NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a better objection. If there were holes at the celestial poles of the firmament, you'd be able to see them. In the Northern Hemisphere, they'd be near Polaris.the only holes are those in some people's heads.

and you wonder why christians feel persecuted.because they know in their innermost thoughts that they deserve to be.

Mind to point out the bible passage?

It`s in the Apostle`s Creed

It`s in the Apostle`s Creed

yes but thats NOT a bible passge eh?

where does it say in the bible that he descended into hell?

yes but thats NOT a bible passge eh?

where does it say in the bible that he descended into hell?

It doesn`t but...

1. The bible is a mix off different books pulled together into one book by monks or priests some time after Jesus`s death.

2. The Apostel`s creed was written (supposedly) by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus and would of most likely of been told what had happened to him.

It doesn`t but...

1. The bible is a mix off different books pulled together into one book by monks or priests some time after Jesus`s death.

2. The Apostel`s creed was written (supposedly) by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus and would of most likely of been told what had happened to him.

no it wasnt. it was decided on by a coucil of bishops in nicaea under the auspices of emperor constantine in the 4th century.

no it wasnt. it was decided on by a coucil of bishops in nicaea under the auspices of emperor constantine in the 4th century.

I may be incorrect on this. But AFAIK the apostles' credd =/= the Nicene Creed.

But they are very similar. With the Nicene Creed making belief in the trinity explicit. (One of the key items on agenda during the Council of Nicea.)

But that is a minor quibble (though since we are talking early Christianity you can say people died over less ;))

:)

yes but thats NOT a bible passge eh?

where does it say in the bible that he descended into hell?

I think Matthew 12:40 is the main one cited. Where Jesus says that he will spend three days in heart of the earth, similar to Jonah (but then it was a fish).

Of course arguing the meaning of "heart of the earth" in English is useless. Since it can be interpreted poetically to mean Hell, or more literally to mean in a tomb.

Reading it in the original language, Ancient Greek, would be better, less ambiguous. But I can't read ancient greek, so I cannot help on that point.

I may be incorrect on this. But AFAIK the apostles' credd =/= the Nicene Creed.

But they are very similar. With the Nicene Creed making belief in the trinity explicit. (One of the key items on agenda during the Council of Nicea.)

But that is a minor quibble (though since we are talking early Christianity you can say people died over less ;))

:)


Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed are VERY similar. In fact, the Catholic Church suggests the use of the Apostles' Creed as a substitute for children's Masses.

Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed are VERY similar. In fact, the Catholic Church suggests the use of the Apostles' Creed as a substitute for children's Masses.

Umm, I said that didn't I :confused:

I may be incorrect on this. But AFAIK the apostles' credd =/= the Nicene Creed.

But they are very similar. With the Nicene Creed making belief in the trinity explicit. (One of the key items on agenda during the Council of Nicea.)

But that is a minor quibble (though since we are talking early Christianity you can say people died over less ;))

:)

no they arent the same. and the exact wording has changed over time and with denominations.

but i dont think there was a creed as such before the first nicene council.

Umm, I said that didn't I :confused:

I was reinforcing that they express the same ideas.

I was reinforcing that they express the same ideas.

Oh, thank you :)

A bit too tired obviously. Should probably go to bed. Seeing as it is monday tomorrow and all :(

I think Matthew 12:40 is the main one cited. Where Jesus says that he will spend three days in heart of the earth, similar to Jonah (but then it was a fish).

Of course arguing the meaning of "heart of the earth" in English is useless. Since it can be interpreted poetically to mean Hell, or more literally to mean in a tomb.

Reading it in the original language, Ancient Greek, would be better, less ambiguous. But I can't read ancient greek, so I cannot help on that point.


thanks. i knew there would be some justification in the bible but i didnt know where. its not perfect justification but its something eh?

no they arent the same. and the exact wording has changed over time and with denominations.

but i dont think there was a creed as such before the first nicene council.

Quite so.

AFAIK is was specifically formulated to determine what the Church at the time believe and to set it apart from the "heretical" beliefs at the time. Arianism and duelism for example. It acted as a sort of Constitution for the church. So yes, I'd imagine that it would be first credo.

I didn't realise other denominations had it though. I thought it was just Catholics (the religion of my upbringing) and Orthodox, and possibly a few other "old" Christian sects. I'm sure you're correct though.

Quite so.

AFAIK is was specifically formulated to determine what the Church at the time believe and to set it apart from the "heretical" beliefs at the time. Arianism and duelism for example. It acted as a sort of Constitution for the church. So yes, I'd imagine that it would be first credo.

I didn't realise other denominations had it though. I thought it was just Catholics (the religion of my upbringing) and Orthodox, and possibly a few other "old" Christian sects. I'm sure you're correct though.

i only know it because i googled it.

i only know it because i googled it.

Heh, I wiki'd it. I never realised the Lutheranism and other forms of protestantism (other then the CoE) used it. I always thought about protestants rejected the Trinity :confused:

It looks as though Nuns On The Run isn't a good source for ecclesiastical knowledge :(

I've also heard that some Protestant denominations use the Nicene Creed. I assume these would be churches with similar practices to Catholicism (and the word "Catholic" in the creed would mean "universal, one").

I've also heard that some Protestant denominations use the Nicene Creed. I assume these would be churches with similar practices to Catholicism (and the word "Catholic" in the creed would mean "universal, one").

I remember being taught that the term "Roman Catholic" was originally a perjorative. The implication being though the Church is ostensibly catholic (i.e. universal, as you said) it is actually Roman/Italian.

Similarly "protestant" was a perjoritive from the other direction. Rebelling against authority (especially God given authority) was frowned upon in early modern Europe.

Though. I've never had this corroborated, so I'm not sure how true it is.

Heh, I wiki'd it. I never realised the Lutheranism and other forms of protestantism (other then the CoE) used it. I always thought about protestants rejected the Trinity :confused:

It looks as though Nuns On The Run isn't a good source for ecclesiastical knowledge :(

lol. go figure

im always surprised when protestants use something that is so obviously catholic.

but at least i knew that (the vast majority of) protestants believe in the trinity.

lol. go figure

im always surprised when protestants use something that is so obviously catholic.

but at least i knew that (the vast majority of) protestants believe in the trinity.

Yeah, I kinda just accepted it and moved on without questioning. I've been constantly alarmed by the stuff I grew up believing that turned out not to be true. Especially in regard to this kind of stuff.

I'm glad this thread has stopped being atheists flaming the OP...


Most Protestants I'm aware of believe in the Trinity (there are a few exceptions: Jehovah's Witness, etc.).

The one thing I haven't found in a Protestant church is a belief in transubstantiation, which is an unfortunate loss which probably resulted in some the more bible/scripture-focused churches.

I'm glad this thread has stopped being atheists flaming the OP...


Most Protestants I'm aware of believe in the Trinity (there are a few exceptions: Jehovah's Witness, etc.).

The one thing I haven't found in a Protestant church is a belief in transubstantiation, which is an unfortunate loss which probably resulted in some the more bible/scripture-focused churches.

I think that is uniquely Catholic (in the western church). I don't think even the "High" Anglicans believe in that...


(... though given my track record in this thread regarding other sects, it is probably best to take that with a grain of salt ;))

I'm glad this thread has stopped being atheists flaming the OP...


Most Protestants I'm aware of believe in the Trinity (there are a few exceptions: Jehovah's Witness, etc.).

The one thing I haven't found in a Protestant church is a belief in transubstantiation, which is an unfortunate loss which probably resulted in some the more bible/scripture-focused churches.

some of the lutherans do i think.

I'm glad this thread has stopped being atheists flaming the OP...
To be fair, there were a few outrageous and indefensible claims made by the individual that started the thread - he even retracted a couple of them himself when called on them, admitting that they'd been made up on the spot...

The one thing I haven't found in a Protestant church is a belief in transubstantiation, which is an unfortunate loss which probably resulted in some the more bible/scripture-focused churches.
I've always been a little confused by the importance that people place on this idea of transubstantiation. I recall being taught (Church of Scotland) that it had only officially become part of Catholic dogma as a response to the rise of Protestantism, and my interpretation has always been that it was just another way that Rome attempted to define itself as different and 'better' - Council of Trent, and all that.

I've always been a little confused by the importance that people place on this idea of transubstantiation. I recall being taught (Church of Scotland) that it had only officially become part of Catholic dogma as a response to the rise of Protestantism, and my interpretation has always been that it was just another way that Rome attempted to define itself as different and 'better' - Council of Trent, and all that.

I'm pretty positive that it pedates the rise of confessionalisation following the protestant reformation by quite a time. I believe Thomas Aquinas affirmed it and that the belief was already well entrenched by that time.

Not least because in the Orthodox tradition they also believed in it.

Haha, this thread has epicly failed in its purpose so badly.

Not his fault you guys tried to tear it to bits.

It's his right to talk about what he wants as well.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.

I'm glad this thread has stopped being atheists flaming the OP...

I'll drink to that.

some of the lutherans do i think.

The distinction is subtle but strong...

Lutherans, maintain a distinction between a personal, hypostatic union and a “sacramental union”, favoring the latter in order to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Lutheran theology is able to speak of a transformation (mutatio) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Apology X, 2; XXIV). This is not understood as eliminating the physical character of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Lutherans emphasize that it is God’s Word which makes the sacrament (Large Catechism, 5: The Sacrament of the Altar). b. Orthodox profess a real change (metabole) of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ by the Words of Institution and the act of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic anaphora. This does not mean a “transsubstantiation” of the substance
Link (http://www.lutheranworld.org/LWF_Documents/Bratislava_Statement.pdf)

It took twenty five year of talks to make that Common Statement (4 page paper on Eucharist in the Orthodox vs Lutheran perspectives). And it finishes along the lines of...

