Believe as in Interpretation of the event.

I asked for the Hebrew verses because you kept bringing it up but not providing anything but your interpretations of what they were saying.

I'm not sure that is consonant with the Hebrew scripture. Very few were brought before the father, as far as I can tell. What... two? Enoch and... Elijah, maybe?

Well, looking at Matthew 24, one has to wonder what 'saved' means in that context - is it the 'salvation' of eternal life? Or - just being safeguarded against the poison of the false prophet?

In Matthew 25, I'll have to say it looks like there is an argument to be made for being able to 'lose' salvation - I'm not sure that's the same as being deprived of it [u]unless[/i] one choose to embrace it...

It certainly doesn't fit with the Hebrew scripture - and how is one supposed to reconcile inconsistency?

I don't see why Jesus shouldn't 'lie', as you put it. Jesus claims to be Messiah, and he must have been familiar with the hebrew scripture (we have the story of him 'getting lost', and they find him asking questions in the temple, after all) - so he must have known that he does not meet the Hebrew scripture requirements for Messiah.

I also asked for your interpretation to the sacrifice of Jesus because it seemed that you were saying two different things at the same time.


The distinction I was trying to make is that a false prophet makes no difference to being 'Saved', but could make a big difference to being 'saved'.

I think that the earthly ministry of Jesus is schizophrenic, if it is all recorded accurately, and that the main thrust of Jesus' teaching opposes the idea of an acquired salvation.

Thus, logically - I think that salvation is available to all - you don't have to make special claims to get it. Do I think it can be revoked? Yeah, sure... maybe. But I beleive the vicarious substitution cannot logically be read to apply forward in time, for all sins - but only for people who pass this test.

And so, as the Hebrew scripture blood sacrifices required nothing more from the sinner than that the sacrifice be made - I see no reason to assume that the Greek scripture blood sacrifice should be any different.

Well, looking at Matthew 24, one has to wonder what 'saved' means in that context - is it the 'salvation' of eternal life? Or - just being safeguarded against the poison of the false prophet?

In Matthew 25, I'll have to say it looks like there is an argument to be made for being able to 'lose' salvation - I'm not sure that's the same as being deprived of it [u]unless[/i] one choose to embrace it...

It certainly doesn't fit with the Hebrew scripture - and how is one supposed to reconcile inconsistency?


so to make sure I'm understanding your position, I asked for the Hebrew scriptures that support your interpretations as well as your own interpretation of what the sacrifice of Jesus meant.

Sorry for the late reply, there was an Incident that happened at work that pissed me off, so I decided to take some time away since my anger was starting to show on this thread.

I asked you to provide hebrew scriptures that supported your claim that Jesus's sacrifice Saved everyone since you said it seemed that way in the Hebrew scriptures,

I also asked you for your interpretation (yes, I said what you believed) of the sacrifice of Jesus. that does not require faith but your interpretation of the result of the Sacrifice.

this I took as a dogde (and i was pissed at the time, so apologies.) since I meant Believe as in Interpretation of the event.

I asked for the Hebrew verses because you kept bringing it up but not providing anything but your interpretations of what they were saying.

I also asked for your interpretation to the sacrifice of Jesus because it seemed that you were saying two different things at the same time.

So to make sure I'm understanding your position, I asked for the Hebrew scriptures that support your interpretations as well as your own interpretation of what the sacrifice of Jesus meant.

Well, let me put something your way... what about the Hebrew scripture (alone - not including anything you infer as meaning because of something in the Greek scripture) makes you think there is an assertion that we will 'all be brought before the Father'?

Certainly - the oldest Hebrew scripture suggests a hole in the ground is the end of the road for most of us (Sheol, at it's most rudimentary, basically means 'the grave' - although this may have become a little more loaded in later scripture).

I think you are asking me to prove something I just don't think is there - put it this way - my interpretation that we are all equally saved or damned in the Hebrew scripture, is because I don't really see any reason to believe that is NOT what it says. Do you see what I mean?

As for the vicarious substitution at Calvary, wearing a 'scriptural' head - so allowing the assumption that the story is not pure metaphor - I see the crucifixion as the 'last ceremony' of the blood sacrifice covenant... something between the scapegoat ritual, and the atonement rituals. As such, it undoes the 'work' of Adam - which was (argued to be) the bringing of 'death' into the world for all men. Thus, Jesus' salvation might remove 'death' for all men.

Bump for winnage thread!

Bump for winnage thread!

You just gravedug a month old thread for THAT?!

If you think a thread is full of win, just subscribe to it and put it in a special folder so you can treasure it forever and ever.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia