In all of the intelligent design arguments, this is the one question I never see.
If 'God' created the universe as we know it, he would have to be a being of incredibly complexity and power.
What can create a being of such incredible complexity and power? One of even greater complexity and power?
No matter how you look at it, at some point the origin of 'life' (because if you accept the concept of an intelligent creator at all, you have to accept that he/she/its LIFE came before ours could be created by him/her/it), there had to be a non-life origin no?
Unless each creation got subsequently dumber and dumber and less and less complex? (big god creates little god creates littler god creates man)
If theists feel that we should worship a god, why not worship the creator of god or the creator of the creator of god?
Why should we simply accept one god? That god had to come from somewhere... wouldn't this make any religion polytheistic by nature? Or would this mean that 'God' had to have evolved from inorganic matter somewhere pre-big bang? Which is it? Many gods (god had to have a god) or no god before god (he/she/it spontaneously arose from primordial soup somewhere else)?
obviously you don't believe in God. Hes Uncreated Creating. 
I guess that clears that one up. 
Well, I've wondered this one forever.
I had a professor years ago (who got fired the following year), who opened his 'The Problem of God' class with the statement, "the universe had to be created by something, therefore there exists a god".
How sad is that logic? From this, he launched right into the assumption that the entire bible was literally correct.
I want to know who created his 'god'. If I have to worship someone, why would I not worship the god of god? Or better, the god of god's god? Why not go straight to the top? Worship god's god's god's god?
He gave me a D (this was expunged when it was discovered that my test responses were identical to all the other A's in the class)... mostly for pointing out his lack of logic and imagination in this matter.
Hope the theists here aren't as short-sighted.
If you have a complaint, everyone knows you go straight to the top, and not to the first person who answers the phone. Why would you bother with god if you can pray to god's god's god?
Nick, you can't 'uncreate creating'. You can distroy your creations, but you can't not have created them after they were created.
Or, are you suggesting that god killed his creator?
I had a professor years ago (who got fired the following year), who opened his 'The Problem of God' class with the statement, "the universe had to be created by something, therefore there exists a god".
How sad is that logic? From this, he launched right into the assumption that the entire bible was literally correct.
I want to know who created his 'god'. If I have to worship someone, why would I not worship the god of god? Or better, the god of god's god? Why not go straight to the top? Worship god's god's god's god?
He gave me a D (this was expunged when it was discovered that my test responses were identical to all the other A's in the class)... mostly for pointing out his lack of logic and imagination in this matter.
Hope the theists here aren't as short-sighted.
If you have a complaint, everyone knows you go straight to the top, and not to the first person who answers the phone. Why would you bother with god if you can pray to god's god's god?
Nick, you can't 'uncreate creating'. You can distroy your creations, but you can't not have created them after they were created.
Or, are you suggesting that god killed his creator?
HE is a MAN with extra large testicles and ego to match. This helps HIM to move in mysterious ways (with a slight limp?), therefore you should never ask questions of anyone in authority, and always believe in the 'mystery'...
What are you people being taught in your 'schools'?
What are you people being taught in your 'schools'?
This is the greatest flaw of the ID movement, I feel.
If ETs created life, where did they come from? More aliens? It's turtles all the way down with that route.
If God did it, then it's non-falsifiable, which I've been led to believe basically equates to "not science".
I don't see why it's any more acceptable to say, "God doesn't need a creator - he just exists" than to say "the universe needs no creator - it just exists".
If ETs created life, where did they come from? More aliens? It's turtles all the way down with that route.
If God did it, then it's non-falsifiable, which I've been led to believe basically equates to "not science".
I don't see why it's any more acceptable to say, "God doesn't need a creator - he just exists" than to say "the universe needs no creator - it just exists".
QUOTE (Knot of this world+Jun 25 2006, 10:59 AM)
HE is a MAN with extra large testicles and ego to match. This helps HIM to move in mysterious ways (with a slight limp?), therefore you should never ask questions of anyone in authority, and always believe in the 'mystery'...
What are you people being taught in your 'schools'?
...A big fat immoderate
....excellent!
What are you people being taught in your 'schools'?
...A big fat immoderate
....excellent!
QUOTE (curious1+)
Well, I've wondered this one forever.
I had a professor years ago (who got fired the following year), who opened his 'The Problem of God' class with the statement, "the universe had to be created by something, therefore there exists a god".
How sad is that logic? From this, he launched right into the assumption that the entire bible was literally correct.
I want to know who created his 'god'. If I have to worship someone, why would I not worship the god of god? Or better, the god of god's god? Why not go straight to the top? Worship god's god's god's god?
He gave me a D (this was expunged when it was discovered that my test responses were identical to all the other A's in the class)... mostly for pointing out his lack of logic and imagination in this matter.
Hope the theists here aren't as short-sighted.
If you have a complaint, everyone knows you go straight to the top, and not to the first person who answers the phone. Why would you bother with god if you can pray to god's god's god?
curious1: I found it interesting that you stated that you've "wondered this one forever". Your comment immediately reminded me of the following portion of scripture:
"He hath made everything beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end."(Ecclesiastes 3:11)
If you do a quick study of the original Hebrew, then you will find that the word that is translated as "the world" would be better translated as "eternity". The scriptures declare in several places that God is from everlasting to everlasting. We, on the other hand, are presently locked into time. This analogy may not be the best, but I've kinda viewed it as this...
A particular car is created or designed by a manufacturer. This particular car is made to only travel up to the maximum speed of 120 miles per hour. Just because this car was only designed to travel up to a maximum speed of 120 miles per hour, this doesn't necessarily mean that higher speeds don't exist. It simply means that this particular car was made with speed limitations.
We are limited in our understanding of eternity. This does not necessarily mean that eternity doesn't exist. It could possibly just mean that we were designed with this limitation. I fully understand that what I just said doesn't prove the existence of eternity in any way whatsoever and many of you may just view this as a "Biblical cop-out". However, as I've stressed repeatedly throughout this forum, God has made provision for mankind to know Him. From what I've seen repeatedly throughout this forum, most people here seem to be willing to spend vast amounts of time denying or questioning(usually in a mocking manner) God's existence instead of taking the few genuine moments, doing things God's prescribed way, to genuinely be reconciled back unto Him through Jesus Christ. It took me but a few moments to be reconciled back unto God nearly 18 years ago. At that time, I was given what the Bible calls "the earnest of the Spirit"
(II Corinthians 1:22) or the "pledge" or "downpayment" of the Holy Spirit. This indwelling of the Holy Spirit works as a sort of "promissory note", assuring that one day the same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also raise me from the dead. I've enjoyed(my definition of "enjoyed" is probably not "the norm", to say the least) fellowship with God ever since being reconciled back unto Him. I've also dealt with many "other gods"(demons) along the way. I can say, of a certainty, that my God is the chief of all the Gods/gods that I've encountered as these "other gods" were all subject unto me through Jesus Christ. The "proof", as they say, "is in the pudding". Hope this info helps somewhat, although I doubt that most people on this forum have any desire whatsoever to truly "find God".
I had a professor years ago (who got fired the following year), who opened his 'The Problem of God' class with the statement, "the universe had to be created by something, therefore there exists a god".
How sad is that logic? From this, he launched right into the assumption that the entire bible was literally correct.
I want to know who created his 'god'. If I have to worship someone, why would I not worship the god of god? Or better, the god of god's god? Why not go straight to the top? Worship god's god's god's god?
He gave me a D (this was expunged when it was discovered that my test responses were identical to all the other A's in the class)... mostly for pointing out his lack of logic and imagination in this matter.
Hope the theists here aren't as short-sighted.
If you have a complaint, everyone knows you go straight to the top, and not to the first person who answers the phone. Why would you bother with god if you can pray to god's god's god?
curious1: I found it interesting that you stated that you've "wondered this one forever". Your comment immediately reminded me of the following portion of scripture:
"He hath made everything beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end."(Ecclesiastes 3:11)
If you do a quick study of the original Hebrew, then you will find that the word that is translated as "the world" would be better translated as "eternity". The scriptures declare in several places that God is from everlasting to everlasting. We, on the other hand, are presently locked into time. This analogy may not be the best, but I've kinda viewed it as this...
A particular car is created or designed by a manufacturer. This particular car is made to only travel up to the maximum speed of 120 miles per hour. Just because this car was only designed to travel up to a maximum speed of 120 miles per hour, this doesn't necessarily mean that higher speeds don't exist. It simply means that this particular car was made with speed limitations.
We are limited in our understanding of eternity. This does not necessarily mean that eternity doesn't exist. It could possibly just mean that we were designed with this limitation. I fully understand that what I just said doesn't prove the existence of eternity in any way whatsoever and many of you may just view this as a "Biblical cop-out". However, as I've stressed repeatedly throughout this forum, God has made provision for mankind to know Him. From what I've seen repeatedly throughout this forum, most people here seem to be willing to spend vast amounts of time denying or questioning(usually in a mocking manner) God's existence instead of taking the few genuine moments, doing things God's prescribed way, to genuinely be reconciled back unto Him through Jesus Christ. It took me but a few moments to be reconciled back unto God nearly 18 years ago. At that time, I was given what the Bible calls "the earnest of the Spirit"
(II Corinthians 1:22) or the "pledge" or "downpayment" of the Holy Spirit. This indwelling of the Holy Spirit works as a sort of "promissory note", assuring that one day the same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also raise me from the dead. I've enjoyed(my definition of "enjoyed" is probably not "the norm", to say the least) fellowship with God ever since being reconciled back unto Him. I've also dealt with many "other gods"(demons) along the way. I can say, of a certainty, that my God is the chief of all the Gods/gods that I've encountered as these "other gods" were all subject unto me through Jesus Christ. The "proof", as they say, "is in the pudding". Hope this info helps somewhat, although I doubt that most people on this forum have any desire whatsoever to truly "find God".
God is a spirit. Some people are spirits.
If I created a vat of poison -- then dumped it into your water supply, would I be a "bad person"?
Our actions define who and what we are.
Gods that claim to have created everything & claim to be morally lofty -- are incoherent.
Believe-it-or-not, divinity is an unnatural force which puts forth effort to free itself from the agression & meaningless disunity of nature.
Morality is often the opposite of the agression that natural-selection favors.
~
There are many gods. But creationism is a sham!
The gods evolved, just like us!
[edit]
I would also like to add, that books such as the bible -- have done great damage to the human mind!
Monotheism is a lie.
Today people expect judgment, class distinction and petty things from the gods. People fear, hate and scoff and the gods.
When Farra and I accessed my God, ofcouse she felt a presence, she felt relief and she was being purified. My God is not all-mighty, he has a limited effect upon things, but he comes to end suffering and to heal.
Farra then spoke of so much about the classical ideas of monotheism, of hell, of judgment and of the end-of-times.
It made me sad. I detest the lieing gods who claim to be all-powerful, and who tyranically lord over the dreams and desires of broken men.
~
Some day, far from now, the postphysical beings/forces will be "seen", studied and eventually understood by science, but today science is very atheist-materialistic.
I will continue on with what I do.
I will develop my psionic skills as best I can, with my friends, but I would like to remind you of something:
If you practice any sort of spiritual searching, constantly question what you find. Try to get real understanding, don't dogmatically fallow old ideas, but don't doubt yourself either.
Our actions define who and what we are.
Gods that claim to have created everything & claim to be morally lofty -- are incoherent.
Believe-it-or-not, divinity is an unnatural force which puts forth effort to free itself from the agression & meaningless disunity of nature.
Morality is often the opposite of the agression that natural-selection favors.
~
There are many gods. But creationism is a sham!
The gods evolved, just like us!
[edit]
I would also like to add, that books such as the bible -- have done great damage to the human mind!
Monotheism is a lie.
Today people expect judgment, class distinction and petty things from the gods. People fear, hate and scoff and the gods.
When Farra and I accessed my God, ofcouse she felt a presence, she felt relief and she was being purified. My God is not all-mighty, he has a limited effect upon things, but he comes to end suffering and to heal.
Farra then spoke of so much about the classical ideas of monotheism, of hell, of judgment and of the end-of-times.
It made me sad. I detest the lieing gods who claim to be all-powerful, and who tyranically lord over the dreams and desires of broken men.
~
Some day, far from now, the postphysical beings/forces will be "seen", studied and eventually understood by science, but today science is very atheist-materialistic.
I will continue on with what I do.
I will develop my psionic skills as best I can, with my friends, but I would like to remind you of something:
If you practice any sort of spiritual searching, constantly question what you find. Try to get real understanding, don't dogmatically fallow old ideas, but don't doubt yourself either.
QUOTE
If you practice any sort of spiritual searching, constantly question what you find. Try to get real understanding, don't dogmatically fallow old ideas, but don't doubt yourself either.
Hi yfh. Liked your post, especially the above. It's a twisted little trail that wends it's way, and there are lots of ditches.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If you practice any sort of spiritual searching, constantly question what you find. Try to get real understanding, don't dogmatically fallow old ideas, but don't doubt yourself either. |
Hi yfh. Liked your post, especially the above. It's a twisted little trail that wends it's way, and there are lots of ditches.
If you do a quick study of the original Hebrew, then you will find that the word that is translated as "the world" would be better translated as "eternity".
I wonder what the Catholics especially would do if they read Lamsa's literal translation of the ancient Aramaic. It wouldn't parallel the views of God they taught us in the 60's.
C1, the conundrum, if you think about it, isn't even 'who created God?' It's something that atheist agnostic and deist can wonder equally about. It's 'What came from nothing?' You should peruse the past threads on this. There are a few, and very interesting things were discussed there.
There is no math for nothingness. No math, so no path. We can't get there. Unless and until we do, it scientifically never existed. There had to be a somethingness in order to persist the possibility of the duality needed to react to itself to begin unstoppable events. And that could have, and probably was, in terms of time, long before this universe erupted. We could start looking at the universe as more of a consequence of or a reaction to - other events unreachable.
Zero-point ontology is as far from our philosophical reach as pre-universal conditions are to physicists. Maybe the best dissertation I ever read on a 'Pre-God' reality was from the Edgar Cayce biography "There is a River", if you want to check it out. (This, along with the Ainulindale, from J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Silmarillion", are the best stories of Creation I have read.) And even there, while the nascent energy/awareness wasn't 'God' as we know God, it still wasn't nothingness. There is no philosophy or scientific theory that starts from pure unadulterated nothingness. We can't get there.
Knot,
that just tore me up
Even if a god created the universe, it still difficult to grasp how "he" could have created a specific person (yes, I'm thinking of myself), without the possibility for that person to exist having been present forever. Basically, let's say that a god could create a universe, including human bodies etc., but how could he actually create you unless something of you already existed to be placed or otherwise attached to the universe?
For example, let's assume we could create hydrogen atoms - what makes one hydrogen different from another so that we can determine one specific hydrogen atom from another? Even if you could make a hydrogen atom, how could you make it a specific one without some manner of being able to distinguish between whether or not you created one hydrogen atom versus creating some other hydrogen atom? We might say that one hydrogen atom is distinct and distinguishable from others because we can follow one around in space (which is determined relative to the postions of other atoms) and watch it separately from others, but that separateness only exists in comparison to other things and isn't something innate in that specific atom. Basically, I'm comparing this with consciousness and showing that at least in the human world, you could create a robot, or even likely construct an atom by atom replica of someone, but I don't see how you give that person an ability to consciously perceive things without them already having the capability to do so prior to this (though maybe there was no physical way to realize it prior to that time, but given enough time, if the potential for someones consciousness to exist remains, then eventually it would seem to become inevitable that they will exist ... if not one god or universe, then another one ... if a god exists, I don't believe "he" could be more than an enabler for something you already possessed)
For example, let's assume we could create hydrogen atoms - what makes one hydrogen different from another so that we can determine one specific hydrogen atom from another? Even if you could make a hydrogen atom, how could you make it a specific one without some manner of being able to distinguish between whether or not you created one hydrogen atom versus creating some other hydrogen atom? We might say that one hydrogen atom is distinct and distinguishable from others because we can follow one around in space (which is determined relative to the postions of other atoms) and watch it separately from others, but that separateness only exists in comparison to other things and isn't something innate in that specific atom. Basically, I'm comparing this with consciousness and showing that at least in the human world, you could create a robot, or even likely construct an atom by atom replica of someone, but I don't see how you give that person an ability to consciously perceive things without them already having the capability to do so prior to this (though maybe there was no physical way to realize it prior to that time, but given enough time, if the potential for someones consciousness to exist remains, then eventually it would seem to become inevitable that they will exist ... if not one god or universe, then another one ... if a god exists, I don't believe "he" could be more than an enabler for something you already possessed)
newguy,
You said, "From what I've seen repeatedly throughout this forum, most people here seem to be willing to spend vast amounts of time denying or questioning(usually in a mocking manner) God's existence instead of taking the few genuine moments, doing things God's prescribed way, to genuinely be reconciled back unto Him through Jesus Christ. It took me but a few moments to be reconciled back unto God nearly 18 years ago."
"doing things God's perscribed way" involves what? Living the morality of the bible or adolating his 'son' Jesus Christ til something happens? What happens?
I suspect what happens is that for most Americans who are raised in a Christian environment, they simply fall back to their childhood conditioning. Sort of like how most people 'become' their mother or father (depending on sex), as they age, regardless of whether they challenged or even respected them as a child. People who aren't raised Christians at all, or weren't exposed to it as a 'truth' early in life don't seem to get these revelations. At all.
You said the key words, "reconciled back unto God". If you were never immersed in the religion, you couldn't have been "reconciled back" to it. You will find that people looking for spirituality tend to 'reconcile back' to the religion of their childhood. That's true for islam, buddhism, and even wiccan. There's nothing universal about the Christian faith other than the fact that you were raised in it, and it's comforting to fall back to it when stressed. This is true for every 'faith' that I've seen, worldwide.
Missionaries go out to more primitive civilizations and 'recruit' bearing gifts and new methods of self-sufficiency. This engenders a sense of gratitude and association. There's no inherent or inate belief in anyone towards the Christian god, it's all indoctrination and mental association ("if I say I believe in god and the bible, I will get food, medicine and a chance at a better life for my family"... "HEY! It WORKS!!! I believe in God, yes I do yes I do! Do you have any more of the corn seeds?").
soundhertz, I thought I had every Edgar Cayce book (including his IRF), and I know that the first book I read was, "There is a River". It was impressive and logical enough that I bought literally everything I could find on Cayce, including biographies. I haven't read them in years, tho I have them all, maybe I'll go review. The only great advice I can recall was to eat 2 almonds a day:P.
While that first book was fascinating, and even convincing, when you read his actual 'prophesies', recorded in his own words, it falls apart. The Akashic Record, the Atlantean ancestry... none of it is supportable by archeological reality or historical timeframe. The one book I can't find is the first one. I'll dig around for it, I recall it was fascinating.
I also have the Silmarillion, and have to admit I never read it... it was so boring at the beginning. Tolkien was a great writer and linguist, but the Silmarillion left the realm of entertainment for me, and I couldn't get thru it. I'll see if I can dig that up too.
It seems to me that the precondition for accepting any religion is to find one willing to cover that 'zero point ontology'. We see no direct evidence of a caring god, let alone any god. The mere fact that atheists are so numerous seems to point that out. How can you be an atheist or agnostic in the face of direct evidence? You can't. There is no direct evidence. Thus 'faith' is required.
Well, why have 'faith' in a god? What for? God has no 'faith' in us if one exists. Because if a god existed, he would respect us enough to let us choose whether to follow or not. By forcing us to guess at his existence, he's taking away our 'free will', relegating his 'followers' to the realm of hope and not free choice to follow.
I have a fairly extensive personal library of religious books of every type and scope. Multiple versions of the bible, IChing, buddhism, bagdava gita, Quran, and a lot of new age 'spiritualism' stuff, as well as psychic, meditative, and channelling books along with lesser known american indian/lore/shamanistic types of religious books, Nostradamus, added to multiple volumes on astrology and feng shui, both eastern and western versions.
I have all this because, probably like most people, I am not satisfied with not knowing. I always look for something, a spark, something that indicates that there's SOMETHING the writer knew about science, life, the human condition, that they could NOT have known at the time of writing, something that we have only recently discovered via new science, thus offering a perhaps truly 'divine' origin.
After all, any 'god' would know what humans are made of, that the earth is round and not flat with 4 corners, that man isn't missing a rib, that the earth isn't supported on the backs of stacking turtles, or sprouted from the dead body of a goddess, with 'places' like heaven and hell or lands beyond the mist where people live immortal.
I want to see a religious tome, written thousands of years ago, that mentions advanced math, gravity, the speed of light, aerodynamics, evolution, chemistry, medicine, in specific terms and not vague generalities that require 'interpretation'. And none exist. They mostly appear to be political tomes, written to control their subjects, and the 'word' being whatever was most convenient for the ruler/priest at the time to justify their demands on their followers. It's 'gods' will, not mine, so you'd better listen or you'll have a horrible eternity.
And I'm very open-minded about religion. I've had experiences in my life that are inexplicable, more than 1, and most of them witnessed by other people as well (no UFO's tho). If one can have absolute faith, it tends to be at times of dire desperation, and I've done that, with no useful results. Ie, many years ago, I lived in a 'haunted' apartment for a period of 2 months. Holy water, praying SINCERELY, argh, we tried everything, and had to move out of a gorgeous apartment with incredibly low rent anyway, like everyone else who lived there before us. This isn't close to the only strange experience I've had. Thus all the religious volumes and decades of searching.
The closest thing to a popular religion that appeals to truth for me is buddhism. This because it, 1. makes sense 2. I've seen what appears to be evidence of reincarnation in my own children before they could talk 3. I was at a temple once and had a very strange experience. Most people would call it an 'enlightening' one, and be utterly convinced, but I want more than simple evidence that something exists, I want to know why I should pay attention to it.
As buddhism doesn't require prayer, meditation or anything else except to 'do no harm', I don't call myself buddhist. I'm not ready to go to nirvana anyway, and as that's not a goal, I have no need for the religious aspects, which aren't useful unless you're at that point. But buddhism doesn't answer what came before nothing either, there's always that big missing 'something'.
Further, from what we know or suspect of memory storage in the human brain, it's unlikely that a 'soul' is possible, at least not with our knowledge intact. Our memories can be easily distroyed, it happens to every alzheimer patient.
Without our knowledge and experiences, what are we but DNA, which is organic and rots? What records our life experiences, thoughts and ideas, who we ARE?
You said, "There is no philosophy or scientific theory that starts from pure unadulterated nothingness. We can't get there."
Then why bother with religion or a belief in 'god' at all? What's the point? Self-deception?
StevenA,
"if a god exists, I don't believe "he" could be more than an enabler for something you already possessed"
I agree. And where is everyones' 'god' anyway? Where does he live?
You said, "From what I've seen repeatedly throughout this forum, most people here seem to be willing to spend vast amounts of time denying or questioning(usually in a mocking manner) God's existence instead of taking the few genuine moments, doing things God's prescribed way, to genuinely be reconciled back unto Him through Jesus Christ. It took me but a few moments to be reconciled back unto God nearly 18 years ago."
"doing things God's perscribed way" involves what? Living the morality of the bible or adolating his 'son' Jesus Christ til something happens? What happens?
I suspect what happens is that for most Americans who are raised in a Christian environment, they simply fall back to their childhood conditioning. Sort of like how most people 'become' their mother or father (depending on sex), as they age, regardless of whether they challenged or even respected them as a child. People who aren't raised Christians at all, or weren't exposed to it as a 'truth' early in life don't seem to get these revelations. At all.
You said the key words, "reconciled back unto God". If you were never immersed in the religion, you couldn't have been "reconciled back" to it. You will find that people looking for spirituality tend to 'reconcile back' to the religion of their childhood. That's true for islam, buddhism, and even wiccan. There's nothing universal about the Christian faith other than the fact that you were raised in it, and it's comforting to fall back to it when stressed. This is true for every 'faith' that I've seen, worldwide.
Missionaries go out to more primitive civilizations and 'recruit' bearing gifts and new methods of self-sufficiency. This engenders a sense of gratitude and association. There's no inherent or inate belief in anyone towards the Christian god, it's all indoctrination and mental association ("if I say I believe in god and the bible, I will get food, medicine and a chance at a better life for my family"... "HEY! It WORKS!!! I believe in God, yes I do yes I do! Do you have any more of the corn seeds?").
soundhertz, I thought I had every Edgar Cayce book (including his IRF), and I know that the first book I read was, "There is a River". It was impressive and logical enough that I bought literally everything I could find on Cayce, including biographies. I haven't read them in years, tho I have them all, maybe I'll go review. The only great advice I can recall was to eat 2 almonds a day:P.
While that first book was fascinating, and even convincing, when you read his actual 'prophesies', recorded in his own words, it falls apart. The Akashic Record, the Atlantean ancestry... none of it is supportable by archeological reality or historical timeframe. The one book I can't find is the first one. I'll dig around for it, I recall it was fascinating.
I also have the Silmarillion, and have to admit I never read it... it was so boring at the beginning. Tolkien was a great writer and linguist, but the Silmarillion left the realm of entertainment for me, and I couldn't get thru it. I'll see if I can dig that up too.
It seems to me that the precondition for accepting any religion is to find one willing to cover that 'zero point ontology'. We see no direct evidence of a caring god, let alone any god. The mere fact that atheists are so numerous seems to point that out. How can you be an atheist or agnostic in the face of direct evidence? You can't. There is no direct evidence. Thus 'faith' is required.
Well, why have 'faith' in a god? What for? God has no 'faith' in us if one exists. Because if a god existed, he would respect us enough to let us choose whether to follow or not. By forcing us to guess at his existence, he's taking away our 'free will', relegating his 'followers' to the realm of hope and not free choice to follow.
I have a fairly extensive personal library of religious books of every type and scope. Multiple versions of the bible, IChing, buddhism, bagdava gita, Quran, and a lot of new age 'spiritualism' stuff, as well as psychic, meditative, and channelling books along with lesser known american indian/lore/shamanistic types of religious books, Nostradamus, added to multiple volumes on astrology and feng shui, both eastern and western versions.
I have all this because, probably like most people, I am not satisfied with not knowing. I always look for something, a spark, something that indicates that there's SOMETHING the writer knew about science, life, the human condition, that they could NOT have known at the time of writing, something that we have only recently discovered via new science, thus offering a perhaps truly 'divine' origin.
After all, any 'god' would know what humans are made of, that the earth is round and not flat with 4 corners, that man isn't missing a rib, that the earth isn't supported on the backs of stacking turtles, or sprouted from the dead body of a goddess, with 'places' like heaven and hell or lands beyond the mist where people live immortal.
I want to see a religious tome, written thousands of years ago, that mentions advanced math, gravity, the speed of light, aerodynamics, evolution, chemistry, medicine, in specific terms and not vague generalities that require 'interpretation'. And none exist. They mostly appear to be political tomes, written to control their subjects, and the 'word' being whatever was most convenient for the ruler/priest at the time to justify their demands on their followers. It's 'gods' will, not mine, so you'd better listen or you'll have a horrible eternity.
And I'm very open-minded about religion. I've had experiences in my life that are inexplicable, more than 1, and most of them witnessed by other people as well (no UFO's tho). If one can have absolute faith, it tends to be at times of dire desperation, and I've done that, with no useful results. Ie, many years ago, I lived in a 'haunted' apartment for a period of 2 months. Holy water, praying SINCERELY, argh, we tried everything, and had to move out of a gorgeous apartment with incredibly low rent anyway, like everyone else who lived there before us. This isn't close to the only strange experience I've had. Thus all the religious volumes and decades of searching.
The closest thing to a popular religion that appeals to truth for me is buddhism. This because it, 1. makes sense 2. I've seen what appears to be evidence of reincarnation in my own children before they could talk 3. I was at a temple once and had a very strange experience. Most people would call it an 'enlightening' one, and be utterly convinced, but I want more than simple evidence that something exists, I want to know why I should pay attention to it.
As buddhism doesn't require prayer, meditation or anything else except to 'do no harm', I don't call myself buddhist. I'm not ready to go to nirvana anyway, and as that's not a goal, I have no need for the religious aspects, which aren't useful unless you're at that point. But buddhism doesn't answer what came before nothing either, there's always that big missing 'something'.
Further, from what we know or suspect of memory storage in the human brain, it's unlikely that a 'soul' is possible, at least not with our knowledge intact. Our memories can be easily distroyed, it happens to every alzheimer patient.
Without our knowledge and experiences, what are we but DNA, which is organic and rots? What records our life experiences, thoughts and ideas, who we ARE?
You said, "There is no philosophy or scientific theory that starts from pure unadulterated nothingness. We can't get there."
Then why bother with religion or a belief in 'god' at all? What's the point? Self-deception?
StevenA,
"if a god exists, I don't believe "he" could be more than an enabler for something you already possessed"
I agree. And where is everyones' 'god' anyway? Where does he live?
soundhertz,
glad to put a smile! If 'god' had a sense of humour HE would be worth believing in!
However... Newguy, I know we have clashed and disagreed in the past, but I cannot see anything 'wrong' in your post, despite what you may/not believe.
e.g. "We are limited in our understanding of eternity. This does not necessarily mean that eternity doesn't exist."
- This is a great line. I feel (and say) exactly this very thing about 'Infinity', and equate them to be the same thing.
To ridicule 'god' is not to disrespect Reality. 'god' and HIS followers do enough ridiculing themselves. Hypocrisy is ridicule, and 2-3000 years of that is quite enough, thank you!
Humanity now has to get REAL, and if that means 'god' morphing into something that actually works (in accordance with the rest of REALITY) then 'god' HIMself could not disagree with it!
Essentially, we agree, as all people do. This is because there is only one REALITY, with Infinite perspectives...
Curious1,
"Where does he live?"
- 32a, Didcott road, Salford, Gr. Manchester, U.K. (opposite the pie shop)
k.
glad to put a smile! If 'god' had a sense of humour HE would be worth believing in!
However... Newguy, I know we have clashed and disagreed in the past, but I cannot see anything 'wrong' in your post, despite what you may/not believe.
e.g. "We are limited in our understanding of eternity. This does not necessarily mean that eternity doesn't exist."
- This is a great line. I feel (and say) exactly this very thing about 'Infinity', and equate them to be the same thing.
To ridicule 'god' is not to disrespect Reality. 'god' and HIS followers do enough ridiculing themselves. Hypocrisy is ridicule, and 2-3000 years of that is quite enough, thank you!
Humanity now has to get REAL, and if that means 'god' morphing into something that actually works (in accordance with the rest of REALITY) then 'god' HIMself could not disagree with it!
Essentially, we agree, as all people do. This is because there is only one REALITY, with Infinite perspectives...
Curious1,
"Where does he live?"
- 32a, Didcott road, Salford, Gr. Manchester, U.K. (opposite the pie shop)
k.
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jun 26 2006, 03:03 AM)
If you practice any sort of spiritual searching, constantly question what you find. Try to get real understanding, don't dogmatically fallow old ideas, but don't doubt yourself either.
Im sure alot has been mentioned which I totally agree with & vice versa. For example "newguys" sincerity and belief can only lead him to goodness.
I am not a believer in religions being appicable to the modern world nor actually being there in complete interpretation and understanding to be followed or get the right message across, completely. I believe 100% in religions ALL being distorted long by now, and suffering dilution as time progressed, as it happened with every original/authentic religion or way of life....its like the fluid mosaic structure, dynamic.
BUT I do however believe in much, and one of matters being that there is ONE God, one real all-knowng, eternal, all-powerful being, all-dominating. Call it what you will, you can only conjecture.
But for me "yfh" what you said below is of the soundest, wisest advices to searching truley fro the answer to "religion" and "God", apart from the last bit. For me not doubting yourself denotes arrogance/ignroance/stubborness/pride/defiance/denial in many instances, but then again in others it means to not get confused away with the lies no matter what, and follow facts/truths.
Everyone can see it (perceive) through their eyes which is an effect of your own belief. But can anyone see it or try seeing everything through everyones belief or even objectively in these matters?
Apart from this, what "newguy" said is exactly true. As in, if you are created by something, you cannot be anywhere near as intelligent or complex/supreme as the creator. Thus, in this context, if God created you with limitations and here, one being that you cannot know or figure Him out, you cannot. Paddle the puddle all anyone likes, simply you'll never know while alive.
Overall everyone will have some distinct/unique belief or query. Could be leading or misleading, and even right in many ways, depending on how you look at it. Humans are very complex now, in comparison to ever before.
Thanks
Im sure alot has been mentioned which I totally agree with & vice versa. For example "newguys" sincerity and belief can only lead him to goodness.
I am not a believer in religions being appicable to the modern world nor actually being there in complete interpretation and understanding to be followed or get the right message across, completely. I believe 100% in religions ALL being distorted long by now, and suffering dilution as time progressed, as it happened with every original/authentic religion or way of life....its like the fluid mosaic structure, dynamic.
BUT I do however believe in much, and one of matters being that there is ONE God, one real all-knowng, eternal, all-powerful being, all-dominating. Call it what you will, you can only conjecture.
But for me "yfh" what you said below is of the soundest, wisest advices to searching truley fro the answer to "religion" and "God", apart from the last bit. For me not doubting yourself denotes arrogance/ignroance/stubborness/pride/defiance/denial in many instances, but then again in others it means to not get confused away with the lies no matter what, and follow facts/truths.
Everyone can see it (perceive) through their eyes which is an effect of your own belief. But can anyone see it or try seeing everything through everyones belief or even objectively in these matters?
Apart from this, what "newguy" said is exactly true. As in, if you are created by something, you cannot be anywhere near as intelligent or complex/supreme as the creator. Thus, in this context, if God created you with limitations and here, one being that you cannot know or figure Him out, you cannot. Paddle the puddle all anyone likes, simply you'll never know while alive.
Overall everyone will have some distinct/unique belief or query. Could be leading or misleading, and even right in many ways, depending on how you look at it. Humans are very complex now, in comparison to ever before.
Thanks
QUOTE (curious1+)
newguy,
You said, "From what I've seen repeatedly throughout this forum, most people here seem to be willing to spend vast amounts of time denying or questioning(usually in a mocking manner) God's existence instead of taking the few genuine moments, doing things God's prescribed way, to genuinely be reconciled back unto Him through Jesus Christ. It took me but a few moments to be reconciled back unto God nearly 18 years ago."
"doing things God's perscribed way" involves what? Living the morality of the bible or adolating his 'son' Jesus Christ til something happens? What happens?
curious1: The "short version" of God's prescribed way would include:
1. Being convicted of your sins and being sorry for them.
2. Being willing to repent of your sins.
3. Turning to Jesus Christ for the salvation of your soul.
4. Being "born again" of the Holy Spirit of God.
I would need to elaborate on each of those things and there are others that I could easily add, but that's a general picture. It is impossible to "live the morality of the Bible" without truly being "born again". Also, I assume that you meant "adulating"...is this correct? What happens? If you truly repent and are truly "born again", then God will send the Holy Spirit to live inside of you and your body will become the temple of the Holy Spirit. As I've stated several times in the past on this forum, He's not called the HOLY Spirit for nothing. Holiness must be the natural(really supernatural) outcome of the "new birth" or the "born again" experience. Communion with God is also an automatic outcome of the "new birth". My experience tells me that "communion with God" is what many people don't want. They don't want a Holy God telling them how to live. No, many people much prefer to either be their own "god" or to just have one of the many "other gods" who will give them all of their selfish desires.
You said, "From what I've seen repeatedly throughout this forum, most people here seem to be willing to spend vast amounts of time denying or questioning(usually in a mocking manner) God's existence instead of taking the few genuine moments, doing things God's prescribed way, to genuinely be reconciled back unto Him through Jesus Christ. It took me but a few moments to be reconciled back unto God nearly 18 years ago."
"doing things God's perscribed way" involves what? Living the morality of the bible or adolating his 'son' Jesus Christ til something happens? What happens?
curious1: The "short version" of God's prescribed way would include:
1. Being convicted of your sins and being sorry for them.
2. Being willing to repent of your sins.
3. Turning to Jesus Christ for the salvation of your soul.
4. Being "born again" of the Holy Spirit of God.
I would need to elaborate on each of those things and there are others that I could easily add, but that's a general picture. It is impossible to "live the morality of the Bible" without truly being "born again". Also, I assume that you meant "adulating"...is this correct? What happens? If you truly repent and are truly "born again", then God will send the Holy Spirit to live inside of you and your body will become the temple of the Holy Spirit. As I've stated several times in the past on this forum, He's not called the HOLY Spirit for nothing. Holiness must be the natural(really supernatural) outcome of the "new birth" or the "born again" experience. Communion with God is also an automatic outcome of the "new birth". My experience tells me that "communion with God" is what many people don't want. They don't want a Holy God telling them how to live. No, many people much prefer to either be their own "god" or to just have one of the many "other gods" who will give them all of their selfish desires.
QUOTE (curious1+)
I suspect what happens is that for most Americans who are raised in a Christian environment, they simply fall back to their childhood conditioning. Sort of like how most people 'become' their mother or father (depending on sex), as they age, regardless of whether they challenged or even respected them as a child. People who aren't raised Christians at all, or weren't exposed to it as a 'truth' early in life don't seem to get these revelations. At all.
You said the key words, "reconciled back unto God". If you were never immersed in the religion, you couldn't have been "reconciled back" to it. You will find that people looking for spirituality tend to 'reconcile back' to the religion of their childhood. That's true for islam, buddhism, and even wiccan. There's nothing universal about the Christian faith other than the fact that you were raised in it, and it's comforting to fall back to it when stressed. This is true for every 'faith' that I've seen, worldwide.
I think that you paint with too broad of a brush. There are many people, worldwide, who weren't "raised in a Christian environment" and yet turned to Christ. Do you have statistics to back your claim? Additionally, I certainly didn't "fall back to my childhood conditioning". I was the eighth child out of nine(one died before I was born) and my parents were considered to be "good Catholic parents". My family was actually chosen as the "Catholic family of the year" once by the local diocese when I was growing up. What a joke! At the same time that we were supposedly the "Catholic family of the year", my father was getting drunk all of the time and he was physically abusive at times with my mother and some of my siblings. I can recall having to run out of the house(with my mother and my brothers and sisters) many times in the middle of the night to stay at someone else's house because my father was drunk and abusive. The police were "called to the scene" on several different occasions. One of my sisters saw a psychiatrist for many years because of her vivid childhood memories of running away from my father. My mother was no "day at the beach" either. Without going into all of the gory details, the "religion" of my youth has absolutely nothing to do with my current relationship with God at all...except for maybe in that it helped me to avoid HYPOCRISY. Also, I spoke of being "reconciled back unto GOD" whereas you spoke of being "reconciled back unto RELIGION". There is a tremendous difference between the two. I'm talking about having the "sin barrier" removed that separates fallen man from God and having fellowship with a Holy God restored. You, apparently, are speaking about adhering to some "moral code".
You said the key words, "reconciled back unto God". If you were never immersed in the religion, you couldn't have been "reconciled back" to it. You will find that people looking for spirituality tend to 'reconcile back' to the religion of their childhood. That's true for islam, buddhism, and even wiccan. There's nothing universal about the Christian faith other than the fact that you were raised in it, and it's comforting to fall back to it when stressed. This is true for every 'faith' that I've seen, worldwide.
I think that you paint with too broad of a brush. There are many people, worldwide, who weren't "raised in a Christian environment" and yet turned to Christ. Do you have statistics to back your claim? Additionally, I certainly didn't "fall back to my childhood conditioning". I was the eighth child out of nine(one died before I was born) and my parents were considered to be "good Catholic parents". My family was actually chosen as the "Catholic family of the year" once by the local diocese when I was growing up. What a joke! At the same time that we were supposedly the "Catholic family of the year", my father was getting drunk all of the time and he was physically abusive at times with my mother and some of my siblings. I can recall having to run out of the house(with my mother and my brothers and sisters) many times in the middle of the night to stay at someone else's house because my father was drunk and abusive. The police were "called to the scene" on several different occasions. One of my sisters saw a psychiatrist for many years because of her vivid childhood memories of running away from my father. My mother was no "day at the beach" either. Without going into all of the gory details, the "religion" of my youth has absolutely nothing to do with my current relationship with God at all...except for maybe in that it helped me to avoid HYPOCRISY. Also, I spoke of being "reconciled back unto GOD" whereas you spoke of being "reconciled back unto RELIGION". There is a tremendous difference between the two. I'm talking about having the "sin barrier" removed that separates fallen man from God and having fellowship with a Holy God restored. You, apparently, are speaking about adhering to some "moral code".
QUOTE (curios1+)
Missionaries go out to more primitive civilizations and 'recruit' bearing gifts and new methods of self-sufficiency. This engenders a sense of gratitude and association. There's no inherent or inate belief in anyone towards the Christian god, it's all indoctrination and mental association ("if I say I believe in god and the bible, I will get food, medicine and a chance at a better life for my family"... "HEY! It WORKS!!! I believe in God, yes I do yes I do! Do you have any more of the corn seeds?").
Well, personally, I'm no fan of the "method" that you accurately described. I've seen these tactics(AND MUCH, MUCH WORSE!) employed in every church that I've ever stepped into. Needless to say, it wasn't long before I was stepping out of them. There are multitudes of people that are merely using marketing techniques in order to "convert" the masses. For the most part, all they are producing is false converts. Although Jesus fed the multitudes, He also plainly taught them "the cost" of discipleship. "The cost" is to lose your life to find it. This flies directly in the face of the ever popular "Come to God and get" gospel that permeates the land. One of the main stumblingblocks for many(not that I'm personally convinced that anyone on this particular forum has any real interest in knowing God) is that they view the modern day APOSTATE church as if it were a true representation of Christianity. It simply is not. For those who know a little bit about me on this forum, it should be obvious to them that I can stand on my own two feet without the support of other humans. God Himself is sufficient "backing" for me. As I stated once before on this forum, I didn't learn how to fight(spiritually speaking) by taking on atheists and agnostics. I learned how to fight by fending off phoney, backstabbing "Christians". It wouldn't surprise me in the least if I leave this earth at the hand of one(or a group) of them.
By the way, if you want to "quote" someone on this forum, you can put [Quote=person's name] before the text and [ /Quote] after the text and the text will come up in one of those blue boxes. Don't put a space between the [ and the / in the second quote box. I had to put it there to stop what I wrote as coming up as a quote. Talk to you later.
Well, personally, I'm no fan of the "method" that you accurately described. I've seen these tactics(AND MUCH, MUCH WORSE!) employed in every church that I've ever stepped into. Needless to say, it wasn't long before I was stepping out of them. There are multitudes of people that are merely using marketing techniques in order to "convert" the masses. For the most part, all they are producing is false converts. Although Jesus fed the multitudes, He also plainly taught them "the cost" of discipleship. "The cost" is to lose your life to find it. This flies directly in the face of the ever popular "Come to God and get" gospel that permeates the land. One of the main stumblingblocks for many(not that I'm personally convinced that anyone on this particular forum has any real interest in knowing God) is that they view the modern day APOSTATE church as if it were a true representation of Christianity. It simply is not. For those who know a little bit about me on this forum, it should be obvious to them that I can stand on my own two feet without the support of other humans. God Himself is sufficient "backing" for me. As I stated once before on this forum, I didn't learn how to fight(spiritually speaking) by taking on atheists and agnostics. I learned how to fight by fending off phoney, backstabbing "Christians". It wouldn't surprise me in the least if I leave this earth at the hand of one(or a group) of them.
By the way, if you want to "quote" someone on this forum, you can put [Quote=person's name] before the text and [ /Quote] after the text and the text will come up in one of those blue boxes. Don't put a space between the [ and the / in the second quote box. I had to put it there to stop what I wrote as coming up as a quote. Talk to you later.
Newguy, thank you for that long and sincere explanation. I'm very sorry to hear of your past, and I appreciate your willingness to tell us the story. I also feel like I better understand where you're coming from.
You know, when I first posted my note, I thought maybe I should edit, because it sounded so... arrogant. I didn't, because I thought you would understand that my viewpoint was not directed at you personally, but at my perception of religion in general.
You're probably used to some of the religious negativity presented by atheists, but I'm sure you're aware of the negativity thrown at any belief but Christianity by many Christians, so maybe you'll understand why I'm a bit offensive in my defensiveness, and my guess is I'm not the only one on the forum that feels that way.
Kudos to you for being patient and understanding about people's lack of belief. Until someone gets to know you, they don't always have a reason to be kind, and often aren't, when faced with an opposing viewpoint from the start. Maybe we can begin serious dialog without the animosity. I hope you can answer some of these very puzzling questions for me.
If you don't mind, I'm going to ask more pointed questions about why you believe, in the face of what I see as insurmountable contradiction in the bible. I've asked several christians these questions, and they either stop responding to me altogether, or fall back on 'faith'. I hope you understand that the questions aren't personal attacks, but a complete inability to understand the logic from my perspective.
From the beginning:
1. Concept: God created the world in 7 days. After he got done creating everything else, he got lonely. God created Adam in his own image. God created Eve to give Adam companionship.
Adam and Eve were innocent and happy in the Garden. God told them not to eat anything off the tree of wisdom. They ate an apple, because a serpent tempted them and God grew angry and tossed them from the Garden. While tossing them, because Eve was tempted first, she was cursed with 'Original Sin' and she and the rest of her young for eternity would suffer pain during childbirth.
Problems: Where did the serpent come from? God created another creature with both free will and intelligence?
Why isn't the serpent's origins mentioned in Genesis?
If God is and was omnipotent and omniscient, why would he allow this serpent into his garden, why didn't he know it would tempt them?
Now the classic explanation has been, God gave Adam and Eve free will, they could CHOOSE not to eat the apple.
1. I assume you have children. We are hard-wired to protect our young. Clearly from the story, the Serpent isn't newly created. Why would God allow his newly created and innocent young to share space with a serpent? Is God not powerful enough to stop it from harming his young? This has nothing to do with free will, this has to do with God's omnipotence. God is not omnipotent.
Isn't God supposed to be omniscient? Why wouldn't an omniscient being know what the serpent would do and what the results of that would be? If I had just given birth, I'd protect my young. If I also happened to create EVERYTHING ELSE, I'd be able to ensure my young's safety myself, perhaps by moving them to a location that unsafe things could not breach. Maybe create a mongoose, or a pack of them, to help keep the garden safe for my babies. God is not omniscient.
If I DID NOT create everything else, then I couldn't. However, I could safeguard my young and watch over them.
Does God have a job? Where was he went the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve? Is there a larger society of Gods that is omitted in the bible that he wouldn't be available to help his newly created children(according the bible, the final ultimate creation)? So God is not Omnipresent either.
2. If man was made in God's 'image', then man presumably thinks like god, aka shows compassion. What is the FIRST THING your child does the first time you tell him/her 'no'? Does it again. Why? Because until the word 'no', or consequence is taught, generally negative, the child doesn't learn.
The bible says that the Tree of Knowledge was the ONLY thing Adam and Eve were told to avoid. If humans were made in the image of God, God would understand curiosity. God would understand the need to learn.
Even ignorant imperfect humans know that babies must be taught by guidance and repetition. God being god doesn't know that... his response is to throw them out of the Garden. Knowing that the serpent is still out there.
This is tantamount to throwing an infant out in street traffic because it touched an electric outlet. Perhaps it was their first 'lesson' in 'tough love'? Their first mistake? Does God have less compassion than humans? Apparently.
If we did that, thru literal interpretation of scripture, we'd go to prison. That's man's morality.
Eve, being the one first tempted by the Serpent, not only has to carry the weight of pain forever, but all her progeny does as well. This because she was tempted by a creature she didn't understand, couldn't understand, when she had never been made to understand consequences by her parent.
What did her progeny do? Get born to a mother who committed a crime she didn't understand. And because of this sin, they too must bear physical pain and possible death for eternity.
This is a just and loving God? What society would perceive of this as just and rational, except the societies who still circumcise women without anesthesia in Africa? Are humans more moral than God?
I have a lot more questions, but if you can just answer the ones I have from the first few pages of Genesis, we can move on from there to my other questions.
I underlined the specific questions I wanted answers to. Thank you for taking the time. If you think this is too much, I understand why you can't. If you are willing, this may take a while.
You know, when I first posted my note, I thought maybe I should edit, because it sounded so... arrogant. I didn't, because I thought you would understand that my viewpoint was not directed at you personally, but at my perception of religion in general.
You're probably used to some of the religious negativity presented by atheists, but I'm sure you're aware of the negativity thrown at any belief but Christianity by many Christians, so maybe you'll understand why I'm a bit offensive in my defensiveness, and my guess is I'm not the only one on the forum that feels that way.
Kudos to you for being patient and understanding about people's lack of belief. Until someone gets to know you, they don't always have a reason to be kind, and often aren't, when faced with an opposing viewpoint from the start. Maybe we can begin serious dialog without the animosity. I hope you can answer some of these very puzzling questions for me.
If you don't mind, I'm going to ask more pointed questions about why you believe, in the face of what I see as insurmountable contradiction in the bible. I've asked several christians these questions, and they either stop responding to me altogether, or fall back on 'faith'. I hope you understand that the questions aren't personal attacks, but a complete inability to understand the logic from my perspective.
From the beginning:
1. Concept: God created the world in 7 days. After he got done creating everything else, he got lonely. God created Adam in his own image. God created Eve to give Adam companionship.
Adam and Eve were innocent and happy in the Garden. God told them not to eat anything off the tree of wisdom. They ate an apple, because a serpent tempted them and God grew angry and tossed them from the Garden. While tossing them, because Eve was tempted first, she was cursed with 'Original Sin' and she and the rest of her young for eternity would suffer pain during childbirth.
Problems: Where did the serpent come from? God created another creature with both free will and intelligence?
Why isn't the serpent's origins mentioned in Genesis?
If God is and was omnipotent and omniscient, why would he allow this serpent into his garden, why didn't he know it would tempt them?
Now the classic explanation has been, God gave Adam and Eve free will, they could CHOOSE not to eat the apple.
1. I assume you have children. We are hard-wired to protect our young. Clearly from the story, the Serpent isn't newly created. Why would God allow his newly created and innocent young to share space with a serpent? Is God not powerful enough to stop it from harming his young? This has nothing to do with free will, this has to do with God's omnipotence. God is not omnipotent.
Isn't God supposed to be omniscient? Why wouldn't an omniscient being know what the serpent would do and what the results of that would be? If I had just given birth, I'd protect my young. If I also happened to create EVERYTHING ELSE, I'd be able to ensure my young's safety myself, perhaps by moving them to a location that unsafe things could not breach. Maybe create a mongoose, or a pack of them, to help keep the garden safe for my babies. God is not omniscient.
If I DID NOT create everything else, then I couldn't. However, I could safeguard my young and watch over them.
Does God have a job? Where was he went the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve? Is there a larger society of Gods that is omitted in the bible that he wouldn't be available to help his newly created children(according the bible, the final ultimate creation)? So God is not Omnipresent either.
2. If man was made in God's 'image', then man presumably thinks like god, aka shows compassion. What is the FIRST THING your child does the first time you tell him/her 'no'? Does it again. Why? Because until the word 'no', or consequence is taught, generally negative, the child doesn't learn.
The bible says that the Tree of Knowledge was the ONLY thing Adam and Eve were told to avoid. If humans were made in the image of God, God would understand curiosity. God would understand the need to learn.
Even ignorant imperfect humans know that babies must be taught by guidance and repetition. God being god doesn't know that... his response is to throw them out of the Garden. Knowing that the serpent is still out there.
This is tantamount to throwing an infant out in street traffic because it touched an electric outlet. Perhaps it was their first 'lesson' in 'tough love'? Their first mistake? Does God have less compassion than humans? Apparently.
If we did that, thru literal interpretation of scripture, we'd go to prison. That's man's morality.
Eve, being the one first tempted by the Serpent, not only has to carry the weight of pain forever, but all her progeny does as well. This because she was tempted by a creature she didn't understand, couldn't understand, when she had never been made to understand consequences by her parent.
What did her progeny do? Get born to a mother who committed a crime she didn't understand. And because of this sin, they too must bear physical pain and possible death for eternity.
This is a just and loving God? What society would perceive of this as just and rational, except the societies who still circumcise women without anesthesia in Africa? Are humans more moral than God?
I have a lot more questions, but if you can just answer the ones I have from the first few pages of Genesis, we can move on from there to my other questions.
I underlined the specific questions I wanted answers to. Thank you for taking the time. If you think this is too much, I understand why you can't. If you are willing, this may take a while.
curious1: Ironically, I just struggled(crying babies, phone calls, etc.) to answer one of your posts on another thread. I will get to this one as soon as I am able...hopefully later on tonight. I'm not the least bit bothered by your questions, by the way. It's my pleasure to answer them. Talk to you later.
newguy... these questions are puzzling to me... but by no means more important than your family or personal business.
Please take your time, I am in no hurry at all, even if it takes a few days or weeks for you to get back to it.
I appreciate your sincerity, but PLEASE do not put answering these questions above anything you need to take care of in real life. If I think that's the case, the discussion is over, and we'll be talking about what we think of aliens and their possible 'probes'.
Please take your time, I am in no hurry at all, even if it takes a few days or weeks for you to get back to it.
I appreciate your sincerity, but PLEASE do not put answering these questions above anything you need to take care of in real life. If I think that's the case, the discussion is over, and we'll be talking about what we think of aliens and their possible 'probes'.
What makes some gods so appealing is the idea that they are all-mighty & all-seeing.
It sounds nice, but it isn't true!
Gods like Jesus aren't all powerful. They have limits.
They evolved, just like us.
It sounds nice, but it isn't true!
Gods like Jesus aren't all powerful. They have limits.
They evolved, just like us.
learn the principles of faith and see if you can find that one God. if you can then do let me know how you got there. that's what humans are designed to do.
QUOTE (curious1+)
Newguy, thank you for that long and sincere explanation. I'm very sorry to hear of your past, and I appreciate your willingness to tell us the story. I also feel like I better understand where you're coming from.
curious1: As much as I appreciate your comments, there is really nothing to be sorry for. My father did genuinely repent of his sins in the latter part of his life(he passed away 3+ years ago) and he showed some genuine "fruit" where his newfound Christian faith was concerned. Also, I always maintained a healthy relationship with my father throughout his life...we did have about a million "heated discussions" though, where God/Christ were concerned prior to his conversion.
curious1: As much as I appreciate your comments, there is really nothing to be sorry for. My father did genuinely repent of his sins in the latter part of his life(he passed away 3+ years ago) and he showed some genuine "fruit" where his newfound Christian faith was concerned. Also, I always maintained a healthy relationship with my father throughout his life...we did have about a million "heated discussions" though, where God/Christ were concerned prior to his conversion.
QUOTE (curious1+)
If you don't mind, I'm going to ask more pointed questions about why you believe, in the face of what I see as insurmountable contradiction in the bible. I've asked several christians these questions, and they either stop responding to me altogether, or fall back on 'faith'. I hope you understand that the questions aren't personal attacks, but a complete inability to understand the logic from my perspective.
From the beginning:
1. Concept: God created the world in 7 days. After he got done creating everything else, he got lonely. God created Adam in his own image. God created Eve to give Adam companionship.
Well, actually, according to the Biblical record, God created everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh day. Where does the Bible say that God "got lonely"? Incidentally, God named both the male and female "Adam"(Genesis 5:1-2).
Adam(the male) renamed his wife "Eve", which means "to live" or "life-giver", because "she was the mother of all living"
(Genesis 3:20).
From the beginning:
1. Concept: God created the world in 7 days. After he got done creating everything else, he got lonely. God created Adam in his own image. God created Eve to give Adam companionship.
Well, actually, according to the Biblical record, God created everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh day. Where does the Bible say that God "got lonely"? Incidentally, God named both the male and female "Adam"(Genesis 5:1-2).
Adam(the male) renamed his wife "Eve", which means "to live" or "life-giver", because "she was the mother of all living"
(Genesis 3:20).
QUOTE (curious1+)
Adam and Eve were innocent and happy in the Garden. God told them not to eat anything off the tree of wisdom. They ate an apple, because a serpent tempted them and God grew angry and tossed them from the Garden. While tossing them, because Eve was tempted first, she was cursed with 'Original Sin' and she and the rest of her young for eternity would suffer pain during childbirth.
Problems: Where did the serpent come from? God created another creature with both free will and intelligence?
Why isn't the serpent's origins mentioned in Genesis?
If God is and was omnipotent and omniscient, why would he allow this serpent into his garden, why didn't he know it would tempt them?
Well, let me start with "the serpent" and go forward from there. "The serpent" has both a physical and spiritual identity. I'll start with the spiritual.
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."(Revelation 12:9)
According to this portion of scripture, "that old serpent" is none other than Satan himself. Satan is a fallen angel. Angels were created prior to man. God asked Job the following questions:
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"(Job 38:4-6)
The "sons of God" who were "shouting for joy" during the creation of the earth were angels(see Job 1:6 and 2:1). Additionally, God is often referred to as "the Lord of hosts". This "host" or "army" is a "host of angels". Consider, for example, the following:
"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men."(Luke 2:13-14)
The book of Genesis tells us:
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."(Genesis 2:1)
God not only created the heavens(plural) and the earth, but He also created "the host of angels" and, according to the book of Job, the angels were created BEFORE the earth was created as they witnessed it and "shouted for joy". So, chronologically speaking, the angels, Satan included, came before Adam and Eve. Satan is likened to a serpent because of his subtilty.
"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."(Genesis 3:1)
Anyhow, that's "the serpent" in a nutshell from a spiritual perspective. From a natural perspective, "the serpent" was created on the same day as Adam and Eve, although the Biblical record would seem to indicate that the serpent was created earlier than Adam.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
(Genesis 1:24-28)
This Biblical account would certainly seem to indicate that "the serpent" was created first and then came Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were given dominion over everything that had been created before them. With these things in mind, "the serpent's origins" were "mentioned in Genesis". Spiritually speaking, "the serpent" was part of "the host of heaven" that God created prior to creating the earth. Naturally speaking, "the serpent" was created on day six, prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.
The Bible NEVER mentions "an apple", by the way, as the fruit that Adam and Eve ate. It is quite possible that it was a fig, as they "sewed fig leaves together"(Genesis 3:7) in an attempt to cover their nakedness. As far as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is concerned, God gave the following command:
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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."(Genesis 2:16-17)
To better understand this "tree", let's look at the discussion between Eve and "the serpent":
"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 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. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."(Genesis 3:1-7)
There is a lot more involved here than just "a tree" and some "fruit". By disobeying God's command, Adam and Eve hearkened to the voice of "the serpent" or Satan and basically chose "another god". The scriptures declare:
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"(Romans 6:16)
By "yielding themselves" to Satan, Adam and Eve became his servants. What was the real "temptation"? "YE SHALL BE AS GODS". This is the very desire of Satan himself and it was the desire of Eve as well. Whereas you would seemingly seek to blame God for Eve’s "temptation" by allowing "the serpent" access to Eve, the scriptures declare the following:
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."(James 1:13-15)
Aside from her desire or lust to "be as god", Eve also saw that the tree was "desired to make one wise"(Genesis 3:6). What type of wisdom was she after and where does this wisdom originate? The following scriptures give us some insight on this:
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
(Matthew 10:16)
Notice the term "wise as serpents". Satan has wisdom. The Bible contrasts "the wisdom of this world" with "the wisdom of God"(I Corinthians 1:20-21). The Bible also contrasts "the spirit of the world" with "the Spirit of God"(I Corinthians 2:12). I’d like to challenge you to reevaluate the meaning of the word "inspired". People are receiving "inspiration" from the spirit world all of the time. There are places in scripture where God not only speaks to a man, but He also addresses the "spirit" that is "inspiring" the man. One such example would be when Jesus rebuked Peter:
"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."(Matthew 16:23)
Obviously, Peter isn't Satan. However, Peter was being "inspired" by Satan at that moment and we can learn something of Satan's character by watching what he "inspires" in others. Here is another example from scripture in which God not only speaks to a man, but also addresses the "spirit" that is "inspiring" the man:
"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."
(Ezekiel 28:11-17)
Although God addresses "the king of Tyrus", it is quite obvious that God is also addressing "the spirit" behind the man. God speaks of the "covering cherub". A "cherub" is an angel. The "COVERING cherub" is also of importance. When God gave Moses the pattern for the earthly tabernacle, He had Moses make the ark of the covenant with two cherubs "covering" the mercy seat. Scripture tells us that Moses' earthly tabernacle was based upon the pattern of the true tabernacle of God in heaven(Hebrews 8:1-5, 9:24). This would seem to indicate that there are two cherubs covering God's throne in heaven. This "covering cherub" quite possibly used to be one of them. Many Biblical scholars identify this "covering cherub" as Satan. Whichever cherub it is, this cherub was "full of wisdom"(Ezekiel 28:11) and "hast corrupted thy wisdom"(Ezekiel 28:17). Eve saw that the tree was "to be desired to make one wise". When she disobeyed God, she in essence forsook His wisdom and embraced the wisdom of "the serpent". As I said earlier, she basically CHOSE "another god". As far as Eve's "pain during childbirth" is concerned, I would like to suggest a few things to you that maybe you have never considered before. There are many things that God allows in the natural to teach us spiritual lessons. This would certainly apply to a degree where the "pains of childbirth" are concerned. Please consider some of these verses of scripture:
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."(Romans 8:18-23)
In this portion of scripture, the Apostle Paul states that the whole of creation "was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same". In other words, when Adam sinned, all of creation "fell" with him. Paul goes on to describe "the whole creation"(NOT just women) as a woman who is "groaning and travailing in pain". Whereas the woman will one day "deliver" her child, the whole of creation will one day be "delivered from the bondage of corruption" at Christ’s return. Paul even states that the Christians who "have the firstfruits of the Spirit" or those who have been given the "earnest" or the "pledge" of the Spirit are "groaning within themselves". Jesus put it like this while explaining to His disciples that He must soon return to His Father in heaven:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you."(John 16:20-22)
I mentioned recently on one of these threads that I have only personally met one true Christian in my entire life. Do you know what was one of the most outstanding characteristics of this individual? Genuine grief, as in "grieving" or "travailing" for lost souls. Many times in the Old Testament, the prophets are likened to "women in travail". These men were greatly "grieved" as they desired to "birth" people into the kingdom of God. I vividly remember a conversation that I had with my friend's(he hates my guts now) wife several years ago. She was pregnant with their first child(they have 5 now, as far as I know) and she said something like this to me: "You don’t know the pain that I’m going through!" I immediately answered her and said: "Yes I do!" She laughed and said: "I bet you do!" I have oftentimes gone through great "travail" when meditating on the lost souls of men. Oftentimes. The Apostle Paul said the following:
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites…"(Romans 9:1-3)
I’ve personally seen many people respond to an "altar call" where they were promised "the joy of the Lord" if they turned to Christ. I’ve NEVER seen an "altar call" given where anyone was promised "great heaviness and continual sorrow" if they turned to Christ. Jesus Christ is "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief"(Isaiah 53:3). He said:
"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted."(Matthew 5:4)
You’ve probably only heard this at funerals, but Jesus Christ had a lot more in mind than funerals when He said it. He was primarily speaking about those who mourn for the souls of lost men. Anyhow, "the pangs of childbearing" are NOT limited to women alone. They should be the norm for every true Christian.
Problems: Where did the serpent come from? God created another creature with both free will and intelligence?
Why isn't the serpent's origins mentioned in Genesis?
If God is and was omnipotent and omniscient, why would he allow this serpent into his garden, why didn't he know it would tempt them?
Well, let me start with "the serpent" and go forward from there. "The serpent" has both a physical and spiritual identity. I'll start with the spiritual.
"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."(Revelation 12:9)
According to this portion of scripture, "that old serpent" is none other than Satan himself. Satan is a fallen angel. Angels were created prior to man. God asked Job the following questions:
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"(Job 38:4-6)
The "sons of God" who were "shouting for joy" during the creation of the earth were angels(see Job 1:6 and 2:1). Additionally, God is often referred to as "the Lord of hosts". This "host" or "army" is a "host of angels". Consider, for example, the following:
"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men."(Luke 2:13-14)
The book of Genesis tells us:
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."(Genesis 2:1)
God not only created the heavens(plural) and the earth, but He also created "the host of angels" and, according to the book of Job, the angels were created BEFORE the earth was created as they witnessed it and "shouted for joy". So, chronologically speaking, the angels, Satan included, came before Adam and Eve. Satan is likened to a serpent because of his subtilty.
"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."(Genesis 3:1)
Anyhow, that's "the serpent" in a nutshell from a spiritual perspective. From a natural perspective, "the serpent" was created on the same day as Adam and Eve, although the Biblical record would seem to indicate that the serpent was created earlier than Adam.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
(Genesis 1:24-28)
This Biblical account would certainly seem to indicate that "the serpent" was created first and then came Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were given dominion over everything that had been created before them. With these things in mind, "the serpent's origins" were "mentioned in Genesis". Spiritually speaking, "the serpent" was part of "the host of heaven" that God created prior to creating the earth. Naturally speaking, "the serpent" was created on day six, prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.
The Bible NEVER mentions "an apple", by the way, as the fruit that Adam and Eve ate. It is quite possible that it was a fig, as they "sewed fig leaves together"(Genesis 3:7) in an attempt to cover their nakedness. As far as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is concerned, God gave the following command:
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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."(Genesis 2:16-17)
To better understand this "tree", let's look at the discussion between Eve and "the serpent":
"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 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. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."(Genesis 3:1-7)
There is a lot more involved here than just "a tree" and some "fruit". By disobeying God's command, Adam and Eve hearkened to the voice of "the serpent" or Satan and basically chose "another god". The scriptures declare:
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"(Romans 6:16)
By "yielding themselves" to Satan, Adam and Eve became his servants. What was the real "temptation"? "YE SHALL BE AS GODS". This is the very desire of Satan himself and it was the desire of Eve as well. Whereas you would seemingly seek to blame God for Eve’s "temptation" by allowing "the serpent" access to Eve, the scriptures declare the following:
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."(James 1:13-15)
Aside from her desire or lust to "be as god", Eve also saw that the tree was "desired to make one wise"(Genesis 3:6). What type of wisdom was she after and where does this wisdom originate? The following scriptures give us some insight on this:
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
(Matthew 10:16)
Notice the term "wise as serpents". Satan has wisdom. The Bible contrasts "the wisdom of this world" with "the wisdom of God"(I Corinthians 1:20-21). The Bible also contrasts "the spirit of the world" with "the Spirit of God"(I Corinthians 2:12). I’d like to challenge you to reevaluate the meaning of the word "inspired". People are receiving "inspiration" from the spirit world all of the time. There are places in scripture where God not only speaks to a man, but He also addresses the "spirit" that is "inspiring" the man. One such example would be when Jesus rebuked Peter:
"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."(Matthew 16:23)
Obviously, Peter isn't Satan. However, Peter was being "inspired" by Satan at that moment and we can learn something of Satan's character by watching what he "inspires" in others. Here is another example from scripture in which God not only speaks to a man, but also addresses the "spirit" that is "inspiring" the man:
"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."
(Ezekiel 28:11-17)
Although God addresses "the king of Tyrus", it is quite obvious that God is also addressing "the spirit" behind the man. God speaks of the "covering cherub". A "cherub" is an angel. The "COVERING cherub" is also of importance. When God gave Moses the pattern for the earthly tabernacle, He had Moses make the ark of the covenant with two cherubs "covering" the mercy seat. Scripture tells us that Moses' earthly tabernacle was based upon the pattern of the true tabernacle of God in heaven(Hebrews 8:1-5, 9:24). This would seem to indicate that there are two cherubs covering God's throne in heaven. This "covering cherub" quite possibly used to be one of them. Many Biblical scholars identify this "covering cherub" as Satan. Whichever cherub it is, this cherub was "full of wisdom"(Ezekiel 28:11) and "hast corrupted thy wisdom"(Ezekiel 28:17). Eve saw that the tree was "to be desired to make one wise". When she disobeyed God, she in essence forsook His wisdom and embraced the wisdom of "the serpent". As I said earlier, she basically CHOSE "another god". As far as Eve's "pain during childbirth" is concerned, I would like to suggest a few things to you that maybe you have never considered before. There are many things that God allows in the natural to teach us spiritual lessons. This would certainly apply to a degree where the "pains of childbirth" are concerned. Please consider some of these verses of scripture:
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."(Romans 8:18-23)
In this portion of scripture, the Apostle Paul states that the whole of creation "was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same". In other words, when Adam sinned, all of creation "fell" with him. Paul goes on to describe "the whole creation"(NOT just women) as a woman who is "groaning and travailing in pain". Whereas the woman will one day "deliver" her child, the whole of creation will one day be "delivered from the bondage of corruption" at Christ’s return. Paul even states that the Christians who "have the firstfruits of the Spirit" or those who have been given the "earnest" or the "pledge" of the Spirit are "groaning within themselves". Jesus put it like this while explaining to His disciples that He must soon return to His Father in heaven:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you."(John 16:20-22)
I mentioned recently on one of these threads that I have only personally met one true Christian in my entire life. Do you know what was one of the most outstanding characteristics of this individual? Genuine grief, as in "grieving" or "travailing" for lost souls. Many times in the Old Testament, the prophets are likened to "women in travail". These men were greatly "grieved" as they desired to "birth" people into the kingdom of God. I vividly remember a conversation that I had with my friend's(he hates my guts now) wife several years ago. She was pregnant with their first child(they have 5 now, as far as I know) and she said something like this to me: "You don’t know the pain that I’m going through!" I immediately answered her and said: "Yes I do!" She laughed and said: "I bet you do!" I have oftentimes gone through great "travail" when meditating on the lost souls of men. Oftentimes. The Apostle Paul said the following:
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites…"(Romans 9:1-3)
I’ve personally seen many people respond to an "altar call" where they were promised "the joy of the Lord" if they turned to Christ. I’ve NEVER seen an "altar call" given where anyone was promised "great heaviness and continual sorrow" if they turned to Christ. Jesus Christ is "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief"(Isaiah 53:3). He said:
"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted."(Matthew 5:4)
You’ve probably only heard this at funerals, but Jesus Christ had a lot more in mind than funerals when He said it. He was primarily speaking about those who mourn for the souls of lost men. Anyhow, "the pangs of childbearing" are NOT limited to women alone. They should be the norm for every true Christian.
QUOTE (curious1+)
Now the classic explanation has been, God gave Adam and Eve free will, they could CHOOSE not to eat the apple.
1. I assume you have children. We are hard-wired to protect our young. Clearly from the story, the Serpent isn't newly created. Why would God allow his newly created and innocent young to share space with a serpent? Is God not powerful enough to stop it from harming his young? This has nothing to do with free will, this has to do with God's omnipotence. God is not omnipotent.
Isn't God supposed to be omniscient? Why wouldn't an omniscient being know what the serpent would do and what the results of that would be? If I had just given birth, I'd protect my young. If I also happened to create EVERYTHING ELSE, I'd be able to ensure my young's safety myself, perhaps by moving them to a location that unsafe things could not breach. Maybe create a mongoose, or a pack of them, to help keep the garden safe for my babies. God is not omniscient.
If I DID NOT create everything else, then I couldn't. However, I could safeguard my young and watch over them.
Yes, I do have two young daughters and, as they grow up, they will be accountable for what they know and they will also be accountable for whatever CHOICES they make in life. Are you suggesting that, as a parent, I should follow my children everywhere that they go for the rest of their lives to make sure that "the coast is clear"? As I just described above, Adam and Eve were far from "innocent". They knew what they were doing. If you want to "blame" someone, then why not blame the ones who sinned? Perhaps this analogy will help. I am married to my wife. She is far from being the only woman on the face of the earth. There are probably somewhere around 3 billion(a rough guess) other women on the face of the earth. Are you suggesting that the only way that I can be loyal to my wife is if all of the other women are removed from the face of the earth? Are you? Why should God have to remove all of the "other gods"? Why couldn't Adam and Eve just CHOOSE to be loyal to God? Answer that for me, if you will. God is all-powerful, but He has also delegated some of that power to us. If we misuse or abuse it, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. God knew full well what would transpire in the garden. As I’ve stated to you a couple of times already, Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"(Revelation 13:8).
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."(I Corinthians 15:21-22)
You, like everyone else on the planet, have the opportunity to be "born again" through Jesus Christ. There is no need to remain a part of the "first Adam"(I Corinthians 15:45) when the "last Adam"(I Corinthians 15:45) is perfectly accessible to you.
1. I assume you have children. We are hard-wired to protect our young. Clearly from the story, the Serpent isn't newly created. Why would God allow his newly created and innocent young to share space with a serpent? Is God not powerful enough to stop it from harming his young? This has nothing to do with free will, this has to do with God's omnipotence. God is not omnipotent.
Isn't God supposed to be omniscient? Why wouldn't an omniscient being know what the serpent would do and what the results of that would be? If I had just given birth, I'd protect my young. If I also happened to create EVERYTHING ELSE, I'd be able to ensure my young's safety myself, perhaps by moving them to a location that unsafe things could not breach. Maybe create a mongoose, or a pack of them, to help keep the garden safe for my babies. God is not omniscient.
If I DID NOT create everything else, then I couldn't. However, I could safeguard my young and watch over them.
Yes, I do have two young daughters and, as they grow up, they will be accountable for what they know and they will also be accountable for whatever CHOICES they make in life. Are you suggesting that, as a parent, I should follow my children everywhere that they go for the rest of their lives to make sure that "the coast is clear"? As I just described above, Adam and Eve were far from "innocent". They knew what they were doing. If you want to "blame" someone, then why not blame the ones who sinned? Perhaps this analogy will help. I am married to my wife. She is far from being the only woman on the face of the earth. There are probably somewhere around 3 billion(a rough guess) other women on the face of the earth. Are you suggesting that the only way that I can be loyal to my wife is if all of the other women are removed from the face of the earth? Are you? Why should God have to remove all of the "other gods"? Why couldn't Adam and Eve just CHOOSE to be loyal to God? Answer that for me, if you will. God is all-powerful, but He has also delegated some of that power to us. If we misuse or abuse it, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. God knew full well what would transpire in the garden. As I’ve stated to you a couple of times already, Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"(Revelation 13:8).
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."(I Corinthians 15:21-22)
You, like everyone else on the planet, have the opportunity to be "born again" through Jesus Christ. There is no need to remain a part of the "first Adam"(I Corinthians 15:45) when the "last Adam"(I Corinthians 15:45) is perfectly accessible to you.
QUOTE (curious1+)
Does God have a job? Where was he went the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve? Is there a larger society of Gods that is omitted in the bible that he wouldn't be available to help his newly created children(according the bible, the final ultimate creation)? So God is not Omnipresent either.
So, according to you, because God allowed Adam and Eve to make THEIR OWN CHOICE, therefore He is not omnipresent? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
So, according to you, because God allowed Adam and Eve to make THEIR OWN CHOICE, therefore He is not omnipresent? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
QUOTE (curious1+)
2. If man was made in God's 'image', then man presumably thinks like god, aka shows compassion. What is the FIRST THING your child does the first time you tell him/her 'no'? Does it again. Why? Because until the word 'no', or consequence is taught, generally negative, the child doesn't learn.
The bible says that the Tree of Knowledge was the ONLY thing Adam and Eve were told to avoid. If humans were made in the image of God, God would understand curiosity. God would understand the need to learn.
Even ignorant imperfect humans know that babies must be taught by guidance and repetition. God being god doesn't know that... his response is to throw them out of the Garden. Knowing that the serpent is still out there.
This is tantamount to throwing an infant out in street traffic because it touched an electric outlet. Perhaps it was their first 'lesson' in 'tough love'? Their first mistake? Does God have less compassion than humans? Apparently.
First of all, although you keep referring to Adam and Eve as "young","children", "babies" and "infants", they were fully GROWN UP. Are you deliberately overlooking this? Adam was no "caveman" either, you know. He had already given names to "every living creature"(Genesis 2:19). We've already got enough people "rewriting" scripture on this forum…please don't join their ranks. Adam knew God. Whatever he "needed to learn", he could have learned directly from God. He willingly CHOSE to disobey God, Who had already "taught" him of the "consequence", and he willingly CHOSE "another god". Why do you seemingly refuse to see this? Why blame God for Adam's CHOICE? Additionally, as a GROWN MAN, as Adam was, who knows God, as Adam did, I have learned plenty of things WITHOUT having to disobey God. God didn't "throw Adam and Eve out in street traffic", either. He removed them from the garden lest they should eat of the tree of life and live in a perpetually fallen state. You want to talk about God’s "compassion", do you? He nailed His Son to a cross that you might be forgiven. What think ye of that?
I think what I've already posted covers the rest of your questions. If not, then ask on. As you can see, I haven't "stopped responding to you" nor have I simply "fallen back on faith". I trust that what I've posted will be of some genuine benefit to you. I'll talk to you later.
The bible says that the Tree of Knowledge was the ONLY thing Adam and Eve were told to avoid. If humans were made in the image of God, God would understand curiosity. God would understand the need to learn.
Even ignorant imperfect humans know that babies must be taught by guidance and repetition. God being god doesn't know that... his response is to throw them out of the Garden. Knowing that the serpent is still out there.
This is tantamount to throwing an infant out in street traffic because it touched an electric outlet. Perhaps it was their first 'lesson' in 'tough love'? Their first mistake? Does God have less compassion than humans? Apparently.
First of all, although you keep referring to Adam and Eve as "young","children", "babies" and "infants", they were fully GROWN UP. Are you deliberately overlooking this? Adam was no "caveman" either, you know. He had already given names to "every living creature"(Genesis 2:19). We've already got enough people "rewriting" scripture on this forum…please don't join their ranks. Adam knew God. Whatever he "needed to learn", he could have learned directly from God. He willingly CHOSE to disobey God, Who had already "taught" him of the "consequence", and he willingly CHOSE "another god". Why do you seemingly refuse to see this? Why blame God for Adam's CHOICE? Additionally, as a GROWN MAN, as Adam was, who knows God, as Adam did, I have learned plenty of things WITHOUT having to disobey God. God didn't "throw Adam and Eve out in street traffic", either. He removed them from the garden lest they should eat of the tree of life and live in a perpetually fallen state. You want to talk about God’s "compassion", do you? He nailed His Son to a cross that you might be forgiven. What think ye of that?
I think what I've already posted covers the rest of your questions. If not, then ask on. As you can see, I haven't "stopped responding to you" nor have I simply "fallen back on faith". I trust that what I've posted will be of some genuine benefit to you. I'll talk to you later.
I don't have as much time right now to carefully go over your very long response newguy, but I will.
For now, lets just take the part that attempts to answer part of my questions:
Not one thing in the bible indicates Adam's age at the time of the fruit eating session. Children of 3 give 'names' to things they see if they are not told a name.
But ok, despite not saying so in any bible version I have, I will accept your assumption that Adam was a grown man.
From where would Adam learn the consequences of the word 'no'? God was his parent right? There's no indication that at any other time did God teach Adam what happens if he does something he's told not to do.
How do our children learn consequences? Generally, when a baby learns to crawl, they go after things that may cause them harm. In a typical home, that would be a light socket. Or putting things they shouldn't in their mouths (magic markers, lead paint chips, ant traps, pieces of mud). What does a parent do? They see the child do it and say 'NO!" and take it away. They don't throw the child into traffic or lock them out of the house.
Lets assume Adam is a grown man. He has no other parent. He has no rolemodels and can do anything he wants. A grown man who was never told not to do anything but this one thing. At some point, just to find out what would happen, he does the one thing. For this, he incurs being thrown out and 'original sin' foisted on him and all his children for eternity.
Because I'm short on time today, and I can see that you will likely post the entire bible here if I keep going with the questions, I'm going to cut to the chase.
God 'saved' us all from the eternal sin he put upon us for the 'crime' of disobeying the first and only 'limit' he put on his first and only 'child', by expecting us (humanity) to kill another of his children (Jesus), born for this purpose.
This allows all of us original sinners (children of the first whom disobeyed the first order ever given him) a way to be free of the sin of not understanding the meaning of consequences.
To free us from the 'sin' of self-awareness (being naked), some of our fellow humans many thousands of generations later, were required by this 'father', to commit murder, another sin, upon god's son, given us for the purpose of killing horribly to free us from that first sin of fruit eating.
A sin, a 'crime', that this benevolent 'father' laid at his door. Being the one and only god, he decides what is sin and what is not right?
A son who knew that it only took 3 days of pain and suffering to go right back to his godhood to 'save' all of us from future 'sin'.
Who made it a 'sin' to eat the fruit?
Why would any parent expect their first child to obey the first rule ever given them?
Why would it take so many generations to be free of punishment for eating a fruit?
Why should being free of the sin of eating the fruit require murdering god's substitute?
How odd that god can't simply forgive Adam for eating the fruit to begin with, or as a benevolent father would, put the tree on a high shelf where he can't get at the fruit.
How much odder that Adam's children must murder their distant relative to save other distant relatives from Adam's punishment that the father dictated would not last simply Adam's lifetime but all of eternity.
What kind of father is this? In our society, if you were to substitute all the actions above for modern day actions, ie., Adam and Eve are children, he eats his father's lunch after his father tells him not to. The father throws both out of the house into the street, after a physical change performed on Eve that makes childbearing horrible for her thereafter. How would our society view this father?
But we don't stop there. Assuming we haven't locked this father up for endangering his children or molesting Eve. He has another child. Now he sends this child back to his grandchildren and says, if you want my forgiveness for Adam's crime, then you must murder this child of mine. Once you do so, I will forgive you for the crime your father committed.
By our society's standards... this man is insane.
There is simply no logic in it, tho if you bury yourself reading individual passages that appear to sound reasonable, you can forget how unreasonable the entire story is.
Perhaps you should look at the entire forest, and not dwell on the individual beauty of the trees.
For now, lets just take the part that attempts to answer part of my questions:
QUOTE
Adam knew God. Whatever he "needed to learn", he could have learned directly from God. He willingly CHOSE to disobey God, Who had already "taught" him of the "consequence", and he willingly CHOSE "another god". Why do you seemingly refuse to see this? Why blame God for Adam's CHOICE? Additionally, as a GROWN MAN, as Adam was, who knows God, as Adam did, I have learned plenty of things WITHOUT having to disobey God. God didn't "throw Adam and Eve out in street traffic", either. He removed them from the garden lest they should eat of the tree of life and live in a perpetually fallen state. You want to talk about God’s "compassion", do you? He nailed His Son to a cross that you might be forgiven. What think ye of that?
Not one thing in the bible indicates Adam's age at the time of the fruit eating session. Children of 3 give 'names' to things they see if they are not told a name.
But ok, despite not saying so in any bible version I have, I will accept your assumption that Adam was a grown man.
From where would Adam learn the consequences of the word 'no'? God was his parent right? There's no indication that at any other time did God teach Adam what happens if he does something he's told not to do.
How do our children learn consequences? Generally, when a baby learns to crawl, they go after things that may cause them harm. In a typical home, that would be a light socket. Or putting things they shouldn't in their mouths (magic markers, lead paint chips, ant traps, pieces of mud). What does a parent do? They see the child do it and say 'NO!" and take it away. They don't throw the child into traffic or lock them out of the house.
Lets assume Adam is a grown man. He has no other parent. He has no rolemodels and can do anything he wants. A grown man who was never told not to do anything but this one thing. At some point, just to find out what would happen, he does the one thing. For this, he incurs being thrown out and 'original sin' foisted on him and all his children for eternity.
Because I'm short on time today, and I can see that you will likely post the entire bible here if I keep going with the questions, I'm going to cut to the chase.
God 'saved' us all from the eternal sin he put upon us for the 'crime' of disobeying the first and only 'limit' he put on his first and only 'child', by expecting us (humanity) to kill another of his children (Jesus), born for this purpose.
This allows all of us original sinners (children of the first whom disobeyed the first order ever given him) a way to be free of the sin of not understanding the meaning of consequences.
To free us from the 'sin' of self-awareness (being naked), some of our fellow humans many thousands of generations later, were required by this 'father', to commit murder, another sin, upon god's son, given us for the purpose of killing horribly to free us from that first sin of fruit eating.
A sin, a 'crime', that this benevolent 'father' laid at his door. Being the one and only god, he decides what is sin and what is not right?
A son who knew that it only took 3 days of pain and suffering to go right back to his godhood to 'save' all of us from future 'sin'.
Who made it a 'sin' to eat the fruit?
Why would any parent expect their first child to obey the first rule ever given them?
Why would it take so many generations to be free of punishment for eating a fruit?
Why should being free of the sin of eating the fruit require murdering god's substitute?
How odd that god can't simply forgive Adam for eating the fruit to begin with, or as a benevolent father would, put the tree on a high shelf where he can't get at the fruit.
How much odder that Adam's children must murder their distant relative to save other distant relatives from Adam's punishment that the father dictated would not last simply Adam's lifetime but all of eternity.
What kind of father is this? In our society, if you were to substitute all the actions above for modern day actions, ie., Adam and Eve are children, he eats his father's lunch after his father tells him not to. The father throws both out of the house into the street, after a physical change performed on Eve that makes childbearing horrible for her thereafter. How would our society view this father?
But we don't stop there. Assuming we haven't locked this father up for endangering his children or molesting Eve. He has another child. Now he sends this child back to his grandchildren and says, if you want my forgiveness for Adam's crime, then you must murder this child of mine. Once you do so, I will forgive you for the crime your father committed.
By our society's standards... this man is insane.
There is simply no logic in it, tho if you bury yourself reading individual passages that appear to sound reasonable, you can forget how unreasonable the entire story is.
Perhaps you should look at the entire forest, and not dwell on the individual beauty of the trees.
QUOTE (curious1+)
I hope you can answer some of these very puzzling questions for me.
If you don't mind, I'm going to ask more pointed questions about why you believe, in the face of what I see as insurmountable contradiction in the bible. I've asked several christians these questions, and they either stop responding to me altogether, or fall back on 'faith'. I hope you understand that the questions aren't personal attacks, but a complete inability to understand the logic from my perspective.
If you don't mind, I'm going to ask more pointed questions about why you believe, in the face of what I see as insurmountable contradiction in the bible. I've asked several christians these questions, and they either stop responding to me altogether, or fall back on 'faith'. I hope you understand that the questions aren't personal attacks, but a complete inability to understand the logic from my perspective.
QUOTE (curious1+)
I have a lot more questions, but if you can just answer the ones I have from the first few pages of Genesis, we can move on from there to my other questions.
I underlined the specific questions I wanted answers to. Thank you for taking the time. If you think this is too much, I understand why you can't. If you are willing, this may take a while.
I underlined the specific questions I wanted answers to. Thank you for taking the time. If you think this is too much, I understand why you can't. If you are willing, this may take a while.
QUOTE (curious1+)
I don't have as much time right now to carefully go over your very long response newguy, but I will.
QUOTE (curious1+)
Because I'm short on time today, and I can see that you will likely post the entire bible here if I keep going with the questions, I'm going to cut to the chase.
curious1: What gives? First you ask me some "pointed questions" and tell me that "several Christians" either "stopped responding to you altogether or fell back on faith" when asked these same questions and then you seem troubled that I gave you some "pointed responses". Did my answers "strike a nerve"?
curious1: What gives? First you ask me some "pointed questions" and tell me that "several Christians" either "stopped responding to you altogether or fell back on faith" when asked these same questions and then you seem troubled that I gave you some "pointed responses". Did my answers "strike a nerve"?
QUOTE (curious1+)
Not one thing in the bible indicates Adam's age at the time of the fruit eating session. Children of 3 give 'names' to things they see if they are not told a name.
But ok, despite not saying so in any bible version I have, I will accept your assumption that Adam was a grown man.
Perhaps you should reread the Bible.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."(Genesis 1:27-28)
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
(Genesis 2:21-25)
There are other verses that refer to Adam and Eve as a man and his wife, but I trust that you "get the picture". When God told them to "be fruitful and multiply", do you think that He was giving this command to grown-ups or children? Do you think God was running some sort of "kiddie porn" site? They were grown-ups. Deal with it.
But ok, despite not saying so in any bible version I have, I will accept your assumption that Adam was a grown man.
Perhaps you should reread the Bible.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."(Genesis 1:27-28)
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
(Genesis 2:21-25)
There are other verses that refer to Adam and Eve as a man and his wife, but I trust that you "get the picture". When God told them to "be fruitful and multiply", do you think that He was giving this command to grown-ups or children? Do you think God was running some sort of "kiddie porn" site? They were grown-ups. Deal with it.
QUOTE (curious1+)
Lets assume Adam is a grown man. He has no other parent. He has no rolemodels and can do anything he wants. A grown man who was never told not to do anything but this one thing. At some point, just to find out what would happen, he does the one thing. For this, he incurs being thrown out and 'original sin' foisted on him and all his children for eternity.
Adam's "parent" was God Himself. Would you consider God to be an insufficient "role model"? Adam CHOSE to disobey God and Adam CHOSE to obey Satan. Deal with it.
Adam's "parent" was God Himself. Would you consider God to be an insufficient "role model"? Adam CHOSE to disobey God and Adam CHOSE to obey Satan. Deal with it.
QUOTE (curious1+)
To free us from the 'sin' of self-awareness (being naked), some of our fellow humans many thousands of generations later, were required by this 'father', to commit murder, another sin, upon god's son, given us for the purpose of killing horribly to free us from that first sin of fruit eating.
No, that would be the "sin" of Satan-awareness. As I explained in my previous post, there was a lot more involved in Adam and Eve's sin than just eating a piece of fruit. "Required" by God to commit murder? How about God, in His foreknowledge, knew that many of the men whom He created would wickedly depart from Him and embrace Satan and would therefore seek to murder their own Creator?
"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."(John 8:40-47)
You're seemingly familiar with Eve's "curse"...have you never read what God said to "the serpent"?
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."(Genesis 3:15)
First of all, Satan has "seed" or many children. Secondly, although Satan "bruised Christ's heel" when He was crucified, it ultimately resulted in his own "head bruising". Satan's seeming "biggest victory" was actually his "biggest defeat". Christ suffered in our place and took the punishment that we rightfully deserve. The CHOICE is yours. Will you be reconciled back unto God through Christ or not?
No, that would be the "sin" of Satan-awareness. As I explained in my previous post, there was a lot more involved in Adam and Eve's sin than just eating a piece of fruit. "Required" by God to commit murder? How about God, in His foreknowledge, knew that many of the men whom He created would wickedly depart from Him and embrace Satan and would therefore seek to murder their own Creator?
"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."(John 8:40-47)
You're seemingly familiar with Eve's "curse"...have you never read what God said to "the serpent"?
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."(Genesis 3:15)
First of all, Satan has "seed" or many children. Secondly, although Satan "bruised Christ's heel" when He was crucified, it ultimately resulted in his own "head bruising". Satan's seeming "biggest victory" was actually his "biggest defeat". Christ suffered in our place and took the punishment that we rightfully deserve. The CHOICE is yours. Will you be reconciled back unto God through Christ or not?
QUOTE (curious1+)
How odd that god can't simply forgive Adam for eating the fruit to begin with, or as a benevolent father would, put the tree on a high shelf where he can't get at the fruit.
How odd that you would still make another "fruitless" attempt, after my previous thorough explanation, to limit this all to a crime of eating a piece of fruit. They disobeyed God and obeyed Satan. Deal with it. Your way of "child rearing" is to remove every potential "temptation" from the child? This reminds me of an analogy that I heard once about two dogs. The one dog is "fenced in". He's out in the backyard longing for the day when someone accidentally leaves the gate open and off he goes. No loyalty to his "master" whatsoever. Then there's another dog. He's just lying nice and peaceably on the front porch. No fence. No leash. All of the potential "freedom" in the world. He doesn't run though. No, he loves his "master" way too much and there's no other place that he'd rather be. Throw away your "fences" and "leashes", would you? God is looking for those who CHOOSE to obey Him.
How odd that you would still make another "fruitless" attempt, after my previous thorough explanation, to limit this all to a crime of eating a piece of fruit. They disobeyed God and obeyed Satan. Deal with it. Your way of "child rearing" is to remove every potential "temptation" from the child? This reminds me of an analogy that I heard once about two dogs. The one dog is "fenced in". He's out in the backyard longing for the day when someone accidentally leaves the gate open and off he goes. No loyalty to his "master" whatsoever. Then there's another dog. He's just lying nice and peaceably on the front porch. No fence. No leash. All of the potential "freedom" in the world. He doesn't run though. No, he loves his "master" way too much and there's no other place that he'd rather be. Throw away your "fences" and "leashes", would you? God is looking for those who CHOOSE to obey Him.
QUOTE (curious1+)
There is simply no logic in it, tho if you bury yourself reading individual passages that appear to sound reasonable, you can forget how unreasonable the entire story is.
Perhaps you should look at the entire forest, and not dwell on the individual beauty of the trees.
I haven't "buried myself" anywhere, other than in identifying with Christ's death through water baptism. I've read the entire Bible from cover to cover many times. The "entire story" is not only reasonable, but my response to its message has resulted in me being genuinely reconciled back unto the God Who created me. I'm not much for "trees", but I've seen the beauty of Christ. Apparently, you haven't.
The rest of your "complaint" was already covered in my previous post. Take care.
Perhaps you should look at the entire forest, and not dwell on the individual beauty of the trees.
I haven't "buried myself" anywhere, other than in identifying with Christ's death through water baptism. I've read the entire Bible from cover to cover many times. The "entire story" is not only reasonable, but my response to its message has resulted in me being genuinely reconciled back unto the God Who created me. I'm not much for "trees", but I've seen the beauty of Christ. Apparently, you haven't.
The rest of your "complaint" was already covered in my previous post. Take care.
newguy, I was short on time and patience yesterday, but the crux of why I thought the bible was unreasonable and illogical I laid out in a linear way. I did get blunt about how I saw it, but I would have to be inevitably anyway.
As for the Adam the child, even if Adam was 90 years old, it wouldn't change the fact that there is no other time he was taught 'consequences'. He was the first and the oldest, there's no one else for him to look to to appreciate what happens when God gets mad. To defy authority for the first time. Every human goes thru it, if only something like staying out 10 minutes later than curfew or not turning off the TV when told. Who would Adam rebel against but God? And that's the response for his first trangression.
There's no reason why a parent has to punish their children for all eternity and multiple generations for a crime, when it's the parents responsibility to love and nurture their children. Especially when the only judge and jury is the parent. But that's just what I was raised by my parents to believe.
God, as a parent, could have forgiven the 'sin' that he designated a sin, especially the first sin. The elaborate forgiveness requirement of sacrificing his 'son' was unnecessary and even more cruel than the first.
The bible has many stories of God striving with Satan, as tho they were equals. Yet in the very beginning, it was clear that Satan was under God's control (god punished him/it by causing it to slither on it's belly for all time... a punishment arguably not worse than the one bestowed upon Eve).
Then God lets Satan torture Job to prove a point. Would you let someone torture your dog to prove how much your dog loves you? If not, how could you let someone torture your child to prove the same thing? If God can stop Abraham from cutting his son Issac's throat, after telling him to (another mental torture to prove he loves him more than his own child), why can't he simply forgive Adam and Eve even then?
I don't want to go on with this anymore either.
I think it's one of those best left to private response discussions. Non-Christians don't care, and Christians just get mad at my 'blasphemy' for daring to question the morality of the story as a whole.
There appear to be many nice Christians on this forum, including you. And in the end, all my questions and doubts relate the bible to humanity and how humans see morality from our own perspectives and backgrounds, which do not always fit in with the biblical versions.
I realize that it would be nothing short of blasphemous for me to continue to make the comparisons as I did in the last note. If the discussion continued, I'd be making continual comparisons. If you have to look at the bible as an work separate from the lives of men, then I see no point to it.
I also know that logical comparisons (logical to me) will never overcome 'personal experience'. While I'm not comparing her to you, a woman cut the arms off her infant because 'god told her to'. In the news, there are many examples of crimes committed by people because 'god told them to', all subject to denounciation from other people who also hear voices and have personal relationships with the same god.
To me, the only way to sift the truth from the lies is to look at the story itself and see if it's reasonable and logical. But in doing so, I would be critiquing the bible and god's actions, and who am I to judge god, especially in the eyes of any believer?
I did not mean to create anger or frustration, and in realizing that that was the result, I'm going to stop now also. Thank you for trying.
As for the Adam the child, even if Adam was 90 years old, it wouldn't change the fact that there is no other time he was taught 'consequences'. He was the first and the oldest, there's no one else for him to look to to appreciate what happens when God gets mad. To defy authority for the first time. Every human goes thru it, if only something like staying out 10 minutes later than curfew or not turning off the TV when told. Who would Adam rebel against but God? And that's the response for his first trangression.
There's no reason why a parent has to punish their children for all eternity and multiple generations for a crime, when it's the parents responsibility to love and nurture their children. Especially when the only judge and jury is the parent. But that's just what I was raised by my parents to believe.
God, as a parent, could have forgiven the 'sin' that he designated a sin, especially the first sin. The elaborate forgiveness requirement of sacrificing his 'son' was unnecessary and even more cruel than the first.
The bible has many stories of God striving with Satan, as tho they were equals. Yet in the very beginning, it was clear that Satan was under God's control (god punished him/it by causing it to slither on it's belly for all time... a punishment arguably not worse than the one bestowed upon Eve).
Then God lets Satan torture Job to prove a point. Would you let someone torture your dog to prove how much your dog loves you? If not, how could you let someone torture your child to prove the same thing? If God can stop Abraham from cutting his son Issac's throat, after telling him to (another mental torture to prove he loves him more than his own child), why can't he simply forgive Adam and Eve even then?
I don't want to go on with this anymore either.
I think it's one of those best left to private response discussions. Non-Christians don't care, and Christians just get mad at my 'blasphemy' for daring to question the morality of the story as a whole.
There appear to be many nice Christians on this forum, including you. And in the end, all my questions and doubts relate the bible to humanity and how humans see morality from our own perspectives and backgrounds, which do not always fit in with the biblical versions.
I realize that it would be nothing short of blasphemous for me to continue to make the comparisons as I did in the last note. If the discussion continued, I'd be making continual comparisons. If you have to look at the bible as an work separate from the lives of men, then I see no point to it.
I also know that logical comparisons (logical to me) will never overcome 'personal experience'. While I'm not comparing her to you, a woman cut the arms off her infant because 'god told her to'. In the news, there are many examples of crimes committed by people because 'god told them to', all subject to denounciation from other people who also hear voices and have personal relationships with the same god.
To me, the only way to sift the truth from the lies is to look at the story itself and see if it's reasonable and logical. But in doing so, I would be critiquing the bible and god's actions, and who am I to judge god, especially in the eyes of any believer?
I did not mean to create anger or frustration, and in realizing that that was the result, I'm going to stop now also. Thank you for trying.
curious1: I just found out that I have to make an unexpected business-related trip, so I'll be unable to post again for the next day or two. A couple of quick things, though.
1. "Blasphemy", as you perceived it in your own writings anyway, doesn't deter me from continuing conversations. I'm more than happy to continue with this, when I have the time, of course.
2. I have much to say(I trust that doesn't shock you) in regards to Job and Abraham.
The reason that I mentioned in an earlier post that we don't need anyone else on this forum "rewriting" the Bible is because you paint a very incomplete and therefore very incorrect picture of things that the Bible actually states. It should be my pleasure to hopefully "shed some more light" on these topics in the future, if you so desire. Please know, though, that I will be using scriptures to give the further insight into things that you stated. I can't imagine why this would trouble you, when you're using scriptures yourself to try to make your point.
The woman who cut her child's arms off certainly DID NOT hear from my God.
And, finally, for now, I DON'T look at the Bible as a work separate from the lives of men. Your "comparisons"(a grown Adam and Eve to an infant, for example) simply didn't match up.
Gotta run...
1. "Blasphemy", as you perceived it in your own writings anyway, doesn't deter me from continuing conversations. I'm more than happy to continue with this, when I have the time, of course.
2. I have much to say(I trust that doesn't shock you) in regards to Job and Abraham.
The reason that I mentioned in an earlier post that we don't need anyone else on this forum "rewriting" the Bible is because you paint a very incomplete and therefore very incorrect picture of things that the Bible actually states. It should be my pleasure to hopefully "shed some more light" on these topics in the future, if you so desire. Please know, though, that I will be using scriptures to give the further insight into things that you stated. I can't imagine why this would trouble you, when you're using scriptures yourself to try to make your point.
The woman who cut her child's arms off certainly DID NOT hear from my God.
And, finally, for now, I DON'T look at the Bible as a work separate from the lives of men. Your "comparisons"(a grown Adam and Eve to an infant, for example) simply didn't match up.
Gotta run...
QUOTE (curious1+Jun 28 2006, 02:37 PM)
Then God lets Satan torture Job to prove a point. Would you let someone torture your dog to prove how much your dog loves you? If not, how could you let someone torture your child to prove the same thing? If God can stop Abraham from cutting his son Issac's throat, after telling him to (another mental torture to prove he loves him more than his own child), why can't he simply forgive Adam and Eve even then?
...And in the end, all my questions and doubts relate the bible to humanity and how humans see morality from our own perspectives and backgrounds, which do not always fit in with the biblical versions.
I realize that it would be nothing short of blasphemous for me to continue to make the comparisons as I did in the last note. If the discussion continued, I'd be making continual comparisons. If you have to look at the bible as an work separate from the lives of men, then I see no point to it.
To me, the only way to sift the truth from the lies is to look at the story itself and see if it's reasonable and logical. But in doing so, I would be critiquing the bible and god's actions, and who am I to judge god, especially in the eyes of any believer?
Curious1:
The points that you made are all valid, I competely concur on the comparisons, of looking to the principles involved at the foundation of the happenings, but maybe differ on the intention, which I dont know of, so can only judge as good.
I comprehend your comparison and its core essence, such as, if God is perfect, and He threw out Adam, the first and perfectly created human man, for a first sin, (known as mistake nowadays) considering all you stated, why wouldnt mankind also follow them routines/procedures at any "sin/ transgression/ disobedience" but if they thought of it as stupid/insane/barbaric/ignorant and every other vice, which they do? Wouldnt that mean they are "already" disbelievers in action and belief from their hearts already, despising Gods ways? etc...right.
Anyway, "newguy" is a sincere believer to his chosen belief/religion. He obviously has human limitations and weakenesses, but I'd argue if he's not better than most by following what he does. In the same manner, many Buddhists, many Hindus (i.e. Aishwariya Rai- know her?) and Muslims such as the Taliban (more extreme Deobandi sect) are ardently sincere to their last drop of blood on their chosen belief. If it didnt make complete sense to them, they wouldnt be!
A believer of any way/thought/perspective/religion/ethical and cultural practises cannot overlook outside his/her belief to see your view and thus reply while still in it. This means blaspheme, and results in it too. Obviously this is not the same perspective you take, thus "being in someone elses shoes" scenario is never applicable here.
I have at one stage, asked a similar line of questions to you, deep inside my heart. I studied the religions, well, for long...to see all the views all around the world today and of the past. The biggest and toughest obstacle for "anyone" is to become "objective". This very rarely happens.
I have to ask you a question and it maybe answer your question/s.
Could it be that the people of the past, DID actually judge on these ways, i.e. the moral and lifely principles that you are stating we would have to if following this specific interpretive Biblical "Gods" example?
The people most of the present mankind, see as barbaric, closer to cavemen in attributes, knowledge, lifestyles, intelligence, moral and characteristics, (not my view) could they not "have been" that way in judgement, teaching their young or elder, and in societies? i.e. committed an obvious wrong, and you suffer the punishment/consequence/s. After all, every basic infrastructure of present life, social structure, functioning, ways of speech, judgments, as well as nurture and residential habitats are "COMPLETELY" different to those of 2000years ago or beyond.
Could it not be as time/people have changed so has everything else, including what "works" with humans, as in how to teach/warn them?
I would like to make a comparison, between the people of "modern times (1900's+)" and the people of "older times(pre-1000AD/CE)" as that of Satan and Adam. The poeple of elder times seeming very simple in manners to us, and less intelligent, truer and less deceptive, thus gullible to our creativity in deceit and craftiness.
This is very lengthy, time is needed to reflect, personal time for a person which could be years, until the right stimulation or information hits triggers one along.
But I will provide you a view. Consider, if God knew everything, past and present, is the first and last, and has the ultimate say, choice and power over/in everything... if He willed for you (His creation) "NOT" to know something or "not" to be able to do something, could you ever know no matter if you destroyed all the Earth?
You know the answer, simply never.
Secondly if God knew what is "right" and "wrong" (all-knowledgable), then Him being PERFECTLY right, obviously HE'd know the wrong unambigiously, much above anythings intelligence and clarity, put together...dont you think?
Nice to see manners/sincerity from people (some) on this forum for a change.
Thanks.
...And in the end, all my questions and doubts relate the bible to humanity and how humans see morality from our own perspectives and backgrounds, which do not always fit in with the biblical versions.
I realize that it would be nothing short of blasphemous for me to continue to make the comparisons as I did in the last note. If the discussion continued, I'd be making continual comparisons. If you have to look at the bible as an work separate from the lives of men, then I see no point to it.
To me, the only way to sift the truth from the lies is to look at the story itself and see if it's reasonable and logical. But in doing so, I would be critiquing the bible and god's actions, and who am I to judge god, especially in the eyes of any believer?
Curious1:
The points that you made are all valid, I competely concur on the comparisons, of looking to the principles involved at the foundation of the happenings, but maybe differ on the intention, which I dont know of, so can only judge as good.
I comprehend your comparison and its core essence, such as, if God is perfect, and He threw out Adam, the first and perfectly created human man, for a first sin, (known as mistake nowadays) considering all you stated, why wouldnt mankind also follow them routines/procedures at any "sin/ transgression/ disobedience" but if they thought of it as stupid/insane/barbaric/ignorant and every other vice, which they do? Wouldnt that mean they are "already" disbelievers in action and belief from their hearts already, despising Gods ways? etc...right.
Anyway, "newguy" is a sincere believer to his chosen belief/religion. He obviously has human limitations and weakenesses, but I'd argue if he's not better than most by following what he does. In the same manner, many Buddhists, many Hindus (i.e. Aishwariya Rai- know her?) and Muslims such as the Taliban (more extreme Deobandi sect) are ardently sincere to their last drop of blood on their chosen belief. If it didnt make complete sense to them, they wouldnt be!
A believer of any way/thought/perspective/religion/ethical and cultural practises cannot overlook outside his/her belief to see your view and thus reply while still in it. This means blaspheme, and results in it too. Obviously this is not the same perspective you take, thus "being in someone elses shoes" scenario is never applicable here.
I have at one stage, asked a similar line of questions to you, deep inside my heart. I studied the religions, well, for long...to see all the views all around the world today and of the past. The biggest and toughest obstacle for "anyone" is to become "objective". This very rarely happens.
I have to ask you a question and it maybe answer your question/s.
Could it be that the people of the past, DID actually judge on these ways, i.e. the moral and lifely principles that you are stating we would have to if following this specific interpretive Biblical "Gods" example?
The people most of the present mankind, see as barbaric, closer to cavemen in attributes, knowledge, lifestyles, intelligence, moral and characteristics, (not my view) could they not "have been" that way in judgement, teaching their young or elder, and in societies? i.e. committed an obvious wrong, and you suffer the punishment/consequence/s. After all, every basic infrastructure of present life, social structure, functioning, ways of speech, judgments, as well as nurture and residential habitats are "COMPLETELY" different to those of 2000years ago or beyond.
Could it not be as time/people have changed so has everything else, including what "works" with humans, as in how to teach/warn them?
I would like to make a comparison, between the people of "modern times (1900's+)" and the people of "older times(pre-1000AD/CE)" as that of Satan and Adam. The poeple of elder times seeming very simple in manners to us, and less intelligent, truer and less deceptive, thus gullible to our creativity in deceit and craftiness.
This is very lengthy, time is needed to reflect, personal time for a person which could be years, until the right stimulation or information hits triggers one along.
But I will provide you a view. Consider, if God knew everything, past and present, is the first and last, and has the ultimate say, choice and power over/in everything... if He willed for you (His creation) "NOT" to know something or "not" to be able to do something, could you ever know no matter if you destroyed all the Earth?
You know the answer, simply never.
Secondly if God knew what is "right" and "wrong" (all-knowledgable), then Him being PERFECTLY right, obviously HE'd know the wrong unambigiously, much above anythings intelligence and clarity, put together...dont you think?
Nice to see manners/sincerity from people (some) on this forum for a change.
Thanks.
Okay, I certainly didn't want to get into this discussion, but I cannot resist commenting on this one thing (and I can't believe I missed it the last time I read this verse):
QUOTE (Newguy+)
You're seemingly familiar with Eve's "curse"...have you never read what God said to "the serpent"?
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."(Genesis 3:15)
First of all, Satan has "seed" or many children.
So Satan has offspring? Do you think what's being referred to are those who merely choose to "follow" Satan, or should this be read literally to indicate that there are truly demon-human hybrids existing on the Earth? Just curious.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."(Genesis 3:15)
First of all, Satan has "seed" or many children.
So Satan has offspring? Do you think what's being referred to are those who merely choose to "follow" Satan, or should this be read literally to indicate that there are truly demon-human hybrids existing on the Earth? Just curious.
QUOTE (sinned34+)
So Satan has offspring? Do you think what's being referred to are those who merely choose to "follow" Satan, or should this be read literally to indicate that there are truly demon-human hybrids existing on the Earth? Just curious.
sinned34: Well, since I'm "stuck" here until the UPS guy arrives...Satan's "seed" are those who merely choose to "follow" Satan as the following verses would indicate:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."(John 8:44)
That was Jesus speaking to religious MEN.
"Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil..."(Matthew 13:36-39)
Again, if you read the entire parable, the children of "the wicked one" or "the devil" are MEN.
"Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous."(I John 3:12)
Cain was obviously a MAN. Anyhow, I trust those examples will suffice. Oh, by the way, feel free to stick around in this discussion. Talk to you later.
sinned34: Well, since I'm "stuck" here until the UPS guy arrives...Satan's "seed" are those who merely choose to "follow" Satan as the following verses would indicate:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."(John 8:44)
That was Jesus speaking to religious MEN.
"Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil..."(Matthew 13:36-39)
Again, if you read the entire parable, the children of "the wicked one" or "the devil" are MEN.
"Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous."(I John 3:12)
Cain was obviously a MAN. Anyhow, I trust those examples will suffice. Oh, by the way, feel free to stick around in this discussion. Talk to you later.
QUOTE (bang4thebuck+)
A believer of any way/thought/perspective/religion/ethical and cultural practises cannot overlook outside his/her belief to see your view and thus reply while still in it. This means blaspheme, and results in it too. Obviously this is not the same perspective you take, thus "being in someone elses shoes" scenario is never applicable here.
bang4thebuck: I'm waiting for a package and then I have to run, so I'll be brief. Did you get a "broad brush" for Christmas too? I can't speak for others(unlike you), but I can certainly see "outside the box". Remember, I've been on "both sides of the fence". The first 27 years of my life were completely different than the last 17+ years. If anything, I have more "experience" on the "other side of the fence" than I do on the "side of the fence" that I presently occupy. Anyhow, I've got to get ready to go. I'll pick this up in a couple of days. Until then...
bang4thebuck: I'm waiting for a package and then I have to run, so I'll be brief. Did you get a "broad brush" for Christmas too? I can't speak for others(unlike you), but I can certainly see "outside the box". Remember, I've been on "both sides of the fence". The first 27 years of my life were completely different than the last 17+ years. If anything, I have more "experience" on the "other side of the fence" than I do on the "side of the fence" that I presently occupy. Anyhow, I've got to get ready to go. I'll pick this up in a couple of days. Until then...
QUOTE (newguy+Jun 28 2006, 06:47 PM)
QUOTE (bang4thebuck+)
A believer of any way/thought/perspective/religion/ethical and cultural practises cannot overlook outside his/her belief to see your view and thus reply while still in it. This means blaspheme, and results in it too. Obviously this is not the same perspective you take, thus "being in someone elses shoes" scenario is never applicable here.
bang4thebuck: I'm waiting for a package and then I have to run, so I'll be brief. Did you get a "broad brush" for Christmas too? I can't speak for others(unlike you), but I can certainly see "outside the box". Remember, I've been on "both sides of the fence". The first 27 years of my life were completely different than the last 17+ years. If anything, I have more "experience" on the "other side of the fence" than I do on the "side of the fence" that I presently occupy. Anyhow, I've got to get ready to go. I'll pick this up in a couple of days. Until then...
Newguy:
What I got for Christmas whether literal or figurative, is irrelevant here.
As for the point I made, which you commented on....its not aimed at you, but a simple fact.
If you dont believe that, then do what is antagonistic to it, i.e. do what is blaspheme in your beliefs. I hear never, well exactly my point.
You, at this present time, look through your present knolwedge and your belief, rather than the view/mind when you were in your past "other-sided" life.
To look through them "eyes", fully, objectively, you have to believe the old beliefs again and live a life as that was, simple. There is a degree of psychology you cannot get past to "objectively" see both sides. Anyone in belief will only pull to their own belief, but a disbeliever or a hypocrite in it. Yes, you can know certain amounts, from memory, but then again, only what you saw, not what others saw/felt even at that time, while on "the other side".
If thats not true, answer me this question. Can you see and understand what I feel/ see and understand about God, through my eyes, a disbeliever in Christianity? or explain this?
Until then...I'll await your complete response...
Thanks
bang4thebuck: I'm waiting for a package and then I have to run, so I'll be brief. Did you get a "broad brush" for Christmas too? I can't speak for others(unlike you), but I can certainly see "outside the box". Remember, I've been on "both sides of the fence". The first 27 years of my life were completely different than the last 17+ years. If anything, I have more "experience" on the "other side of the fence" than I do on the "side of the fence" that I presently occupy. Anyhow, I've got to get ready to go. I'll pick this up in a couple of days. Until then...
Newguy:
What I got for Christmas whether literal or figurative, is irrelevant here.
As for the point I made, which you commented on....its not aimed at you, but a simple fact.
If you dont believe that, then do what is antagonistic to it, i.e. do what is blaspheme in your beliefs. I hear never, well exactly my point.
You, at this present time, look through your present knolwedge and your belief, rather than the view/mind when you were in your past "other-sided" life.
To look through them "eyes", fully, objectively, you have to believe the old beliefs again and live a life as that was, simple. There is a degree of psychology you cannot get past to "objectively" see both sides. Anyone in belief will only pull to their own belief, but a disbeliever or a hypocrite in it. Yes, you can know certain amounts, from memory, but then again, only what you saw, not what others saw/felt even at that time, while on "the other side".
If thats not true, answer me this question. Can you see and understand what I feel/ see and understand about God, through my eyes, a disbeliever in Christianity? or explain this?
Until then...I'll await your complete response...
Thanks
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jun 26 2006, 04:03 AM)
Gods that claim to have created everything & claim to be morally lofty -- are incoherent.
yfh:
Your post on this matter are always interesting to say the least. Btw, Im formerly k.a. TruthHURTS here. I have some questions for you or anyone with a similar view/belief as you, if you woudl answer.
Gods are incoherent....any explanation? I'm genuinely interested.
yfh:
Your post on this matter are always interesting to say the least. Btw, Im formerly k.a. TruthHURTS here. I have some questions for you or anyone with a similar view/belief as you, if you woudl answer.
Gods are incoherent....any explanation? I'm genuinely interested.
QUOTE (yfh+)
There are many gods. But creationism is a sham!
The gods evolved, just like us!
Care to explain how/why you say so?
The gods evolved, just like us!
Care to explain how/why you say so?
QUOTE (yfh+)
I would also like to add, that books such as the bible -- have done great damage to the human mind!
Monotheism is a lie.
What is the damage you are referring to?
Why is monotheism a lie?
Monotheism is a lie.
What is the damage you are referring to?
Why is monotheism a lie?
QUOTE (yfh+)
Today people expect judgment, class distinction and petty things from the gods. People fear, hate and scoff and the gods.
Didnt quite understand this...can you clarify further?
Thanks
Didnt quite understand this...can you clarify further?
Thanks
QUOTE (Newguy+)
Well, since I'm "stuck" here until the UPS guy arrives...Satan's "seed" are those who merely choose to "follow" Satan as the following verses would indicate:
That's what I figured. Though the bible does talk about demons copulating with human women, creating a race of giants, does it not? Who knew that angels had DNA compatible with humans? If I wanted to pretend to be Dad1, I could even state that the Nephilim (I think that was their name) were what we now call Neanderthals or some other close relative of humans on the evolutionary tree and claim it as more biblical foreknowledge of evolution or early human history!
That's what I figured. Though the bible does talk about demons copulating with human women, creating a race of giants, does it not? Who knew that angels had DNA compatible with humans? If I wanted to pretend to be Dad1, I could even state that the Nephilim (I think that was their name) were what we now call Neanderthals or some other close relative of humans on the evolutionary tree and claim it as more biblical foreknowledge of evolution or early human history!
QUOTE (Newguy+)
Oh, by the way, feel free to stick around in this discussion.
I try to read most discussions here when time permits, but I usually only comment when I feel I have something to add to the conversation.
I try to read most discussions here when time permits, but I usually only comment when I feel I have something to add to the conversation.
Superstition, god and religion
(From a 2001 item I posted elsewhere...)
(A) Superstition per Webster: (a) belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation;(b)an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition; © a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.
(B) The above (b)Webster definition, that superstition is also an irrational abject attitude toward God, implies that either the writer of the Webster definition or, otherwise, every believer in God, displays superstition.
© God and religion, like each and every other human cultural matter, are products of the overactive feverish human brain.... Or, maybe God is realy there, watching us, as you might conclude from the following two testaments, one related from a Catholic and another from a Jewish lore :
1.
Priest and nun are out on a beautiful clear day, playing golf. At a crucial strike for him he swings the club and misses, and cries out "O, ***!".
The nun is shocked; "Father", she says, "that you should use such language?!".
"You are right, my daughter" says he, "if I ever say that again let a lightning strike me dead!".
As they go on playing he misses another one but refrains himself, and again another one and again refrains himself. At the third miss he can't hold it and cries out "O, ***!".
And lo and behold, a lightning sizzles from the clear sky and strikes the nun dead.
He looks at the dead nun, spreads his arms heavenward and cries out "Why, God ?! It was I who said it, not she !".
And the sky opened up, and a deep low voice rumbled out " O , *** !!!".
2.
Jewish Grandma and her 5-yr old grandson are at the beach on a beautiful clear day. She sits on a shaded beach-chair at a safe distance from the water, watching the boy playing in the water.
Suddenly, out of no-where, a big wave rolls onto the beach and back into the water. She realizes, very upset, that the boy is gone.
She spreads her arms heavenward and cries out "Why, God ?! Have'nt I always been a good Jewish mother and grandmother? Is this how you reward me?"
And a big wave rolled again onto the beach and back and the child was playing again in the water unaware of what just happened and the sky opened up and God's voice rumbled : "OK. Are you satisfied now ?"
And grandma took a look at the child and replied " He had a hat !"
(From a 2001 item I posted elsewhere...)
(A) Superstition per Webster: (a) belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation;(b)an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition; © a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.
(B) The above (b)Webster definition, that superstition is also an irrational abject attitude toward God, implies that either the writer of the Webster definition or, otherwise, every believer in God, displays superstition.
© God and religion, like each and every other human cultural matter, are products of the overactive feverish human brain.... Or, maybe God is realy there, watching us, as you might conclude from the following two testaments, one related from a Catholic and another from a Jewish lore :
1.
Priest and nun are out on a beautiful clear day, playing golf. At a crucial strike for him he swings the club and misses, and cries out "O, ***!".
The nun is shocked; "Father", she says, "that you should use such language?!".
"You are right, my daughter" says he, "if I ever say that again let a lightning strike me dead!".
As they go on playing he misses another one but refrains himself, and again another one and again refrains himself. At the third miss he can't hold it and cries out "O, ***!".
And lo and behold, a lightning sizzles from the clear sky and strikes the nun dead.
He looks at the dead nun, spreads his arms heavenward and cries out "Why, God ?! It was I who said it, not she !".
And the sky opened up, and a deep low voice rumbled out " O , *** !!!".
2.
Jewish Grandma and her 5-yr old grandson are at the beach on a beautiful clear day. She sits on a shaded beach-chair at a safe distance from the water, watching the boy playing in the water.
Suddenly, out of no-where, a big wave rolls onto the beach and back into the water. She realizes, very upset, that the boy is gone.
She spreads her arms heavenward and cries out "Why, God ?! Have'nt I always been a good Jewish mother and grandmother? Is this how you reward me?"
And a big wave rolled again onto the beach and back and the child was playing again in the water unaware of what just happened and the sky opened up and God's voice rumbled : "OK. Are you satisfied now ?"
And grandma took a look at the child and replied " He had a hat !"
A being that created something so complex as a universe would itself be of greater complexity than his/her/its creation.The problem here is with the principle of causality.Is this principle universal in the sense that all things must be creadted?
So, was the creator created,and if not for what reason do we abandon the principle of universal causality.Do we now have a paradox?
The creator created a universe,but what did he/she/it do for the interval before creation?
Ultimately the whole creation issue is a reductio ad absurdum when we look at it through a necessary causality.
So, was the creator created,and if not for what reason do we abandon the principle of universal causality.Do we now have a paradox?
The creator created a universe,but what did he/she/it do for the interval before creation?
Ultimately the whole creation issue is a reductio ad absurdum when we look at it through a necessary causality.
God is not created. He is the Uncreated Creating.
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 2 2006, 02:08 AM)
God is not created. He is the Uncreated Creating.
If a being did not require cause to exist, then it would be beyond cause-and-effect.
Once you do not need a system, you will most likely not care about it, thus not do anything with/to it -- but at the same time "he" "created" things? For what reason? Just for fun? That's not exactly a logical motive.
"Fun"/play/art -- each of these are driven by natural instincts which we evolved due to our origins within cause and effect.
A transcendent, all-mighty, all-knowing, "being" might as well not even exist at all, as it has no real reason to care about anything that exists.
How much do you care about a bacteria?
It's too small and short lived to even notice.
The same applies to a planet in our vast, VAST universe -- when compared to someone supposedly beyond our entire universe.
The creationist god is simply too big to care about anyone or anything on earth.
~
There are lower god forms which do care about earth, but they did not "create" earth, and they are obviously not all-powerful.
If a being did not require cause to exist, then it would be beyond cause-and-effect.
Once you do not need a system, you will most likely not care about it, thus not do anything with/to it -- but at the same time "he" "created" things? For what reason? Just for fun? That's not exactly a logical motive.
"Fun"/play/art -- each of these are driven by natural instincts which we evolved due to our origins within cause and effect.
A transcendent, all-mighty, all-knowing, "being" might as well not even exist at all, as it has no real reason to care about anything that exists.
How much do you care about a bacteria?
It's too small and short lived to even notice.
The same applies to a planet in our vast, VAST universe -- when compared to someone supposedly beyond our entire universe.
The creationist god is simply too big to care about anyone or anything on earth.
~
There are lower god forms which do care about earth, but they did not "create" earth, and they are obviously not all-powerful.
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 2 2006, 02:08 AM)
God is not created. He is the Uncreated Creating.
Another lie to justify the first lie.
Another lie to justify the first lie.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.