9. Lutherans and Orthodox agree that the relation of the Eucharist to the ordained ministry/priesthood (hierosyne) requires full discussion at a later stage. Lutherans and Orthodox both hope and pray for a day when they may celebrate the Eucharist together and work together as the one Body of Christ for the life and the salvation of the world.

So they still haven't finished discussing their differences and how to compromise on that subtle but apparently significant difference...

I remember being taught that the term "Roman Catholic" was originally a pejorative. The implication being though the Church is ostensibly catholic (i.e. universal, as you said) it is actually Roman/Italian."Roman" only serves to distinguish the Western Roman Catholic church from Eastern Orthodox Christianity since the Great Schism of 1054. Those are the two main branches of orthodoxy.

Similarly "protestant" was a pejorative from the other direction. Rebelling against authority (especially God given authority) was frowned upon in early modern Europe.Protestants have been called that since they existed. The success of protestantism was due to the fact that a number of German territorial rulers used it as a means of political resistance against emperor Charles V.

The distinction is subtle but strong...

Lutherans, maintain a distinction between a personal, hypostatic union and a “sacramental union”, favoring the latter in order to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Lutheran theology is able to speak of a transformation (mutatio) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Apology X, 2; XXIV). This is not understood as eliminating the physical character of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Lutherans emphasize that it is God’s Word which makes the sacrament (Large Catechism, 5: The Sacrament of the Altar). b. Orthodox profess a real change (metabole) of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ by the Words of Institution and the act of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic anaphora. This does not mean a “transsubstantiation” of the substance
Link (http://www.lutheranworld.org/LWF_Documents/Bratislava_Statement.pdf)

It took twenty five year of talks to make that Common Statement (4 page paper on Eucharist in the Orthodox vs Lutheran perspectives). And it finishes along the lines of...

9. Lutherans and Orthodox agree that the relation of the Eucharist to the ordained ministry/priesthood (hierosyne) requires full discussion at a later stage. Lutherans and Orthodox both hope and pray for a day when they may celebrate the Eucharist together and work together as the one Body of Christ for the life and the salvation of the world.

So they still haven't finished discussing their differences and how to compromise on that subtle but apparently significant difference...

I just graduated college with a minor in European history, and just this past semester took an entire course on the Protestant Reformation, so I feel I could step into the discussion...

There's a difference in vocabulary that points out the difference in Catholic/Orthodox and Lutheran belief. Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Lutherans define their belief as consubstantiation, in which Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but as the quoted post points out, it is not complete; the bread and wine are still physically bread and wine, even though they are also Christ. This is an issue that still separates Catholics and Lutherans today, even after numerous attempts to reconcile their differences.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.
Why do so many people think there's freedom of speech here?

Just FYI, there isn't. This is Max's house. You do not have freedom of speech here. The rules of this forum are quite clear on that. If you want to spend time here, I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the rules, because ignorance of them will not stop the mods from enforcing them on you! :D

"Roman" only serves to distinguish the Western Roman Catholic church from Eastern Orthodox Christianity since the Great Schism of 1054. Those are the two main branches of orthodoxy.

Protestants have been called that since they existed. The success of protestantism was due to the fact that a number of German territorial rulers used it as a means of political resistance against emperor Charles V.

I just graduated college with a minor in European history, and just this past semester took an entire course on the Protestant Reformation, so I feel I could step into the discussion...

There's a difference in vocabulary that points out the difference in Catholic/Orthodox and Lutheran belief. Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Lutherans define their belief as consubstantiation, in which Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but as the quoted post points out, it is not complete; the bread and wine are still physically bread and wine, even though they are also Christ. This is an issue that still separates Catholics and Lutherans today, even after numerous attempts to reconcile their differences.

yeah. it kinda amounts to "same thing only different"

they use a different name for it but its more alike than different. if you contrast the lutheran idea with the approach of the other protestant denominations, its far more "catholic" than "protestant".

I see what the argument about Eucharist is, but I continue to fail to see what the big argument means in a spiritual sense.

I see what the argument about Eucharist is, but I continue to fail to see what the big argument means in a spiritual sense.

Orthodox and Lutherans believe the Holy Communion is a sacrament, instructed by Jesus. Other protestants (like Baptists) believe the Holy Communion is an ordinance, instructed by Jesus.

Sacrament vs. Ordinance

Sacrament (from dictionary)
A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace, especially: a. In the Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some other Western Christian churches, any of the traditional seven rites that were instituted by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament and that confer sanctifying grace. b. In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.
*bolding by me.

Ordinance (from Wiki):
Baptist theology that no saving grace is conveyed by either and that original sin is not washed away in baptism. Another reason for not calling them sacraments is the Baptist belief that they are symbols rather than sacraments.[1] When viewed as an ordinance, baptism is testimony to the recipient's faith in the final resurrection of the dead. It is an outward sign, but not a seal. Being a church ordinance makes it a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
This differs from Reformed and Catholic theology. Baptists do not believe that either baptism or the Lord's Supper confers or mediates grace on those who receive it.

IMO: Since Jesus said this…

John 6:51-53
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Sacrament seems to fulfill that scripture more than simple ordinance or ritual practice … But I've personally partook with both types of congregations, believing that obedience is more important than perfect understanding I'm convinced that God blesses them both.

*snip*

Thanks, but in real terms, I still fail to see the spiritual significance. What does it mean in terms of salvation? In terms of how we live our daily lives as Christians?

Thanks, but in real terms, I still fail to see the spiritual significance. What does it mean in terms of salvation? In terms of how we live our daily lives as Christians?

It more of a something of a sacrament or a miraculous conveying of God's grace. The Catholic Church is merely following the words of Christ which were just stated by Balderdash.
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Christ is of course referring not to life on Earth, but to eternal life. In the connection to Christ through the Eucharist, Catholics and Orthodox feel that they come closer to salvation.

It more of a something of a sacrament or a miraculous conveying of God's grace. The Catholic Church is merely following the words of Christ which were just stated by Balderdash.


Christ is of course referring not to life on Earth, but to eternal life. In the connection to Christ through the Eucharist, Catholics and Orthodox feel that they come closer to salvation.

Okay. Suppose I participated in Communion without believing that what I took transsubbed into Jesus's flesh and blood, does that make what I eat not Jesus's flesh and blood?

Similarly "protestant" was a perjoritive from the other direction. Rebelling against authority (especially God given authority) was frowned upon in early modern Europe.
I was always under the impression that the term was a rather neutral one; that the Protestants were protesting against the direction the Roman church was taking, the massive corruption and (perceived) hypocrisy of the Papal authority and its bishops.

EDIT> Plus, the Protestants wanted (want?) a return to Scriptural authority, to "test all religious authority against the open Bible".

The success of protestantism was due to the fact that a number of German territorial rulers used it as a means of political resistance against emperor Charles V.
That and, I think it's fair to say, there was an environment conducive to a reforming presence in the Roman church; at least in northern Europe. I'm going off of the history of the Reformation I know (based largely on Owen Chadwick's The Reformation, 1972, Penguin Books: London), but many congregations were tired of the behaviour of many of the bishops and accompanying authorities in the dioceses. Not tired enough to split a la Luther, but enough to wish for a reformation in the Church itself.

Thanks, but in real terms, I still fail to see the spiritual significance. What does it mean in terms of salvation? In terms of how we live our daily lives as Christians?

Provided they partake of the Holy Communion regularly (the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist etc.,), then it doesn't make a big difference in a person's day to day life. But how they believe in it could impact how often they do it and how they feel about it afterwards and whether or not they feel they renew their spiritual connection to the Holy Spirit through it or not...

I think you have to be careful though, the same position (how does it affect my day to day life etc.,) could be used to say, why go to church every week?, or, why read the Bible when I already know what it says?, or, once baptized, why should I try to understand the mysteries of God at all anymore since I'm already saved? With that in mind, I think the 'reason' to believe one way over the other in the meaning of the Eucharist is as follows.

For Sacrament believers (who perform the Eucharist more often):
Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist to give those who believe in Him the power they need to remain alive in His grace (not just a one time deal like being Baptized). For Sacrament Christians this means the empowerment they receive constantly revives them as they live out the daily directives of the Holy Spirit.

For Ordination Believers (who likely perform the Eucharist less often):
Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist to remind those who believe in him of his sacrifice and last supper and they choose to obediently perform the ritual but they do not believe that they are empowered by it anymore than if the ordination were any other ritual meant to remind people of an event. Having a less impactive effect on their daily lives because of their belief of what the Eucharist is.

Okay. Suppose I participated in Communion without believing that what I took transsubbed into Jesus's flesh and blood, does that make what I eat not Jesus's flesh and blood?

That I don't know.

Edit: But I do know that some denominations that are sacrament believers don't believe it becomes sacrament until a believer sanctifies it (so I suppose some would say it does not become true Eucharist meal)

But I do know that some denominations that are sacrement believers don't believe it becomes sacrement until a believer sactifies it (so I suppose some would say it does not become true Eucharist meal)
Now, this is coming from the point of a view of an atheist brought up in a strong Presbyterian church, but I've always thought the idea of Transubstantiation as really weird. As a symbolic gesture, I get it, but the literal blood and flesh of Christ?

Having grape juice during Communion didn't help, I suppose.

I have freedom of speech do I not?

You do, so do I, which is why we can all talk about whatever we want here and that this doesn't affect us:


If you don't have anything that should go in this post...GO TO A DIFFERENT ONE!

Of course arguing the meaning of "heart of the earth" in English is useless. Since it can be interpreted poetically to mean Hell, or more literally to mean in a tomb.

Reading it in the original language, Ancient Greek, would be better, less ambiguous. But I can't read ancient greek, so I cannot help on that point.

It's not entirely clear in Greek to be honest, but there are a couple of interesting points:

It's worth noting that kardia (heart) in Koine Greek is usually used by the authors of the New Testament to mean thoughts, mind, attitude etc., although in this context I suspect the literal sense was intended.

It's also interesting that the Greek text uses the specific ges (earth, land) rather than the more generic kosmos (Earth, world, humanity, the universe).

My reading would be that it's an allusion to a tomb, as kardia tou kosmou (heart of the world) would have better expressed the idea of the centre of the earth, wheras ges suggests an emphasis on soil rather than the Earth as a whole. That said, I think the 'Hell' reading is probably tenable (although I don't think it would naturally be read that way unless the reader had already been introduced to the belief elsewhere).

I'm no scholar, so take this with a barrel or two of salt. :p

Now, this is coming from the point of a view of an atheist brought up in a strong Presbyterian church, but I've always thought the idea of Transubstantiation as really weird. As a symbolic gesture, I get it, but the literal blood and flesh of Christ?

Having grape juice during Communion didn't help, I suppose.

It is weird, but no more so than plenty of other Christian dogma. The only difference is a slight gross-out factor.

Okay. Suppose I participated in Communion without believing that what I took transsubbed into Jesus's flesh and blood, does that make what I eat not Jesus's flesh and blood?

I'd guess the Catholic answer would be yes, because at one time there was a lot of panic about 'Host Desecration', i.e. Jews and other non-Christians smuggling consecrated communion wafers out of church and destroying them. This was a serious enough concern to lead to a fair number of show-trials and lynchings, so presumably they felt there was still something special about the wafers even when taken by non-Christians (by contrast, I'm told it's perfectly acceptable to eat communion wafers like any other food as long as they haven't been sanctified: apparently they go very well with caviar).

Okay. Suppose I participated in Communion without believing that what I took transsubbed into Jesus's flesh and blood, does that make what I eat not Jesus's flesh and blood?

The missals say that only people who have been initiated into the Church through baptism and First Eucharist eat the host. So I guess they would still consider it to be his flesh and blood, they would just think you were desecrating it.

It is weird, but no more so than plenty of other Christian dogma. The only difference is a slight gross-out factor.
I suppose it's alien Christian dogma to me.

Calvin and John Knox will do that to you. :p

It's not entirely clear in Greek to be honest, but there are a couple of interesting points:

It's worth noting that kardia (heart) in Koine Greek is usually used by the authors of the New Testament to mean thoughts, mind, attitude etc., although in this context I suspect the literal sense was intended.

It's also interesting that the Greek text uses the specific ges (earth, land) rather than the more generic kosmos (Earth, world, humanity, the universe).

My reading would be that it's an allusion to a tomb, as kardia tou kosmou (heart of the world) would have better expressed the idea of the centre of the earth, wheras ges suggests an emphasis on soil rather than the Earth as a whole. That said, I think the 'Hell' reading is probably tenable (although I don't think it would naturally be read that way unless the reader had already been introduced to the belief elsewhere).

I'm no scholar, so take this with a barrel or two of salt. :p

thats pretty much how i was thinking of it when i read it. that it doesnt bring up the idea of descent into hell, it just supports it. kinda.

so i figured that there must be some other reference to it somewhere else in the NT. im waiting for some smart person to tell us where that might be.

theological question:
1)if god is omnipotent and
2)god is benevolent but
3) Suicide is a deadly sin
then why would god ever make anyone go to hell for forcing them to commit suicide?

theological question:
1)if god is omnipotent and
2)god is benevolent but
3) Suicide is a deadly sin
then why would god ever make anyone go to hell for forcing them to commit suicide?

Suicide is generally ranked as a 'grave' sin, not a mortal sin. Grave sins such as Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions," (Galatians 5:19-20). Paul also says in Corinthians, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Suicide is ranked in that group because suicide is murder of the self. It is contrary to the love of God, self, family, friends and neighbors (CCC 2281). Its worse if it is designed as a way to impress others, for them to be encouraged to do the same, etc. Intentionally helping a suicide is also a grave sin. However, the level of sin and the ranking, per-se, of suicide is lessened in the cases of psychological problems or extenuating circumstances of hardship or fear of future hardship, suffering, or torture. But this does not make it okay or allowable, it simply recognized that God is the final judge and he alone will measure the gravity or responsibility of the sin of the individual.

One fear is that the person can not repent of the sin... obviously.

Okay. Suppose I participated in Communion without believing that what I took transsubbed into Jesus's flesh and blood, does that make what I eat not Jesus's flesh and blood?

The Communion must become the literal 'meat' and 'blood' of Jesus - belief is irrelevent. It is a miracle without which there can be no salvation through vicarious substitution.

Jesus is sacrificed as Passover Lamb. And, in order to 'complete' the Passover sacrifice, you have to eat the Lamb. Anyone who doesn't take Communion is wasting their time as a 'christian'.

The Communion must become the literal 'meat' and 'blood' of Jesus - belief is irrelevent. It is a miracle without which there can be no salvation through vicarious substitution.

Jesus is sacrificed as Passover Lamb. And, in order to 'complete' the Passover sacrifice, you have to eat the Lamb. Anyone who doesn't take Communion is wasting their time as a 'christian'.


You seem to imply there is only your version of Christianity and being a Christian.

I hope I am simply misunderstanding.

The Communion must become the literal 'meat' and 'blood' of Jesus
LITERALLY the wafer and wine remain wheat and grape.

To add to what balderdash said, it comes down to responsibility. God allows us to have a choice because He doesn't want a bunch of robots. However, what choices we are going to make was known before the beginning of time and figured in to things. He has standards, and I'll assume you know how the rest goes.

You seem to imply there is only your version of Christianity and being a Christian.

I hope I am simply misunderstanding.

LITERALLY the wafer and wine remain wheat and grape.

Grave_n_idle is 'baiting' anyone that will challenge him on it. He's not a Christian but he's trying to prove you don't know your theology...

And the BLOOD shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the BLOOD, I will PASSOVER you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 12)

But he forgets, the lamb itself is a vicarious substitution for Isaac, and in Christian theology, Isaac is a metaphor for Jesus' yet to be sacrifice.

I wouldn't bother arguing about the 'actual' atomic composition of the Eucharist, either Christ is present or he is not. The Catholics say one thing, the Lutherans say another and the Baptist yet another still (as many as there are different denominations). The point that they all partake of the Lords supper is far more important than that they should all have a perfect understanding of the mysteries of God.

Quote --> "I wouldn't bother arguing about the 'actual' atomic composition of the Eucharist, either Christ is present or he is not. The Catholics say one thing, the Lutherans say another and the Baptist yet another still (as many as there are different denominations). The point that they all partake of the Lords supper is far more important than that they should all have a perfect understanding of the mysteries of God."

I'm not Catholic, but I agree with him. The spiritual act of communion with the Holy Spirit is what's important. The material is relatively unimportant in comparison.

...

I don't know you you are Katonazag, new or someone's new name, but I welcome you :)

You won't be popular around here though if you keep agreeing with me, you've been warned ;)

Suicide is generally ranked as a 'grave' sin, not a mortal sin. Grave sins such as Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions," (Galatians 5:19-20). Paul also says in Corinthians, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Suicide is ranked in that group because suicide is murder of the self. It is contrary to the love of God, self, family, friends and neighbors (CCC 2281). Its worse if it is designed as a way to impress others, for them to be encouraged to do the same, etc. Intentionally helping a suicide is also a grave sin. However, the level of sin and the ranking, per-se, of suicide is lessened in the cases of psychological problems or extenuating circumstances of hardship or fear of future hardship, suffering, or torture. But this does not make it okay or allowable, it simply recognized that God is the final judge and he alone will measure the gravity or responsibility of the sin of the individual.

One fear is that the person can not repent of the sin... obviously.

Is repenting of sin a condition of being forgiven though? Because when Christ died, he died for all your past sins and future sins. He died when you were already a sinner. The only condition to being forgiven is faith in Jesus and what he did.

He died when you were already a sinner.

I was a sinner almost 2000 years before I was born?

I was a sinner almost 2000 years before I was born?

Sorry, I didn't explain that one properly then. And its complicated. And its late. Hmph.
No, you weren't a sinner 2000 years before you were born, because you didn't exist.
But what I'm saying is that mankind didn't have to repent before Jesus died. Jesus died while we were all still sinners. Mankind couldn't ever earn forgiveness, and we would never be able to make up the gap.
But even after Jesus died, repentance was not a requirement for forgiveness, faith was. Repentance was only needed for changing your life.

Sorry, I didn't explain that one properly then. And its complicated. And its late. Hmph.
No, you weren't a sinner 2000 years before you were born, because you didn't exist.
But what I'm saying is that mankind didn't have to repent before Jesus died. Jesus died while we were all still sinners. Mankind couldn't ever earn forgiveness, and we would never be able to make up the gap.
But even after Jesus died, repentance was not a requirement for forgiveness, faith was. Repentance was only needed for changing your life.

I was mostly looking to see if you were arguing the original sin bs.

I was mostly looking to see if you were arguing the original sin bs.

oh lol spose that last answer was pretty pointless then hey

To add to what balderdash said, it comes down to responsibility. God allows us to have a choice because He doesn't want a bunch of robots. However, what choices we are going to make was known before the beginning of time and figured in to things. He has standards, and I'll assume you know how the rest goes.

How utterly nonsensical...god wants us to be able to make the choices we want, he just knew exactly the choices we were going to make.

What a fucking con, a faith that's premised on nonsensical, unexplainable nonsense, and when it's challenged, attempts to cop out of it by claiming "we can't know god".

The only reason God gave us the ability to choose things is because of adam and eve sinning

The only reason God gave us the ability to choose things is because of adam and eve sinning

oh good...you're back.

The only reason God gave us the ability to choose things is because of adam and eve sinning

So if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, we'd all be mindless automata?

You seem to imply there is only your version of Christianity and being a Christian.

I hope I am simply misunderstanding.

You are.

There is, however, only one approach to the communion. Either you eat it (and are party to the miracle of transubstantiation), or you are never going to be 'saved'.

LITERALLY the wafer and wine remain wheat and grape.

Your belief is irrelevent.

Grave_n_idle is 'baiting' anyone that will challenge him on it. He's not a Christian but he's trying to prove you don't know your theology...

And the BLOOD shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the BLOOD, I will PASSOVER you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 12)

But he forgets, the lamb itself is a vicarious substitution for Isaac, and in Christian theology, Isaac is a metaphor for Jesus' yet to be sacrifice.

I wouldn't bother arguing about the 'actual' atomic composition of the Eucharist, either Christ is present or he is not. The Catholics say one thing, the Lutherans say another and the Baptist yet another still (as many as there are different denominations). The point that they all partake of the Lords supper is far more important than that they should all have a perfect understanding of the mysteries of God.

I'm not baiting anyone - I'm pointing out that the euchrist is essential to salvation. One cannot complete the passover sacrifice unless you eat the lamb - that's right there in the text.

So - crucifixion, salvation-by-grace... it's all just words to you if you don't eat the flesh of christ.

I have to point out a couple of other problems with your 'argument'...

First - Isaac is not a metaphor for anything. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a type of the Calvary substitution. However, since Isaac isn't the christ, he didn't have to die, and a vicarious substitution was provided for him. Similarly, the Passover feast in Exodus is a type of the vicarious substitution on the cross.

You misunderstand Abraham's story - the story isn't about Isaac, it's about someone giving their only begotten son at Moriah. You also seem to be confusing the sacrifice Abraham makes with the Passover lamb - those are two different stories, although they are 'united' in the Calvary story.

Isaac couldn't be the vicarious substitution - since he was a sinner. So, Jehovah sends a sacrifice in his place. Isaac is replaced by a vicarious substitution - and that's his only connection to the New Testament sacrifice story. Isaac isn't a type of Christ, he's a type of US.

The only reason God gave us the ability to choose things is because of adam and eve sinning

I think the usual argument is that it's the other way around...

Personally - I don't see any evidence of 'free will' in the Eden story - it was a test they couldn't pass, based on deliberate obfuscation of the data. Even worse, Jehovah is supposed to be the trustworthy one, but lies to them - and the serpent is supposed to be sinful, but is proved to be the more honest of the two.

Adam and Eve were the mindless pawns in a game of politics between a flying snake and a lying god.

I think the usual argument is that it's the other way around...

Personally - I don't see any evidence of 'free will' in the Eden story - it was a test they couldn't pass, based on deliberate obfuscation of the data. Even worse, Jehovah is supposed to be the trustworthy one, but lies to them - and the serpent is supposed to be sinful, but is proved to be the more honest of the two.

Adam and Eve were the mindless pawns in a game of politics between a flying snake and a lying god.

Ok first off the snake LIED not God. God told them not to eat the fruit and they did it anyway

Ok first off the snake LIED not God. God told them not to eat the fruit and they did it anyway

Where did the serpent lie?

And, where did Jehovah tell THEM (I notice you use the plural) not to eat 'the fruit'... and how do you explain the conflict with the fact that he told Adam he could?

Where did the serpent lie?

And, where did Jehovah tell THEM (I notice you use the plural) not to eat 'the fruit'... and how do you explain the conflict with the fact that he told Adam he could?

He never told adam he could. look it up.

Where did the serpent lie?

And, where did Jehovah tell THEM (I notice you use the plural) not to eat 'the fruit'... and how do you explain the conflict with the fact that he told Adam he could?

The serpent lied when he told them nothing would happen to them when they ate the fruit.

Ok first off the snake LIED not God. God told them not to eat the fruit and they did it anyway

Now, although Adam and his wife were both naked, neither of them felt any shame.

Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the creatures the LORD God had made. "Really?" he asked the woman. "Did God really say you must not eat any of the fruit in the garden?"

"Of course we may eat it," the woman told him.

"It's only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God says we must not eat it or even touch it, or we will die."

"You won't die!" the serpent hissed.

"God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil."

The woman was convinced. The fruit looked so fresh and delicious, and it would make her so wise! So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too.

At that moment, their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves.

Toward evening they heard the LORD God walking about in the garden, so they hid themselves among the trees.

The LORD God called to Adam,* "Where are you?"

He replied, "I heard you, so I hid. I was afraid because I was naked."

"Who told you that you were naked?" the LORD God asked. "Have you eaten the fruit I commanded you not to eat?"

"Yes," Adam admitted, "but it was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit, and I ate it."

Then the LORD God asked the woman, "How could you do such a thing?" "The serpent tricked me," she replied. "That's why I ate it."

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, you will be punished. You are singled out from all the domestic and wild animals of the whole earth to be cursed. You will grovel in the dust as long as you live, crawling along on your belly.

From now on, you and the woman will be enemies, and your offspring and her offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Then he said to the woman, "You will bear children with intense pain and suffering. And though your desire will be for your husband,* he will be your master."

And to Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate the fruit I told you not to eat, I have placed a curse on the ground. All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it.

It will grow thorns and thistles for you, though you will eat of its grains.

All your life you will sweat to produce food, until your dying day. Then you will return to the ground from which you came. For you were made from dust, and to the dust you will return."

Then Adam named his wife Eve,* because she would be the mother of all people everywhere.

And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.

Then the LORD God said, "The people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil. What if they eat the fruit of the tree of life? Then they will live forever!"

So the LORD God banished Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made.

After banishing them from the garden, the LORD God stationed mighty angelic beings* to the east of Eden. And a flaming sword flashed back and forth, guarding the way to the tree of life.
That reads like quite the set up to me.

TI, you have stated before that you believe god to be omniscient, therefore he knew that the snake would try to convince Adam & Eve to eat the fruit from the tree. This also shows that since he knew this, that this charade is what he had planned for them all along.

Summary: If god is indeed omniscient then he is a bastard.

He never told adam he could. look it up.

Genesis 1:29

And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.

Emphasis added

Genesis 1:29



Emphasis added

Keep going and he says except the tree in the center of the garden.

He never told adam he could. look it up.

Neo Art has already pointed out the requisite passage. Jehovah specifically tells Adam he can eat any fruit.

Look it up.

That reads like quite the set up to me.

TI, you have stated before that you believe god to be omniscient, therefore he knew that the snake would try to convince Adam & Eve to eat the fruit from the tree. This also shows that since he knew this, that this charade is what he had planned for them all along.

Summary: If god is indeed omniscient then he is a bastard.

Yes but God being omniscient doesn't mean he makes our decisions for us.

The serpent lied when he told them nothing would happen to them when they ate the fruit.

Genesis 3:1 - 3:7

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

God told Adam and Eve that if they ate the apple they would die.

The serpent told Eve that if they ate the fruit, they would become aware of good and evil. Never said "nothing bad would happen". Said merely they'd know good and evil.

They ate the fruit, they did not die. They however did become aware of good and evil, exactly as the serpent said would happen. God told them they would die, yet they did not die. The serpent said they'd become aware of good and evil, and they did. The serpent spoke the truth, god lied.

Genesis 3:1 - 3:7



God told Adam and Eve that if they ate the apple they would die.

The serpent told Eve that if they ate the fruit, they would become aware of good and evil. Never said "nothing bad would happen". Said merely they'd know good and evil.

They ate the fruit, they did not die. They however did become aware of good and evil, exactly as the serpent said would happen. God told them they would die, yet they did not die. The serpent said they'd become aware of good and evil, and they did. The serpent spoke the truth, god lied.

Yes but it was bad that they became aware of good and evil. And they did die spiritually.

The serpent lied when he told them nothing would happen to them when they ate the fruit.

Shall we look at the verses?

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

The serpent says: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

So - which one is a lie?

Well - did Adam and Eve die when they ate the fruit? No.

So - Jehovah lied, and the serpent was right.


Indeed, God has to exile the naked idiots from the Garden to stop them from eating the tree of life and becoming gods - just as the serpent said. So - they wouldn't 'surely die'... if they just ate that other fruit, they'd have been immortal. So - Jehovah was wrong twice.

Keep going and he says except the tree in the center of the garden.

You said he NEVER told Adam he could. Indeed he could. In genesis 1 he specifically states so. It wasn't until Genesis 2 that god retracts his original statement, which makes god a liar.

Genesis 3:1 - 3:7



God told Adam and Eve that if they ate the apple they would die.

