Jump to content

God? Part 2


Warrior381
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But then, surely, any non-Christian thinking on your part, up to and including the Kabbalah would be "dangerous"? I think you have it right when you say that you assess what you see and have drawn your own conclusions.

You are on target with that assessment. I could only imagine what the priests would say if they knew what I was up too. I do respect the "fathers" for many reasons and admire their strength of faith. The church I attend(ed) is a very spiritual place. A haven of peace and tranquility from the chaos todays world. A man dropped his wallet on the floor in the chapel, and darned if that wallet was still there on the following sunday. You dont see that too often.

 

Can you find one cite from an Indian tribe that affirms that they are the decendents of the Lamanites? Or that Jesus preached to them?

Haven't looked for the Lamanites, but as far as Jesus preaching to the various tribes, I put that in a previous post. My in-law's are Native Americans.

 

Is that really what you take as proof of his divinity? That he did good and had followers? Would that not also make, say, Ghandi the son of God?

God would certainly be capable of spreading His word through many people of different cultures. The importance of Jesus was the sacrifice jesus made for all of humanity, to remove the sentence of death placed on us by the actions of Adam and Eve.

 

Well, I'm vegetarian, so I wouldn't know.

Just started learning tofu recipes and all. What a difference in energy levels from a vegetarian meal in comparison to a hefty cut of beef.

 

Have you considered the possibility that the God as described in the Bible simply doesn't exist?

That is a loaded question, Trollface. On one hand I "know" God exists, whether He exists as described in the modern bible, I have my doubts.

 

In the local area here, there is a man named Dr. Gene Scott. I will put his link in here and you may find it interseting. He has an in depth knowldge on translating many ancient languages used in biblical writings and makes comparisons frequently.

 

www.drgenescott.com

 

Nicknack, you will love this guy!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the local area here, there is a man named Dr. Gene Scott. I will put his link in here and you may find it interseting. He has an in depth knowldge on translating many ancient languages used in biblical writings and makes comparisons frequently.

Dr. Scott is a fascinating lecturer on scripture and translation. One of his best quotes that aligns with my feelings on science and spirituality is: "It is so stupid to try and see a conflict between science and the Bible." This was in his discussion of Genesis 1. He was referring to the ridiculous thought of man with regard to our "proof" of carbon dating. If God created the entire universe from nothing, what's to say He did not purposefully place various conflicting forms of carbon dating evidence in the earth. As if God was saying "let's see these people scurrying around trying to figure out how it all came about."

 

A thought-provoking speaker, with a great sense of humor! :)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are on target with that assessment. I could only imagine what the priests would say if they knew what I was up too.

In which case, I can't understand why you're worried about not agreeing with certain specific descriptions of God's actions in the Bible. You've already done enough to incur these people's displeasure, and surely the Church is just the mechanism, the relationship you have with God is the important thing?

 

A man dropped his wallet on the floor in the chapel, and darned if that wallet was still there on the following sunday. You dont see that too often.

Hmm, did you see that for yourself? It seems to me that the logical thing to happen would be for the preist to have picked the wallet up and to have put it somewhere safe, with a notice put up telling the owner to come and claim it.

 

Haven't looked for the Lamanites, but as far as Jesus preaching to the various tribes, I put that in a previous post.

I don't see any cites in your previous posts.

 

God would certainly be capable of spreading His word through many people of different cultures. The importance of Jesus was the sacrifice jesus made for all of humanity, to remove the sentence of death placed on us by the actions of Adam and Eve.

Does this mean that you agree that Jesus merely preaching love to people and having followers is not enough to mark him as the son of God?

 

That is a loaded question, Trollface.

It honestly wasn't meant as such.

 

On one hand I "know" God exists, whether He exists as described in the modern bible, I have my doubts.

That's the question I was asking.

 

I'll look at that link when I have more time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the Bible does not say that man was created immortal. It does say, however, that God was worried that Adam and Eve would eat of the Tree Of Life and would therefore become immortal. Genesis 3:22. Adam and Eve were not created immortal, according to the Bible itself.

 

I think the whole idea that Adam and Eve were created immortal was actually concieved to explain away the fact that God lied and the serpent did not.

Why would God be worried? He planted the tree there, why would he be so afraid they would eat the Fruit if he planted the TREE that. And, even though they ate the fruit they were not mortal. Tell me why is it so worrying for God?

 

Yeah. So it's a lie. A lie that is reality now, a world full of evil. So, your saying God lied to them so that the world would be like this. Illogical.

 

It is interesting that people base their faith that God loves them on the word of God, isn't it? I wonder if God sold anyone any bridges?

Obviously faith varies in every individual. Apparently, it is not uniform as you think it is.

 

And do you think the punishment was fair, loving and proportionate to the crime? Is it fair to kill your child because s/he looked in the attic when you've told them not to (not to mention inflicting untold pain and torture on them and all their children for thousands of years)?

God did not kill them. He simply threw them out of the Garden of Eden and they had to suffer, feel pain and sadness and death. Your arguement is simply narrow minded. God did not kill them or torture them. Neither did he eradicate them in any way that might seem inhumane.

 

I think Jesus was an amazingly forward thinker for his time and has been an amazing power of good in the world, and it's a shame that people have twisted his words to evil ends. But that hardly makes him the son of God, now, does it?

So tell me, what did he say? He did not commit any evil, he did not force people to believe, neither did he make them participate in mass homicides as so we see modern 'messiahs' proclaim today. He never forced anyone, he never did resist at all didn't he? So why is he an evil man? Do you see modern christians killing each other for no reason because they claimed Jesus in the Bible told them to? That is what you are saying, technically.

 

Did you even read what I said, or was this a knee-jerk reaction to seeing me reply? I said that I believe that Jesus existed.

You do know this answer is directed to the masses and not you alone.

 

I think you need to look up the definition of the word "theist".

I understand the concept of theist. I'm not a theist as by simply being an individual who believes there is a god or gods. But by a religion known as Christianity.

 

I already disbelieve in a God. So I should not be called an agnostic, because I already know what I believe.

Simply altering my words to contradict each other isn't contradiction as it is.

 

atheist: one who believes that there is no deity.

 

You cannot dogmatically stand by this position because you cannot prove it.

 

Moreover, many people believe in a God and can prove it not by hard science, but by experiences and other theories.

 

What has this to do with anything I've said in this thread? what has it got to do with the quote of mine you were replying to?

You said you do not believe in a God, so you believe that no God created the univerise. Judging by this, you would have to believe the universe came about randomly or rather what we know as the chaos theory.

 

Well, read the bits of the post where I explained just that. Good Lord, why reply to my posts if you've not even taken the time to read them?

And so I have replied. Perhaps you did not notice my replies. In fact your posts make no sense. It is simply trying to contradict all my statements and otherwise, lead to nowhere in this discussion.

 

Can you quote me the bit of scripture that says this?

It is not by scripture, but you do understand God created Man perfect in its form, and so were the angels. You would have to understand that after they left Eden, they had to face 'death', 'pain' and 'sadness'. Thus death was nowhere implemented in Eden. God created Man to love him.

 

Maybe he knew the consequences? Maybe he already knew the difference between good and evil?

So tell me how would the serpent know unless it ate the fruit? If he knew Good and Evil why would it want to implicate Adam and Eve. Furthermore, IF it knew the consequences, why did he do it? If it knew it would be punished, why did it do it? Oh, did it forget God was omniscent. How stupid.

 

No, it's like your mother warning you to stay away from the marsh but you play there anyway and when you get home she tortures you and then kills you.

And what does this imply?

 

I also think you need to look up the word "ethnic" in the dictionary.

Spelling error. "Ethical" is the correction.

 

I didn't say it was wrong, I said that the way that the Bible tells that particular story, God comes accross as the bad guy, and the Serpent as the good guy.

So tell me, if God wanted the world to know about the Bible. Why would he make it be written that he was the bad guy instead of the serpent. If the serpent was good, why did it deceive Adam and Eve? He told them a lie. God did not. God warned them. They were warned but they did not need it.

 

Look how He treated poor Job.

Poor Job, but he kept his faith in God. God isn't there 24/7 to give you a good life all the time. It defeats the purpose of faith. In the end, Job went to heaven anyway.

 

you'll probably say that I'm not interpreting them right or that the real meaning of the text was lost in translation.

I say as such. But I do provide my own point-of-views to support my claims. But as from these contradictions I've seen in the site. I do not know how to explain them. I am by far, no professional in the Scriptures. However, you do know when the Bible was translated from the Hebrew version, all of it wasn't exactly directly translated. It included the word of God + politics.

 

"bercause I'd say that because I do not believe in God, I understand Him better than you do."

It is not only illogical. It contradicts what you believe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sentence is illogical.

No, it's not. I think I understand Him better than those who do believe in him, because I understand that he is nothing but a human construct because we are afraid of dying and of being unloved. And because we cannot concieve the idea that this is all pointless.

 

But if you think it is true, then why do you capitalize Him?

Partly out of convention, but mainly because I respect the beliefs of those who do and I don't wish to cause offense. It's just common courtesy. While I will question other people's beliefs, I would not want to appear to be mocking them, which I think omitting the capitals might be seen as.

 

In addition, you did not answer my question from two posts ago. Did you plan to?

You're right, sorry. In my honest opinion, given how little we actually know about each person, the main difference between Koresh and Jesus is the times they were born in, the superstitiousness of the ages and the advances in communication technology between their times. Differences in circumstances like that.

 

This said, I would like it known that I don't actually know what Koresh's creed was. From what I do know, however, he also preached love, peace and respect.

 

nicknack said:

 

Illogical.

Again, I agree. It's far from the only bit of illogic in the Bible, too. But the fact remains that that is how the story goes.

 

Apparently, it is not uniform as you think it is.

I don't think it's uniform, but the majority of Christians will tell you that they know that God loves them, because it says so in the Bible. And they know the Bible is true because it is the word of God. Can you not see the flaw in that logic?

 

He simply threw them out of the Garden of Eden and they had to suffer, feel pain and sadness and death.

So Mason Verger throwing men to be eaten alive by the pigs didn't kill them? It was the pigs that did the killing, and Verger bears none of the culpability? I don't see your logic. Either they were not born mortal and would have died anyway, or God caused them to die. Either they would have suffered anyway, or God caused them to suffer.

 

So why is he an evil man?

At no point have I even implied this. Please quote me what I have said to give you that impression.

 

Do you see modern christians killing each other for no reason because they claimed Jesus in the Bible told them to?

Ever heard of Northern Ireland? It happens on an almost daily basis.

 

I'm not a theist as by simply being an individual who believes there is a god or gods.

Yes you are. That's the definition of the word.

 

atheist: one who believes that there is no deity.

 

You cannot dogmatically stand by this position because you cannot prove it.

In which case you cannot dogmatically stand by your position that there is a God because you can't prove that, either.

 

Moreover, many people believe in a God and can prove it not by hard science, but by experiences and other theories.

Experiences are not proof. Ask the police how reliable eyewitness testimony is. Ask a mentallist. and theories are exactly that, theories, not proof.

 

Judging by this, you would have to believe the universe came about randomly or rather what we know as the chaos theory.

Well, thank you for telling me what I think. You are wrong.

 

And so I have replied.

Yes. The problem is that you didn't read the post first.

 

In fact your posts make no sense.

They do if you read them.

 

It is not by scripture[...]

But we are discussing what scripture says about the story of the Garden Of Eden. You cannot claim that the story says something other than what it says and then offer up something that it doesn't say at all as proof that it actually says something different.

 

So tell me how would the serpent know unless it ate the fruit?

Who says it didn't?

 

If he knew Good and Evil why would it want to implicate Adam and Eve.

I don't know. I'm not the Serpent. I don't pretend to know everybody's motives for anything. Why did Bud Dwyer shoot himself at a press conference? I don't know. And neither do you.

 

Furthermore, IF it knew the consequences, why did he do it? If it knew it would be punished, why did it do it? Oh, did it forget God was omniscent. How stupid.

We're talking about the same entity that rebelled against God and started a war in heaven, was cast out and set to rule over the domain of Hell. Why did he do that?

 

And what does this imply?

That my mother is an unnecessarily cruel and vengeful woman.

 

Spelling error. "Ethical" is the correction.

Okay, but it still dopesn't make sense. Why would it not be ethical for a skeptic to point out flaws he sees in the Bible? Why would it not be ethical for a skeptic to be skeptic about the Bible? In fact, what have ethics got to do with it at all?

 

So tell me, if God wanted the world to know about the Bible. Why would he make it be written that he was the bad guy instead of the serpent.

Well, my hypothesis is that God doesn't exist.

 

If the serpent was good, why did it deceive Adam and Eve? He told them a lie.

Can you quote me the scripture where the Serpent tells the lie and God tells the truth about the tree, please? I've quoted you the scripture where God lies and the Serpent tells the truth.

 

God isn't there 24/7 to give you a good life all the time.

But it seems he will take pleasure in randomly making your life miserable for a bet.

 

It is not only illogical. It contradicts what you believe.

It contradicts nothing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many people believe in a God and can prove it not by hard science, but by experiences and other theories.

If it is by "experiences and other theories" then they CANNOT prove it. You cannot prove to me there is a God because you had an experience.

 

Also, I read an interesting article (in either Time or Mcleans, I can't remember which) on how archeologists believe much of the Old Testament did not happen. They believe that Exodus did not in fact happen. There is no archeological evidence of a large mass of people crossing the desert and leaving Eqypt in this time, nor are there any recorded historical records of this happening. This is significant because the Egyptians kept very accurate records of border events in this time.

 

Also, there is historically no kings named Solomon or David that ruled any significant kingdom in this era. There was more but I cannot remember it all, I will try to find the magazine since I don't think that I threw it out.

 

What I am trying to say is that these stories are obviously heavily distorted over time or plain false, using any of it to argue one way or the other appears pointless.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And because we cannot concieve the idea that this is all pointless."

 

Opinion. Perhaps your level of awareness is so low that you cannot conceive the point to life. Equally as possible as your theory, I'm afraid.

 

"I would not want to appear to be mocking them"

 

I've witnessed you mocking several people here. What is your criteria for making this decision?

 

"the main difference between Koresh and Jesus is the times they were born in, the superstitiousness of the ages and the advances in communication technology between their times. Differences in circumstances like that."

 

The main difference is not in circumstances, but in their actions. Christ gave his own life and did not demand the same of his followers. Koresh demanded that others die with them. Big difference, with little relationship to their circumstances.

 

"From what I do know, however, he also preached love, peace and respect."

 

So much so that he demanded his followers, many of them women and children, die with him. Do you believe he meant what he preached by the actions he took? "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him." (Titus 1:16) You claim to know God, but by your actions you deny Him.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion.

Yes. That's why I said "I think".

 

've witnessed you mocking several people here.

I've mocked people's reasoning, sure. Not their religious beliefs.

 

Koresh demanded that others die with them.

That's not the version of events I've seen reported.

 

You claim to know God, but by your actions you deny Him.

Well, almost. I claim that my belief is that I know how and why Man created God.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole idea that Adam and Eve were created immortal was actually concieved to explain away the fact that God lied and the serpent did not.

Good question, maybe you should do some in depth research to find out what was really written.

 

And do you think the punishment was fair, loving and proportionate to the crime? Is it fair to kill your child because s/he looked in the attic when you've told them not to (not to mention inflicting untold pain and torture on them and all their children for thousands of years)?

God is God. God can do anything God wants to do.

 

He said that Jesus was a Prophet but not the son of God.

Jesus was resurrected from death. Mohammed was not.

 

I don't have a God and can therefore act exacly as I please.

Do you really think so?

 

the Serpent as the good guy.

Anton LaVey thought so too.

 

But why? Is it because you've already determined what is true and you find that questioning it makes you uncomfortable? How can it be dangerous to look at something as objectively and as rationally as possible? Especially the Bible. The Bible was written by man. Most religions that base their teachings off of it wholly or partially do not claim it to be the inerrant word of God, unlike, say, Moslems with the Koran. That man could have got somthing wrong or put his own spin on it for whatever political reasons is not unreasonable, is it? After all, it's not like man has never twisted religious teachings for their own ends, is it? And, if you were to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then what is your opinion on the Apocripha? Which Church do you allow to tell you which books are valid and which aren't?

I have a deep respect for the priests of the Church that I grew up with, and the ones I knew/know are very well educated and do provide strength and wisdom. I dont like to think that I am dissappointing them, I do care for them, as they for me.

 

We did get into a conversation regarding the Kabballh and the Father I was speaking with did not claim the information in it as being false. His comment still echoes within me to this day; "Indeed The Kabbalah was taught by Angels to Man and it was the knowledge of God. He also mentioned that I left out two very important words. "Fallen" Angels, and "forbidden" knowledge."

 

I respect his words and have considered them carefully, and he may be correct, but since I follow my own path, I will take all that I have learned and what I have discovered essential for my journey to be true...for my path and my path alone.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question, maybe you should do some in depth research to find out what was really written.

You know, you're right. I've only had a few hours sleep, but I've got some free time today. I might just do that.

 

God is God. God can do anything God wants to do.

That wasn't he question. The question was do you think the punishment was fair, loving and proportionate to the crime? Do you think it's indicative of a God who "is love"? Because I tell you what, in my opinion, God in the Old Testament often comes accross as a spoiled, jealous and stroppy teenager.

 

Jesus was resurrected from death.

Some say he was. Others say he wasn't. Some say that public swimming pools have a chemical that turns purple in the presense of urine, that if you eat Pop Rocks and drink Coke that your stomach will explode, that we only use 10% of our brains and that hair and fingernails grow after you've died. I believe there's a fair bit of myth attached to the man. Certainly, other than the Bible (which is hardly unbiased), there is no documented evidence of this whatsoever.

 

Do you really think so?

Yes, absolutely.

 

Anton LaVey thought so too.

And Mr. LaVey had a point or two. People get hung up on the fact that he called the religion he founded "Satanism", and fail to look at the fact that it has little to do with Satan and is actually a benevolant religion (a more apt name might be "consiencious hedonism", maybe). I think that LaVey did a good job of having a laugh. A lot of what people believe about him (and the Church of Satan) was put about by himself deliberately to make himself a mythological being. He also pretty much founded the Church to give him license (and the ability) to freely take all manner of drugs and sleep with women. Oh, and he called the Church what he did simply to wind people up. 7 years after his death it looks as though he's still succeeding.

 

In a way you have to admire that for sheer audacity (and the fact that he succeeded so well). What he was not, really, was a sinister figure.

 

I have a deep respect for the priests of the Church that I grew up with, and the ones I knew/know are very well educated and do provide strength and wisdom.

Absolutely. don't get me wrong, I may be critical of religion in general. I'm more critical of organised religion. However, that is not to say that I see no value there, nor that there is nothing there that I can respect. There's certainly many religious people I respect.

 

It may surprise you to know, for example, that I've gone to religious festivals and sat down and had long conversations with monks. I may be dismissive of the beliefs, but people are people and should be judged as such.

 

I dont like to think that I am dissappointing them, I do care for them, as they for me.

I understand that. But, as you (quite rightly, in my opinion) say, you do follow your own path in any case. I think that is your greatest strength - you have independantly thought about what you believe and have gone your own way, regardless of what others would tell you to believe. My point is that as you have already strayed from the path that these preists follow, then why should you not question the Bible too? If you beleive something that one of these preists has said is the work of fallen angels, then what harm is questioning the written word of Man going to do? I'm not saying you should discount or disrespect the beliefs of these people, I'm merely saying that you should not believe what the Bible says to be true merely because these preists do. If you look at the Bible and believe that every word of it is the true word of God, then more power to you. Good for you. But if you refuse to look at it because you're afraid of how others might percieve you, then that's not so good.

 

You must be so proud. Give yourself a gold star!

I don't conduct myself for the approval of others, I merely act as I see fit. I assess each situation as I see it and act accordingly. Some things I feel comfortable doing and others I don't. Mocking people's religious beliefs is something I don't feel comfortable doing. I don't care how that makes me look to you or anyone else, after all, I am the only person I'm ever going to have to spend 100% of my life with. As long as I'm happy with the way I conduct myself, then that's all that matters.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not. I think I understand Him better than those who do believe in him, because I understand that he is nothing but a human construct because we are afraid of dying and of being unloved. And because we cannot concieve the idea that this is all pointless.

So you are saying the aspect of God only seperates between the believers and unbelievers. I am born a christian and I went to church for a decade only to be an unbeliever for 2 years until recently. What you are saying is dangerous because you cannot simply say such things. Have you talked to a pastor before?

 

don't think it's uniform, but the majority of Christians will tell you that they know that God loves them, because it says so in the Bible. And they know the Bible is true because it is the word of God. Can you not see the flaw in that logic?

Apart from being perfect, he has created a feeling of love in us. He gave us life and taught us to love. Who can love us, better than anybody else? God created people, and yet people despise him. In a way, we are like A.I gone bad. If A.I had free will and consciousness, the outcome would be pretty negative. Even machines cant be perfect. The fact that I wrote that Bible has been fully passed down for these few milleniums show that the Bible has stayed strong and was never lost despite many powerful people who tried to destroy it. This is good enough to say that something up there does not want the Bible to be destroyed.

 

So Mason Verger throwing men to be eaten alive by the pigs didn't kill them? It was the pigs that did the killing, and Verger bears none of the culpability? I don't see your logic. Either they were not born mortal and would have died anyway, or God caused them to die. Either they would have suffered anyway, or God caused them to suffer.

I don't see your point either. You don't see that God didn't cause their suffering, a ton of explanation wouldn't help. I would repeat it one more time, THEY (Adam and Eve), caused their own suffering for EATING the FRUIT, DESPITE a STRICT WARNING FROM GOD. SO, GOD did not cause them to SUFFER or DIE.

 

Ever heard of Northern Ireland? It happens on an almost daily basis.

Do you see their purpose to fight? Do they fight in the name of Jesus, saying that they are fighting for their religion, or rather political purposes? People fight, people have war not because they want to. But it's only human nature to be greedy and selfish. You don't see bishops or pastors telling people to fight them because their religion is being insulted.

 

Ever heard of Northern Ireland? It happens on an almost daily basis.

Technically I am, but in the case of the groups of religion, I prefer to be called a Christian because I believe in God. Period. No point debating on this.

 

In which case you cannot dogmatically stand by your position that there is a God because you can't prove that, either.

Yes. You are right. I cannot prove it. But in which case, would which position stand stronger? The possibility of a higher being in existence is more likely than none. I don't see why millions can believe in ET's and NOT God, simply because their technology is seemingly advanced just because they have 'spaceships'?

 

Experiences are not proof. Ask the police how reliable eyewitness testimony is. Ask a mentallist. and theories are exactly that, theories, not proof.

If you stand by an atheist position, so tell me what proof is there that there is NO God at all? Isn't it also a theory?

 

Well, thank you for telling me what I think. You are wrong.

So tell me, what do you think is right?

 

They do if you read them.

Frankly there is nothing debatable or to think about. I just have to simply quote and reply by answering in what I think, that's it. It doesn't give me the idea of debate.

 

ut we are discussing what scripture says about the story of the Garden Of Eden. You cannot claim that the story says something other than what it says and then offer up something that it doesn't say at all as proof that it actually says something different.

You only seem to emphasize that first part of what I said. Have you read the later parts? They were backed up by the Scriptures.

 

Who says it didn't?

Then again, who said it DID?

 

I don't know. I'm not the Serpent. I don't pretend to know everybody's motives for anything. Why did Bud Dwyer shoot himself at a press conference? I don't know. And neither do you.

That's the logic, you don't know. So you cannot simply say the serpent did this and that. You didn't know what the serpent did, so how do you know if the serpent is telling the truth?

 

We're talking about the same entity that rebelled against God and started a war in heaven, was cast out and set to rule over the domain of Hell. Why did he do that?

In the first place, Lucifer was the most beautiful creation of God. He thought he could overpower GOd, he thought he could replace God. He never expected the consequences. Do you see people in war expecting to lose, do you see Hitler planning to lose? Correction, Satan does not rule over Hell. In fact he is imprisoned there, he doesn't reside in there. Satan is the prince of the Air and the Earth.

 

That my mother is an unnecessarily cruel and vengeful woman.

And would that be what you are trying to apply to God too?

 

Okay, but it still dopesn't make sense. Why would it not be ethical for a skeptic to point out flaws he sees in the Bible? Why would it not be ethical for a skeptic to be skeptic about the Bible? In fact, what have ethics got to do with it at all?

What I'm trying to say that, one does not just pick any contradiction without trying to interpret the several meanings it may impose. If you plan to pick one out and say it's wrong, what is there to refute it? Is it because it sounds wrong and evil? That is not ethical.

 

Well, my hypothesis is that God doesn't exist.

By saying that, you have argued over several things about God which means God could exist. That is not the right answer.

 

Can you quote me the scripture where the Serpent tells the lie and God tells the truth about the tree, please? I've quoted you the scripture where God lies and the Serpent tells the truth.

Genesis 3 verse 1: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

 

The serpent is not satan.

 

Genesis 3 verse 4: You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

 

Although Adam and lived close to a thousand years, however they did die right? The serpent said they would not SURELY die. This was a lie to Eve because she expected to be like God and immortal.

 

Genesis 3 verse 5: For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 

Yes. Although their eyes were opened and they knew Good and Evil. Apart from that, they were definitely NOT like God.

 

Genesis 3 verse 13: The serpent deceived me, and I ate

 

God had a reason for forbidding them to eat the tree and for a very good reason too. The serpent however, deceived them to eat the fruit despite the warning from God.

 

Gensis 3 verse 14: Because you have done this

 

"This" implies the lie that deceived Eve.

 

But it seems he will take pleasure in randomly making your life miserable for a bet.

He doesn't do that. Satan is the one that makes our lives miserable.

 

If it is by "experiences and other theories" then they CANNOT prove it. You cannot prove to me there is a God because you had an experience.

 

Also, I read an interesting article (in either Time or Mcleans, I can't remember which) on how archeologists believe much of the Old Testament did not happen. They believe that Exodus did not in fact happen. There is no archeological evidence of a large mass of people crossing the desert and leaving Eqypt in this time, nor are there any recorded historical records of this happening. This is significant because the Egyptians kept very accurate records of border events in this time.

 

Also, there is historically no kings named Solomon or David that ruled any significant kingdom in this era. There was more but I cannot remember it all, I will try to find the magazine since I don't think that I threw it out.

 

What I am trying to say is that these stories are obviously heavily distorted over time or plain false, using any of it to argue one way or the other appears pointless.

Yes. True. Not everything from the Bible has been uncovered. But there is proof of a world flood and the footprints of man and dinosaurs match the same age they were. There are as many things that say that the Bible speaks the truth then what is false.

 

Interesting

 

Apart from the fact that Time did not back up its claims to any extent, fair enough, so does this webpage.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would repeat it one more time, THEY (Adam and Eve), caused their own suffering for EATING the FRUIT, DESPITE a STRICT WARNING FROM GOD. SO, GOD did not cause them to SUFFER or DIE.

I agree completely, nicknack. The message is clearly about taking responsibility for one's actions. And OvrLrdLegion has made this point many times... only to be ignored or brushed-off as irrelevant. But that IS the point of the banishment of Adam and Eve. It connects the Free Will that God gave us directly to the responsibility that comes with that Free Will. The message is so obvious that it is funny to see people who do not "get it", and instead want to find some way to blame God for all of this.

 

The only way we can avoid responsibility for our actions would be if we did not have Free Will. If we had no Free Will, then it is very easy to pin any "bad" things that happen to you on the person who makes the decisions. BOTH Adam AND Eve decided to make a Free Will decision to disobey God's warning. The fact that God gave them a warning shows God is NOT responsible, and the responsibility lies solely with Adam and Eve...not even with the serpent. When you decide to take an action, of your own Free Will, you cannot escape the responsibility for the consequences of those actions... no matter how much we seem to want to blame it on someone else. Period.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying the aspect of God only seperates between the believers and unbelievers.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I am saying that I beleive that God was created by mankind, because he needed something to believe in, to be loved by and to obey. A substitute parent to be told what to do by, and to be told that it's all going to be okay by, once we're all grown up and have to take full responsibility for our lives. I think it's easier to give God some of that responsibility.

 

What you are saying is dangerous because you cannot simply say such things.

Why on Earth not?

 

Have you talked to a pastor before?

Many. I've also been to church services, church youth groups, Sunday school, RE, sang in church services, been to religious festivals, talked to Rabbis, monks, nuns, Moslems, Wiccans, people who follow Asratu, pagans, cultists...and so on. Why?

 

The fact that I wrote that Bible has been fully passed down for these few milleniums show that the Bible has stayed strong and was never lost despite many powerful people who tried to destroy it. This is good enough to say that something up there does not want the Bible to be destroyed.

So why haven't the original manuscripts survived? Why do we only have copies of copies? If they were divinely protected, then how come they were destroyed?

 

I would repeat it one more time, THEY (Adam and Eve), caused their own suffering for EATING the FRUIT, DESPITE a STRICT WARNING FROM GOD. SO, GOD did not cause them to SUFFER or DIE.

Okay, let me put it this way. You have a toddler, naieve enough not to really understand it's choices (if they didn't know Good from Evil, then how were they to know that disobeying God was Evil?), but knowledgeable enough to . You tell it not to do something. It does it. So you take it out to the middle of the desert and leave it there. A day or two later, the toddler is dead. Are you telling me that the toddler's death is not your fault, rather it's the toddler's fault?

 

Do they fight in the name of Jesus, saying that they are fighting for their religion, or rather political purposes?

Yes, they fight in the name of Jesus, saying they are fighting for their religion. It's Protestants vs. Catholics.

 

You don't see bishops or pastors telling people to fight them because their religion is being insulted.

You've never heard of Rev. Iain Paisley, then?

 

[...]I prefer to be called a Christian[...]

And I prefer to be called an atheist. Thank you.

 

The possibility of a higher being in existence is more likely than none.

Not in my opinion.

 

I don't see why millions can believe in ET's and NOT God, simply because their technology is seemingly advanced just because they have 'spaceships'?

I'm not one of those millions.

 

Isn't it also a theory?

Yes, but I haven't claimed to have proof that there isn't a God. You, on the other hand, have claimed that you have proof that there is a God.

 

So tell me, what do you think is right?

I don't know how the universe was created, but every theory I have every heard seems to have a flaw or two, in my opinion.

 

Frankly there is nothing debatable or to think about. I just have to simply quote and reply by answering in what I think, that's it. It doesn't give me the idea of debate.

I don't get what you're saying. Why does this mean that you don't read what I've quoted from scripture?

 

You only seem to emphasize that first part of what I said. Have you read the later parts? They were backed up by the Scriptures.

Yes, i read the later parts. At no point did you back up what you said with scripture. If you want to claim that, then please do so.

 

Then again, who said it DID?

Nobody. So my point that we simply don't know whether he did or didn't is made. Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

You didn't know what the serpent did[...]

I know what the Bible says the Serpent did, and that's all I've been talking about. You're the one who wants to speak of behaviour outside of what the Bible says.

 

[...]so how do you know if the serpent is telling the truth?

Because what he said would happen would happen, and what he said wouldn't happen didn't happen, according to the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is wrong about this?

 

He never expected the consequences.

Well, then, in your own words..."Oh, did it forget God was omniscent. How stupid."

 

And would that be what you are trying to apply to God too?

Equally with my hypothetical mother, yes.

 

What I'm trying to say that, one does not just pick any contradiction without trying to interpret the several meanings it may impose. If you plan to pick one out and say it's wrong, what is there to refute it? Is it because it sounds wrong and evil? That is not ethical.

i'm sorry, I'm still not getting why my interpretation of the story isn't ethical. If, as you say, one must consider all possible interpretations of these storys, then shouldn't you consider my version? I've considered the interpretation that the Church gives the story many times. So can I assume that, in the interests of being ethical, you will accept my interpretation of the story as equally valid? Or do you really mean that it's only ethical to agree with the way that you see it?

 

By saying that, you have argued over several things about God which means God could exist. That is not the right answer.

Again, you're not being clear. I don't mean to be rude, but your profile says that you're from Singapore. Is English not your first language? It's just that I sometimes have difficulty trying to figure out what you're saying.

 

You asked me why God would let the Bible survive if he comes accross as a bad guy at times. My simple answer is that he didn't, because he doesn't exist.

 

The serpent is not satan.

What denomination of Church do you belong to? I don't think I've encountered one that didn't believe that Satan was the Serpent. Just one example: http://goodnewschristianministry.org/footnote_Q105.htm

 

Satan's reptillian imagery in scripture started with Adam and Eve in Eden. It was there that God transformed Satan into a belly-crawling creature after he had seduced Adam and Eve. The words God used on that occasion (Gen.3:14-15) evoke the likeness of a snake; Satan's defining image ever since.

Although Adam and lived close to a thousand years, however they did die right?

They did. They died because they didn't eat from the Tree Of Life, not beacue they ate from the Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil.

 

Apart from that, they were definitely NOT like God.

God would seem to disagree with you, there. Genesis 3: 22 " 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us[...]"

 

The serpent however, deceived them to eat the fruit despite the warning from God.

Eve said the Serpent decieved her. Have you never encountered someone trying to palm the blame off onto someone else? "He made me do it!", "It's not my fault, he told me to!", "He said you wouldn't mind!" She was trying to wiggle out of it, while sucking up to the boss. Would you be brave enough to call God a liar to His face?

 

"This" implies the lie that deceived Eve.

It does not imply a lie, unless you're predisposed to think of it that way. It could equally imply "You have told them my secret and made me vulnerable"

 

He doesn't do that. Satan is the one that makes our lives miserable.

Every time before he did something to Job, Satan came to God and asked his permission. god told him exactly what he could or could not do, and Satan obeyed him to the letter. God said "yeah, sure, you can take everything he has and make his life miserable" for what amounts to a bet.

 

How kind and loving.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely, nicknack. The message is clearly about taking responsibility for one's actions. And OvrLrdLegion has made this point many times... only to be ignored or brushed-off as irrelevant. But that IS the point of the banishment of Adam and Eve. It connects the Free Will that God gave us directly to the responsibility that comes with that Free Will. The message is so obvious that it is funny to see people who do not "get it", and instead want to find some way to blame God for all of this.

I glad two people understand this fact. Yes, OvrLrdLegion has repeated this many times and so have I, it ends up being ignored or rather being irrelevant for people to reply telling me time and again that God deceived them. It is really funny, yes, that it is quite apparent and people taking it quite nonchalantly and ignore it.

 

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I am saying that I beleive that God was created by mankind, because he needed something to believe in, to be loved by and to obey. A substitute parent to be told what to do by, and to be told that it's all going to be okay by, once we're all grown up and have to take full responsibility for our lives. I think it's easier to give God some of that responsibility.

Instead of Man creating God his image. It is God who created us in his image. Yes, for your side of atheism, Man may have created God. But vice versa, it is more possible for God to create Man in his own image. I don't understand why would Man want to make a slave himself to a creator creating all sorts of evil and punishments, is that what Man would really want to do?

 

Why on Earth not?

Simply because it is arrogant as it does not take into consideration what the masses would agree upon.

 

Many. I've also been to church services, church youth groups, Sunday school, RE, sang in church services, been to religious festivals, talked to Rabbis, monks, nuns, Moslems, Wiccans, people who follow Asratu, pagans, cultists...and so on. Why?

This may be so, but have you listened to what they have to say? Does it strike to you that despite participating in many conversations with so many different religious groups, the truth to you is like something lost in a fog thus making you an atheist because everything added up would only confuse you and lead you to think it is all ridiculous to believe in such things.

 

So why haven't the original manuscripts survived? Why do we only have copies of copies? If they were divinely protected, then how come they were destroyed?

The original manuscritps are still around for your information, only in several bits and pieces. That is why the Bible had a cannonial test in which people compiled the Bible together do prevent it from being eradicated forever. They were not destroyed.

 

Okay, let me put it this way. You have a toddler, naieve enough not to really understand it's choices (if they didn't know Good from Evil, then how were they to know that disobeying God was Evil?), but knowledgeable enough to . You tell it not to do something. It does it. So you take it out to the middle of the desert and leave it there. A day or two later, the toddler is dead. Are you telling me that the toddler's death is not your fault, rather it's the toddler's fault?

Apparently to most people, my statement makes it so obvious that even a child can understand it. It is highlighted in Bold and it is certainly not verbose to confuse anyone. As you can see they were newly created, like a Child but a mind that is pure, however, like an adult. They knew Good and Evil after eating the fruit. However, in which case in Eden there wasn't any evil. They knew evil when the serpent deceived them. They knew more when they were thrown out. In the first place, your analogy of the 'toddler' is wrong. God was the creator of Adam and Eve, although he threw them out and was angry. He forgave them and even make clothes for them to wear before throwing them out. He did not use any of his powers to strike them out of Eden painfully. I would appreciate it if RainmanTime would explain this aspect to you, trollface.