The serpent told Eve that if they ate the fruit, they would become aware of good and evil. Never said "nothing bad would happen". Said merely they'd know good and evil.

They ate the fruit, they did not die. They however did become aware of good and evil, exactly as the serpent said would happen. God told them they would die, yet they did not die. The serpent said they'd become aware of good and evil, and they did. The serpent spoke the truth, god lied.

Actually, they did die, eventually. I think the idea is that before they were perfect and immortal, but after the fall their body was corrupted with sin etc.. and thus mortal and going to eventually die. But this is very basic and irrelevant stuff, I don't even know why anyone's bothering to discuss it, since its all a pile of shit anyway.

You said he NEVER told Adam he could. Indeed he could. In genesis 1 he specifically states so. It wasn't until Genesis 2 that god retracts his original statement, which makes god a liar.

Wow, Moses left out that little part in genesis 1 and waited to write it till Genesis 2. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean he didn't say it!

Yes but it was bad that they became aware of good and evil.

Bad according to whom? And did the serpent ever say otherwise?

And they did die spiritually.

Oh for fuck's sake, enough of this shit.

Yes but it was bad that they became aware of good and evil. And they did die spiritually.

Why is it 'bad' that they became aware of good and evil?

They couldn't have comprehended the nature of thier alleged sins, if they didn't know the difference between good and evil - so they can't be blamed for any wrongdoing in Eden.

They were tricked into a game they couldn't win, and wouldn't be allowed to. (You notice, after they eat the fruit of knowledge, Jehovah changes the rules on them, by with-holding another fruit).

And - when you say "they did die spiritually'... that's just a cop-out. The spirit (in Genesis) is god's breath in the human flesh - it's what enables us to walk and talk. If they had died 'in spirit', they'd have been physically dead... it's not just a cop-out, it's a nonsense.

Actually, they did die, eventually. I think the idea is that before they were perfect and immortal, but after the fall their body was corrupted with sin etc.. and thus mortal and going to eventually die. But this is very basic and irrelevant stuff, I don't even know why anyone's bothering to discuss it, since its all a pile of shit anyway.

That's true too. they were immortal until they ate the fruit.

Actually, they did die, eventually. I think the idea is that before they were perfect and immortal, but after the fall their body was corrupted with sin etc.. and thus mortal and going to eventually die. But this is very basic and irrelevant stuff, I don't even know why anyone's bothering to discuss it, since its all a pile of shit anyway.

THe bible clearly said that if they ate the apple they would die that day. The fact that they became able to die is irrelevant, and untrue. They did not die within the day.

Actually, they did die, eventually. I think the idea is that before they were perfect and immortal, but after the fall their body was corrupted with sin etc.. and thus mortal and going to eventually die. But this is very basic and irrelevant stuff, I don't even know why anyone's bothering to discuss it, since its all a pile of shit anyway.

It's sinful to know the difference between good & evil?

Why is it 'bad' that they became aware of good and evil?

They couldn't have comprehended the nature of thier alleged sins, if they didn't know the difference between good and evil - so they can't be blamed for any wrongdoing in Eden.

They were tricked into a game they couldn't win, and wouldn't be allowed to. (You notice, after they eat the fruit of knowledge, Jehovah changes the rules on them, by with-holding another fruit).

And - when you say "they did die spiritually'... that's just a cop-out. The spirit (in Genesis) is god's breath in the human flesh - it's what enables us to walk and talk. If they had died 'in spirit', they'd have been physically dead... it's not just a cop-out, it's a nonsense.


Knowing good and evil made them mortal which they were not told by the serpent.

Wow, Moses left out that little part in genesis 1 and waited to write it till Genesis 2. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean he didn't say it!

alright then, now we've finally weasled out the admission that the bible isn't 100% true. So what makes any of it true?

Remember, as you just said, just because it's written, doesn't make it true.

It's sinful to know the difference between good & evil?

It's sinful to know evil.

alright then, now we've finally weasled out the admission that the bible isn't 100% true. So what makes any of it true?

Remember, as you just said, just because it's written, doesn't make it true.

I didn't say that you're twisting my words.

THe bible clearly said that if they ate the apple they would die that day. The fact that they became able to die is irrelevant, and untrue. They did not die within the day.

No it Doesnt.

Knowing good and evil made them mortal which they were not told by the serpent.

no, actually the bible is quite clear, god made them mortal. Not the apple.

How do you claim to believe in the bible when you don't even know what it says?

No it Doesnt.

Genesis 3:17

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die

no, actually the bible is quite clear, god made them mortal. Not the apple.

How do you claim to believe in the bible when you don't even know what it says?

Well i don't know it word for word. And you're correct that God made them mortal. But only because they sinned.

I didn't say that you're twisting my words.

Just because it isn't written doesn't mean he didn't say it!

Yes, you did.

Genesis 3:17

SPIRITUALLY DIE!!!!

THe bible clearly said that if they ate the apple they would die that day. The fact that they became able to die is irrelevant, and untrue. They did not die within the day.

Where does it say 'that day'? You do realise your views about God being the liar are unorthodox and completely rejecting the consensus amongst most theologians on the matter. Do you honestly think that the priests who wrote Genesis intended to get the point across about God being the liar, the one who is allegedly the source of all good? Or the devil, representative of evil, the liar?

It's sinful to know the difference between good & evil?

No... It's sinful to disrespect Gods wishes (yes that's stupid).

God made them mortal.

Knowing good and evil made them mortal

Which is it?

SPIRITUALLY DIE!!!!

Where does the word "spiritually" appear in Genesis 2:17?

Yes, you did.

Wow, Moses left out that little part in genesis 1 and waited to write it till Genesis 2. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean he didn't say it!

Then you said just cause IT IS written doesn't mean it's true!!!

Which is it?

God made them mortal for that reason.

Where does the word "spiritually" appear in Genesis 2:17?

It doesn't but we can assume just like you guys can assume evolution is how we got here.

Actually, they did die, eventually.

Not the point.

Jehovah said: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Jehovah said: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

So - 'surely die' is a lie.

Where does it say 'that day'?

As I said, genesis 2:17

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die

You do realise your views about God being the liar are unorthodox and completely rejecting the consensus amongst most theologians on the matter.

The fact that theologians reject the plain meaning of the words in their own holy book while accepting other parts of the same book as, literally, divine mandate, makes them hypocrits, not right.

Do you honestly think that the priests who wrote Genesis intended to get the point across about God being the liar, the one who is allegedly the source of all good? Or the devil, representative of evil, the liar?

No, I think "the bible" is a conglomeration of several books, fables, myths, stories, and traditions that were passed down orally and in the written word, throughout numerous societies and numerous languages, which were conglomerated for, at least in part, politicla reasons, translated and retranslated again and again until the whole things resembles a badly patchworked quilt of inconsistencies and logical fallacies.

God made them mortal for that reason.

So he punished them for doing what he knew they would do, nice deity you have there.

Not the point.

Jehovah said: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Jehovah said: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

So - 'surely die' is a lie.

If he doesn't touch the fruit he shall live forever.

Knowing good and evil made them mortal which they were not told by the serpent.

Show me where it says that.

The only place it states a difference between mortal and immortal state, is where Jehovah says that they will become immortal if they eat the OTHER fruit.

What would be the point of a tree of immortality... if everyone created (God, and two people?) were already immortal?

Then you said just cause IT IS written doesn't mean it's true!!!

you admitted that the bible may not be a completely accurate recounting of events. As you said, just because it's not written doesn't mean he did not say it.

So the bible is inaccurate. And if it's inaccurate, it's wrong. And since you already admitted it's wrong, and not a fully accurate representation of events, then you just admitted that there's no reason to believe any part of it.

So he punished them for doing what he knew they would do, nice deity you have there.

It's not making you guys look any smarter asking questions that are answered by connon sense. I'm done arguing with people that won't listen!!!

If he doesn't touch the fruit he shall live forever.

And if they had eaten of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life they would have lived forever. Apparently their only mistake was in not following thru on the advice of the serpent.

It's not making you guys look any smarter asking questions that are answered by connon sense.

So mother fucking sigged

It's not making you guys look any smarter asking questions that are answered by connon sense. I'm done arguing with people that won't listen!!!

Connon?


Do you or do you not believe that god is omniscient?

It doesn't but we can assume just like you guys can assume evolution is how we got here.

Irrelevent. Indeed, double irrelevent, since - even among theological beliefs - the Christian creation myth is not the only one.

If he doesn't touch the fruit he shall live forever.

You know that's a different fruit, right?

You know that's a different fruit, right?

I doubt it.

It's not making you guys look any smarter asking questions that are answered by connon sense. I'm done arguing with people that won't listen!!!

How does common (I assume) sense answer the question of how one achieves or loses immortality?

Miraculous theology and 'common sense' share remarkably small amounts of territory.

As I said, genesis 2:17





The fact that theologians reject the plain meaning of the words in their own holy book while accepting other parts of the same book as, literally, divine mandate, makes them hypocrits, not right.


Firstly, a theologian =/= Christian, there are many many atheist theologians, and the majority of theologians also think that genesis is absolutely not any sort of historical truth. To say that they're just hypocrites who reject parts of the Bible (people who have been rigorously studying it for thousands of years, and not just obnoxiously picking some quotes of an English translation to attempt to claim that it is actually God who is the liar which misses the whole point of Genesis) is like me saying to you that lawyers and judges just ignore the constitution and have a biased interpretation.


No, I think "the bible" is a conglomeration of several books, fables, myths, stories, and traditions that were passed down orally and in the written word, throughout numerous societies and numerous languages, which were conglomerated for, at least in part, politicla reasons, translated and retranslated again and again until the whole things resembles a badly patchworked quilt of inconsistencies and logical fallacies.

I'm not disagreeing with it, but you must understand the sources from whom wrote the Bible (priestly, J source etc... certainly not Moses or David or anyone like that), they were clearly trying to get a point across, that is what matters, the meaning they were trying to convey, not pedantically picking quotes from an English translation.

Not the point.

Jehovah said: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Jehovah said: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

So - 'surely die' is a lie.
point. the only tree they were forbidden to eat was the "tree of knowledge". thus it can be said that they were partaking of the tree of life.

the "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." could indicate a spiritual death as others said, but it could also be God warning Adam that by eating of the tree of knowledge, he would then be forbidden to eat of the tree of life. thus become mortal.

realize please, I'm not arguing this as 1) the literalist mindset 2) to defend TI.

Show me where it says that.

The only place it states a difference between mortal and immortal state, is where Jehovah says that they will become immortal if they eat the OTHER fruit.

What would be the point of a tree of immortality... if everyone created (God, and two people?) were already immortal? no where did it state that man and woman were 'created' immortal. so it can be thought that man's long life in the garden was due to the tree of life (which man was not forbidden to eat.)

Note: same disclaimers that I told Neo. :p

It's not making you guys look any smarter asking questions that are answered by common sense. I'm done arguing with people that won't listen!!! Common Sense... well... isn't.

and realize, you did open yourself up to this by making such a thread here.

And if they had eaten of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life they would have lived forever. Apparently their only mistake was in not following thru on the advice of the serpent. the serpent did not tell them to eat of both trees. so it can be said that the serpent also didn't "know" about the tree of life, or assumed that they would have access to it after they ate from the tree of knowledge.


I like the fact that for these kinds of threads that pop up on NSG, it's mostly those arguing against the bible that tends to take the bible litterally. :cool:

..just obnoxiously picking some quotes of an English translation to attempt to claim that it is actually God who is the liar


Pointing out inconsistency can be tritely dismissed as "obnoxiously picking some quotes"?

It's not an attempt to claim anything - if the text is all supposed to be accept as valid, Jehovah IS a liar.

And, I hate to burst your bubble - but the inconsistency is present in the Hebrew, too.


...which misses the whole point of Genesis...


Rather depends on what you think 'the point' is?


...they were clearly trying to get a point across, that is what matters, the meaning they were trying to convey, not pedantically picking quotes from an English translation.

You assume your focus is their focus. The earliest books of the Old Testament are clearly not written to be one consistent narrative. Indeed, what they READ as - is a collection of traditions... sometimes complementary, sometimes conflicting. The 'point' of Genesis is to record as many of the tarditions as could be collected.

For the benefit of anyone who's genuinely confused as to why we should trust scientists to know what the climate was in the past when another branch of science isn't always right about future forcasts:

The Creationist talking point is a particularly disingenuous one, as it deliberately conflates 'weather' with 'climate'. Here are some definitions of climate:

the weather in some location averaged over some long period of time
Link (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=climate)

The long-term average weather pattern of a region.
Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/weatherwise/glossary/c.shtml)

Climate is the average and variations of weather in a region over long periods of time.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate)

So weather and climate are not synonyms. To give an example, the weather forcast for London tomorrow:

Sunny intervals, max temperature day 19C, min temperature night 9C, north north westerly wind 3mph, good visibility, relative humidity 33, UV risk 5, low pollution
BBC Weather (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?world=0008)

reads very differently from a description of the climate of London:

London has a temperate marine climate, like much of the British Isles, with regular but generally light precipitation throughout the year. The warmest month is July, with an average temperature range at Greenwich of 13.6 °C to 22.8 °C (56.5 to 73.0 °F). Record high temperatures of up to 38.1 °C (101 °F) were recorded in different parts of London on 10 August 2003. Central London, because of the size of the city, has a microclimate that is markedly warmer than the surrounding English countryside and offers such a degree of temperature protection, that the plant life capable of flourishing in the centre (Zones 1 & 2) is markedly more Mediterranean than most of the rest of England, with the exception of south west Cornwall and Devon. The coolest month is January, averaging 2.4 °C to 7.9 °C (35.6 to 46.2 °F). Average annual precipitation is 583.6 mm (22.98 in), with February on average the driest month.[94] Snow is relatively uncommon, particularly because heat from the urban area can make London up to 5 °C (9 °F) hotter than the surrounding areas in winter. Light snowfall, however, is generally seen a few times every year. London is in USDA Hardiness zone 8, and AHS Heat Zone 2.[95]
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate)

Similarly, although scientists can't tell you what the weather was like on any given day of the late Precambrian period they can tell you that the climate overall was 'typically cold with glaciation spreading over much of the earth'.

it's mostly those arguing against the bible that tends to take the bible litterally. :cool:

we don't "take the bible literally", we point out the logical and necessary ramifications of such a belief, namely, that if you believe the bible is meant to be taken literally it's important to point out exactly what it is you believe in, and what, exactly, it is you're taking literally.

How utterly nonsensical...god wants us to be able to make the choices we want, he just knew exactly the choices we were going to make.

What a fucking con, a faith that's premised on nonsensical, unexplainable nonsense, and when it's challenged, attempts to cop out of it by claiming "we can't know god".

Well, I'm sorry you see it that way. If a being is both omnicient and not bound by physical properties (like space and time), wouldn't it stand to reason that said being would know all this ahead of time? ;)

If you come with the pre-supposition that God either doesn't exist or doesn't possess those abilities, then yes, it will seem foolish to you. That's why faith is kind of a mystery - if you could see God face to face with your eyes or hear Him with your ears, it would be really easy to believe. Faith is the test, because without it, you won't believe. And if you don't believe, how can you have any sort of relationship with God? I know I can't hope to convince you on my own against the position your mind has already taken and I'm not here to try to. But I can hope that one day under some other circumstances you will understand.

Pointing out inconsistency can be tritely dismissed as "obnoxiously picking some quotes"?


Its fine for the purpose of showing that the Bible IS inconsistent, not for the purpose of saying absolutely what was the point the writers were trying to get across.


It's not an attempt to claim anything - if the text is all supposed to be accept as valid, Jehovah IS a liar.


Well not really in that case, I can explain but it will just be dismissed as apologist crap.


And, I hate to burst your bubble - but the inconsistency is present in the Hebrew, too.


Yes but the meaning is clearer.


Rather depends on what you think 'the point' is?


Well it obviously isn't going to be that God is a liar.


You assume your focus is their focus. The earliest books of the Old Testament are clearly not written to be one consistent narrative. Indeed, what they READ as - is a collection of traditions... sometimes complementary, sometimes conflicting. The 'point' of Genesis is to record as many of the tarditions as could be collected.

This is completely true, which is why theologians identify consistent patterns in writing and then separate them out into separate sources, rather than act as if each book is written by one person alone (which they aren't). From this you can identify different points each source was trying to get across.

we don't "take the bible literally", we point out the logical and necessary ramifications of such a belief, namely, that if you believe the bible is meant to be taken literally it's important to point out exactly what it is you believe in, and what, exactly, it is you're taking literally.

while I agree with this. (see my note that I am not defending TI :p) alot of times, you see posted "it doesn't say 'that' in the bible" or "show me where it says..." more frequently from posters arguing against the bible than those that take it literally.

then there is the "people pick and choose bits they like from the bible" as if it's a menu.

I've had those arguments thrown against me more often than not and I'm NOT a bible literallist.

I don't know you you are Katonazag, new or someone's new name, but I welcome you :)

You won't be popular around here though if you keep agreeing with me, you've been warned ;)

If I was trying to be popular, I wouldn't be on here when I've got 10 min. to spare between work/eat/sleep! ;)

Thanks for the welcome. I am new to the game, but not new to these kinds of forum discussions. I'm just here to put my position out there and why I support it. If people want to read and consider what I say, then great. If they don't, I can't say I really care. Most people have a position on things and will not be changing their minds for any reason. I put my positions out there for those who are open to changing their mind.

we don't "take the bible literally", we point out the logical and necessary ramifications of such a belief, namely, that if you believe the bible is meant to be taken literally it's important to point out exactly what it is you believe in, and what, exactly, it is you're taking literally.

Now, now Neo A, you should know by now that non-christians aren't allowed to point out the flaws in a bible-literalist's arguments by showing what the bible says.
:rolleyes:

But I can hope that one day under some other circumstances you will understand.

One can say the same to you.

One can say the same to you.

I'm glad we can come to the understanding that we will not be taking each other's positions, and can therefore save time and keystrokes by not trying to convince the other.

Now, now Neo A, you should know by now that non-christians aren't allowed to point out the flaws in a bible-literalist's arguments by showing what the bible says.
:rolleyes:

That's because many people make the mistake that the Bible is either all literal or all figurative. In actuality, the Bible is meant to be interpreted based on context under which the passages were written. Anything taken out of context can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants, and the Bible is no exception.

Wow, Moses left out that little part in genesis 1 and waited to write it till Genesis 2. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean he didn't say it!

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that Moses can't have written Genesis? Dan was supposedly only given its name after the conquest of Canaan, so describing Abraham as pursuing people 'unto Dan' is something of a giveaway.

You do realise your views about God being the liar are unorthodox and completely rejecting the consensus amongst most theologians on the matter.

What possible relevance does that have to what the book actually says?

Do you honestly think that the priests who wrote Genesis intended to get the point across about God being the liar, the one who is allegedly the source of all good?

The Torah is the result of a merger between four texts: J, P, E and D. The whole fruit story is usually assigned to the author known as 'the Yahwist' or simply 'J'. J is not usually identified as a priest (unlike E and P) and J's god is very anthropic, sometimes 'repenting' of his actions, thus indicating that he's capable of doing wrong. You should also bear in mind that the Hebrew conception of truth was rather different from the modern, rationalistic definition based on conformity to reality: Hebrew truth was inseparable from god, and so the idea of god lying is not necessarily a problem.

Or the devil, representative of evil, the liar?

Who said anything about the devil (who's a Christian creation anyway)? We're dealing with a talking snake, there's no indication that they're anything else to it (and talking animals do feature elsewhere in J's narrative: think Balaam's ass). The identification of the serpent with Satan came much later, and is frankly absurd: why would god punish the serpent by removing its power of speech and making it crawl on the ground if Satan was the guilty party?

What possible relevance does that have to what the book actually says?


Because its the meaning which is important, otherwise each passage could have a million different meanings, its not like the language used in the Bible is univocal.


The Torah is the result of a merger between four texts: J, P, E and D. The whole fruit story is usually assigned to the author known as 'the Yahwist' or simply 'J'.

Yeah I was talking about that earlier.


J is not usually identified as a priest (unlike E and P) and J's god is very anthropic and sometimes 'repents' of his actions, indicating that he's capable of doing wrong. You should also bear in mind that the Hebrew conception of truth was rather different from the modern, rationalistic definition based on conformity to reality: Hebrew truth was inseparable from god, and so the idea of god lying is not necessarily a problem.


My understanding that it was the priestly source in particular that wrote genesis, specifically I believe it was two different priests who created the first and second creation stories.


Who said anything about the devil (who's a Christian creation anyway)? We're dealing with a talking snake, there's no indication that they're anything else to it (and talking animals do feature elsewhere in J's narrative: think Balaam's ass). The identification of the serpent with Satan came much later, and is frankly absurd: why would god punish the serpent by removing its power of speech and making it crawl on the ground if Satan was the guilty party?

Well that doesn't matter specifically, what's more absurd is the idea that it was God who lied, the writers would have obviously never of meant it to be interpreted that way.

That's because many people make the mistake that the Bible is either all literal or all figurative. In actuality, the Bible is meant to be interpreted based on context under which the passages were written. Anything taken out of context can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants, and the Bible is no exception.

And how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative based on context?

This is an honest question: I'm interested because when I asked the same question to a close Christian friend of mine her response was pretty much "If there's evidence against it then it must be figurative, otherwise it's literal".

Because its the meaning which is important, otherwise each passage could have a million different meanings, its not like the language used in the Bible is univocal.

The meaning in these passages is very clear; the theologians are making post hoc rationalisations.

My understanding that it was the priestly source in particular that wrote genesis, specifically I believe it was two different priests who created the first and second creation stories.

Genesis is split pretty much half-and-half between J and P. The story of the fruit is a classic example of J's style and can be identified as such even by someone like myself with no knowledge of Hebrew (the tell-tale signs include an anthropic deity; talking animals; god's mercy, giving Adam and Even clothes even after banishing them; and cherubim, which were central to the Judaism in Judah where J was writing). J was not a priest, as he shows disregard for priestly rights and prerogatives (such as allowing Noah to sacrifice animals after the flood which later prompted P to rewrite the story), and some have even suggested that 'he' was a woman.

Well that doesn't matter specifically, what's more absurd is the idea that it was God who lied, the writers would have obviously never of meant it to be interpreted that way.

Unsupported assertion. I've already given several reasons why the author probably wouldn't have seen a problem with a lying god.

So - 'surely die' is a lie.

Just as much as "I like pie"

*badda bing*



Well, I'm sorry you see it that way. If a being is both omnicient and not bound by physical properties (like space and time), wouldn't it stand to reason that said being would know all this ahead of time?

If you come with the pre-supposition that God either doesn't exist or doesn't possess those abilities, then yes, it will seem foolish to you. That's why faith is kind of a mystery - if you could see God face to face with your eyes or hear Him with your ears, it would be really easy to believe. Faith is the test, because without it, you won't believe. And if you don't believe, how can you have any sort of relationship with God? I know I can't hope to convince you on my own against the position your mind has already taken and I'm not here to try to. But I can hope that one day under some other circumstances you will understand.

Bullshit. God, if hes not truly an asshole, would not give us the thing that allowed us to survive - our ability to reason, deduct, and innovate - and also precisley have these things stand in our way to our knowledge of Him. I don't have Faith. I have a relationship. Faith is Blind Hope. I based my belief in God on logical deduction ( that, however, is for another thread. To blindly hold faith without questinoing is more than wrong - it is an insult to God to stand in firm contrast to those gifts with which He has held highest.

The meaning in these passages is very clear; the theologians are making post hoc rationalisations.


Of course they aren't, in fact they are quite vague, you said it yourself when you mention that Hebrews have a different concept of truth. And you dismiss the theologians assessments, yet you talk about the various biblical sources, all of these findings were by theologians.


Genesis is split pretty much half-and-half between J and P. The story of the fruit is a classic example of J's style and can be identified as such even by someone like myself with no knowledge of Hebrew (the tell-tale signs include an anthropic deity; talking animals; god's mercy, giving Adam and Even clothes even after banishing them; and cherubim, which were central to the Judaism in Judah where J was writing). J was not a priest, as he shows disregard for priestly rights and prerogatives (such as allowing Noah to sacrifice animals after the flood which later prompted P to rewrite the story), and some have even suggested that 'he' was a woman.


Well I could have sworn J doesn't come in till Leviticus, but its been a while since I've studied this stuff.


Unsupported assertion. I've already given several reasons why the author probably wouldn't have seen a problem with a lying god.

One: "You should also bear in mind that the Hebrew conception of truth was rather different from the modern, rationalistic definition based on conformity to reality: Hebrew truth was inseparable from god, and so the idea of god lying is not necessarily a problem." This is very similar reasoning to the 'post hoc rationalizing' theologians actually use, for one thing. If you apply this logic, you should also apply the same logic to the fact that the Hebrew concept of death is actually very different also, which is also generally accepted as being the separation of man from God.

You won't be popular around here though if you keep agreeing with me, you've been warned ;)Oh bah on that, there's plenty of people who look forward to arguing with you, which makes you popular. And if they argue similarly, there's a good chance they'll be popular too.

What a fucking con, a faith that's premised on nonsensical, unexplainable nonsense, and when it's challenged, attempts to cop out of it by claiming "we can't know god".

QFT.
*bows*

Why is it 'bad' that they became aware of good and evil?

Maybe it's one of those things where the serpent was pointing out that they couldn't know evil until they crossed god, and met god's evil nature, for which they couldn't have been exposed to malicious intent otherwise. Other than being oblivious instead with the happy pet garden argued in various fashion to this day. :)

It's sinful to know evil.Translation: it's sinful to have choices and options. Obey.

Even god had to have its own evil pointed out to it, and upon it repenting, were of course dealing with sin, no? Due its consideration?
Or, god can be evil but can't sin :rolleyes:

Well i don't know it word for word. Besides, who are we to know the mind and persuasion of our lord? :rolleyes:
Don't soapbox 'til you do your homework, eh? Or at least, be happy people bother to engage with you on this topic in the first place instead of outright dismissing you as a delusional flake.

SPIRITUALLY DIE!!!!
Pfft. Get married. Then you'll understand spiritual death. I'd argue there's a few here who are already ... and yet ... they're still alive.

I'm done arguing with people that won't listen!!!
Like Jocabia says ... lower your voice, strengthen your argument.

The Creationist talking point is a particularly disingenuous one, as it deliberately conflates 'weather' with 'climate'.
Perhaps their "judgment" is "clouded"
*hisssssssss*

I think Neo Art tapped on the philosophy responsible for both conditions ...:
a faith that's premised on nonsensical, unexplainable nonsense, and when it's challenged, attempts to cop out of it by claiming "we can't know god".
If "god is in the details" ..... *buh-doom-boom tsh*

That's why faith is kind of a mysteryHow do people commonly deal with mysteries?

...and i would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling ....









*wait for it*
In the meantime, some mysteries have speculative investigation as well, kinda like Freud. And here. What do you think that means?

Well it obviously isn't going to be that God is a liar.

It says much about a faith that people are passable on the clear and bountiful substantiation that their deity is bloodthirsty, ruthless, logically inconsistent and evil at its own behest, while simultaneously finding it reprehensible in concept that same said deity might ever be disingenuous or dishonest.

I'm glad we can come to the understanding that we will not be taking each other's positions, and can therefore save time and keystrokes by not trying to convince the other.
This is something one should keep, like an invocation, while forum-aying.
*bows*

*cue Ifreann's link*

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that Moses can't have written Genesis? Dan was supposedly only given its name after the conquest of Canaan, so describing Abraham as pursuing people 'unto Dan' is something of a giveaway.Maybe it isn't just "god" we can't know. :rolleyes:

Christ Straughn, are you even aware of the 'add' function next to the quote function? :p

Hebrew truth was inseparable from god, and so the idea of god lying is not necessarily a problem.Bears repeating. *nods*

why would god punish the serpent by removing its power of speech and making it crawl on the ground if Satan was the guilty party?Because a lot of god's "examples" are ones like this and, say, purging the entire earth, and/or smearing faeces on faces .... a lot of striking out without sense and discernment, like any other infantile concept would fare. God simply didn't know any better than its own contempt and jealousy.

Christ Straughn, are you even aware of the 'add' function next to the quote function? :p
Actually, i've always wondered about that. :)
Thank you! *bows*
I won't be long anyway. :p

Christ Straughn, are you even aware of the 'add' function next to the quote function? :p

Survey says: No. :p

But it's been entertaining, so I can't really fault him for it.

Actually, i've always wondered about that. :)
Thank you! *bows*
I won't be long anyway. :p

yeah, he's near the end.

tho I really DON'T wanna see what happens when he put all those posts together into ONE MEGApost! :eek:

tho I really DON'T wanna see what happens when he put all those posts together into ONE MEGApost! :eek:You know, i recall a few times where that was my original intent, and i'd end up getting logged out or the server would hit a "glitch" or something and i'd curse the issue of not having saved every bit of script, which of course would have derailed the whole run of "conscious"ness on it in the first place. :)
And seriously, i don't know if i have the "add" function even though people have, several times now as Hydesland has, pointed it out as an option :)

Survey says: No. :pAyup, i almost even posted "Long answer ......... no." :D


But it's been entertaining, so I can't really fault him for it.Thank you. *bows*

You know, i recall a few times where that was my original intent, and i'd end up getting logged out or the server would hit a "glitch" or something and i'd curse the issue of not having saved every bit of script, which of course would have derailed the whole run of "conscious"ness on it in the first place. :)
And seriously, i don't know if i have the "add" function even though people have, several times now as Hydesland has, pointed it out as an option :)

oh man, that pisses me off. I started to get into the habit of saving my posts before trying to post em.

is there a circle next to your quote button? a sheet of paper with the " and a +? click on it and it should change color, that means when you hit reply, all those that you clicked on will be added as [quote]

is there a circle next to your quote button? a sheet of paper with the " and a +? click on it and it should change color, that means when you hit reply, all those that you clicked on will be added as No, there isn't. :(
It might be that everyone at Jolt thought that the best for everyone else that i didn't have it. :p
Speaking of glitches .... wow!

No, there isn't. :(
It might be that everyone at Jolt thought that the best for everyone else that i didn't have it. :p
Speaking of glitches .... wow!

???

Did you download and install the latest Jolt Patch?

???

Did you download and install the latest Jolt Patch?No, because it said something about being a pornblocker or some other insipid invasion of my need to stay perverted.

No, because it said something about being a pornblocker or some other insipid invasion of my need to stay perverted.

... so that's what happened to most of my bookma...er... yeah, you gotta run that patch.

... so that's what happened to most of my bookma...er... yeah, you gotta run that patch.

I liken it to when Grocer and Blank were arguing about meetings.

Perhaps their "judgment" is "clouded"
*hisssssssss*

*groans*

Where's that fish-smack smilie when you need it? :p

I liken it to when Gardener and Blank were arguing about meetings.

sorry, don't get the reference... :(

Of course they aren't, in fact they are quite vague, you said it yourself when you mention that Hebrews have a different concept of truth. And you dismiss the theologians assessments, yet you talk about the various biblical sources, all of these findings were by theologians.

Actually Julius Wellhausen, the father of the Documentary Hypothesis, resigned his chair of theology to join the a philology department. Textual Criticism is practised by philologists, historians and classicists, and is distinct from theology.

The text says that 'On the day you eat the fruit you will surely die'. Nothing about 'becoming mortal', nothing about 'spiritual death', just death. I fail to see what relevance the Hebrew understanding of truth has in this instance: I brought it up to point out that the author wouldn't have a problem with god lying.

Well I could have sworn J doesn't come in till Leviticus, but its been a while since I've studied this stuff.

J in Leviticus? Leviticus is almost entirely from the P: it ain't called 'the priestly source' for nothing. ;)

At the risk of over-generalising:
-Genesis is about fifty-fifty J and P
-Exodus is about fifty-fifty Elohist and P
-Leviticus is pretty much all P
-Numbers is a little mixed up, but I think most of it's P
-Deuteronomy is virtually all D


One: "You should also bear in mind that the Hebrew conception of truth was rather different from the modern, rationalistic definition based on conformity to reality: Hebrew truth was inseparable from god, and so the idea of god lying is not necessarily a problem." This is very similar reasoning to the 'post hoc rationalizing' theologians actually use, for one thing.

Eh? I'm not trying to rationalise anything. You're trying to rationalise a twisted reading of the passage by saying "But he can't have really meant that!" It's eminently reasonable to respond by pointing out that the author wouldn't have seen any problem with God lying, and I backed up the general point by pointing observing that J treats god in a very anthropic manner.

If you apply this logic, you should also apply the same logic to the fact that the Hebrew concept of death is actually very different also, which is also generally accepted as being the separation of man from God.

But the Hebrew concept of death has never excluded actually dying: that would rather defy the point...

If truth is defined with reference to god rather than with regard to any objective standard then it's impossible for god to lie: he can contradict himself and still be telling the truth on both occaisons.

That's because many people make the mistake that the Bible is either all literal or all figurative. In actuality, the Bible is meant to be interpreted based on context under which the passages were written. Anything taken out of context can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants, and the Bible is no exception.

Like the whole Jesus-got-crucified thing, which is an obvious metaphor.

My understanding that it was the priestly source in particular that wrote genesis, specifically I believe it was two different priests who created the first and second creation stories.


By 'created', I assume you don't really mean 'created'... more... collated?

Given the astounding similarities between some of the material in the early Hebrew text and certain other earlier materials... and especially given the still-visible-redactions... there may have been two people that did the actual writing, but it's unlikely that they were the originators of the stories.


Well that doesn't matter specifically, what's more absurd is the idea that it was God who lied, the writers would have obviously never of meant it to be interpreted that way.

Why? The point is that 'god' is powerful... not necessarily honest. Indeed, human failings are pretty common in the earleir iterations of Jehovah.

The only reason God gave us the ability to choose things is because of adam and eve sinning

Nope. Free will and choices, were there from the beginning. It wasn't God who named all the animals etc. It was man who chose their names.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

How do you rule an entire earth without the ability to make choices? Simple, we were always able to choose. God would walk with Adam in the cool of the evening, but he wasn't around all the time. We were his representatives, made in his image.

But they were given the choice to follow God, by not eating from the tree. Or to do things on their own, meaning they did eat from the tree. God let them make an informed choice as well. He told them what would happen if they ate from it. They had plenty of trees to choose from. But they chose to be rebellious...with some subtle convincing from satan, who wanted to take authority from man for himself, and hurt God in the process.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
They did die that day. Up until that point, they were in a spiritual relationship with God....it died. Up until that point, their bodies had never begun to degenerate, from that day, they started to die. No they didn't drop dead there and then, but we're mortal, from the day we're born, we're dying.
And look at all the spiritual stuff which entered the equation. Shame. Lies. Blame. Punishment. Seperation. I would definitely call that a death of the innocence they lived before.

... so that's what happened to most of my bookma...er... yeah, you gotta run that patch.

The fact that you post mainly from work makes this post infinitely funnier.

That's because many people make the mistake that the Bible is either all literal or all figurative. In actuality, the Bible is meant to be interpreted based on context under which the passages were written. According to whom?

According to whom?

Thank you for illustrating my point with pinpoint precision. You left out the rest of the quote which put the selection you quoted into context. It's very simple - if you take anything out of context, you can turn it to mean nearly anything you want. Context is of the utmost importance when reading, listening to, or watching anything. If you need me to elaborate further, please contact me through a private message or something so we don't bore everyone else on here.

Thank you for illustrating my point with pinpoint precision. You left out the rest of the quote which put the selection you quoted into context. It's very simple - if you take anything out of context, you can turn it to mean nearly anything you want. Context is of the utmost importance when reading, listening to, or watching anything. If you need me to elaborate further, please contact me through a private message or something so we don't bore everyone else on here.I was rather referring to the "is meant to be" part. According to whom? Why exclude literal interpretation? After all, the bible is to create the case for the existence of the Jewish god, so the stories better be real.

Thank you for illustrating my point with pinpoint precision. You left out the rest of the quote which put the selection you quoted into context. It's very simple - if you take anything out of context, you can turn it to mean nearly anything you want. Context is of the utmost importance when reading, listening to, or watching anything. If you need me to elaborate further, please contact me through a private message or something so we don't bore everyone else on here.

No, no... I almost never agree with Beleriand, but he's on the money here... you've cited that "...the Bible is meant to be interpreted based on context...", but you can't give us a good reason why (for example) a non-believers should attach ANY special significance to the text.

Why believe parts of it are true? Why believe parts of it are metaphor or poetry? Why differentiate between the parts of the text? Is it 'true' or isn't it?

Does it matter when the Bible was written? By whom? For what purpose? In purely literary terms, maybe. But does it mean it means anything? You're pleading 'special exception'... like we have to treat the Bible different to any other book.

sorry, don't get the reference... :(

Mr. Grocer: [Marty and Grocer are shooting eachother] Comrade! Comrade!
Marty: What?
Mr. Grocer: Why don't you just join the union, we'll go upstairs together and cap daddy!
Marty: This union, there's gonna be meetings?
Mr. Grocer: Of course!
Marty: No meetings.
[They continue shooting]
Something like that. :)

*groans*

Where's that fish-smack smilie when you need it? :p

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5779/ultimatrout7nq.gif
Just where it should be, in my fav's. And out of Eutrusca's banana hammock.