 

Yes, they fight in the name of Jesus, saying they are fighting for their religion. It's Protestants vs. Catholics.

Ah. Yes, they call in the name of Jesus. So does Contemporary Islamists like Osama Bin Laden who cry out Jihad to make war upon Man. It is the same in which case the name of Jesus is used for war and bloodshed. It is more of Man's selfishness and politics that they fight, and certainly not in the name of Jesus.

 

You've never heard of Rev. Iain Paisley, then?

No I have not. Maybe, you would have forgotten that not all pastors are benevolent or perfect as it seems? Joaquim Kang, a top bishop in an Anglican church here has just laundered millions from the church funds. Many other religious figures in the world may be gay or even commit sexual abuse to their followers. There are many who like that, but there are also good ones who follow the word of God faithfully and do not give in to temptations to commit such heinous acts.

 

Not in my opinion.

Not many. Despite many theories, you wouldn't be convinced anyway.

 

Yes, but I haven't claimed to have proof that there isn't a God. You, on the other hand, have claimed that you have proof that there is a God.

Not as proof that can be seen but can be believed. There are many theories here that we can believe that there is a God that created this universe.

 

I don't know how the universe was created, but every theory I have every heard seems to have a flaw or two, in my opinion.

I am interested to hear what the flaws are and in which theory.

 

I don't get what you're saying. Why does this mean that you don't read what I've quoted from scripture?

This is pointed out to some of your replies.

 

Yes, i read the later parts. At no point did you back up what you said with scripture. If you want to claim that, then please do so.

It is not by scripture, but you do understand God created Man perfect in its form, and so were the angels. You would have to understand that after they left Eden, they had to face 'death', 'pain' and 'sadness'. Thus death was nowhere implemented in Eden. God created Man to love him.

 

I believe it is that sentence above that you were saying.

 

In Genesis 1-2 and in the first half of part 3, there was no death mentioned when God created anything. Everything was perfect and death was not to be implemented until they were banished.

 

I know what the Bible says the Serpent did, and that's all I've been talking about. You're the one who wants to speak of behaviour outside of what the Bible says.

Similarly, you said that the Serpent told the truth and God lied. I've been wondering where was that found in Genesis?

 

Because what he said would happen would happen, and what he said wouldn't happen didn't happen, according to the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is wrong about this?

That is the truth but what about the fact they would not surely die? He also told them they would be like God. That is the lie.

 

Well, then, in your own words..."Oh, did it forget God was omniscent. How stupid."

That was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. Satan and the serpent were seperate entities if you didn't know. The serpent was the most cunning of all creatures, and he certainly was not the same Devil we know of today.

 

Equally with my hypothetical mother, yes.

So, you are comparing to a non-perfect human to a perfect God?

 

i'm sorry, I'm still not getting why my interpretation of the story isn't ethical. If, as you say, one must consider all possible interpretations of these storys, then shouldn't you consider my version? I've considered the interpretation that the Church gives the story many times. So can I assume that, in the interests of being ethical, you will accept my interpretation of the story as equally valid? Or do you really mean that it's only ethical to agree with the way that you see it?

I'm sorry but I agree with OvrLrdLegion's comments on your posts. It does not offer a tinge anything that might make anyone agree with. Not with me or others. Maybe Roel. However, all your interpretations directly point out that the Bible was a lie itself, I've considered it and otherwise, replied it, repeating some facts over and over again, only to see the question being repeated time and again. I accept you interpretation, but based on my interpretation, I would have to see it as wrong and would try to correct to see it in both sides. I do understand that the Bible has its own contradictions, I have my doubts too. I do not just put all my trust in the Bible and say it's right not before I know what it is trying to tell me.

 

Again, you're not being clear. I don't mean to be rude, but your profile says that you're from Singapore. Is English not your first language? It's just that I sometimes have difficulty trying to figure out what you're saying.

 

You asked me why God would let the Bible survive if he comes accross as a bad guy at times. My simple answer is that he didn't, because he doesn't exist.

Yes. That would be so. Just as it would seem, my english here is above average in standard and we study the same english practised in Britain. Maybe, you do not seem to understand what I'm saying. But sometimes I have trouble understanding what you are trying to say too. What I said was. Although there were many powerful bad guys who tried to eliminate the Bible, however, God protected it and it was not destroyed, lost and was still intact.

 

What denomination of Church do you belong to? I don't think I've encountered one that didn't believe that Satan was the Serpent. Just one example: http://goodnewschristianministry.org/footnote_Q105.htm

What would be surprising is, I do not go to church. So technically, I am not in any denomination of any Church. All my life I have attended 4 churches for a couple of years. I study literature in my school. I do not come across the Bible saying that God transformed Satan into a serpent. The link indicates: "Satan's reptillian imagery" Imagery means: Figurative Language. Thus the serpent was just a metaphor used to describe satan in it's cunning image to deceive Adam and Eve.

 

It was there that God transformed Satan into a belly-crawling creature after he had seduced Adam and Eve.

 

This sentence however, would be your standpoint in saying that Satan=Serpent. I do not know when in the scriptures does it say that.

 

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

 

They did. They died because they didn't eat from the Tree Of Life, not beacue they ate from the Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil.

Yes they died. You are correct. Wouldn't it be different if they didn't eat the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Hm..

 

God would seem to disagree with you, there. Genesis 3: 22 " 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us[...]"

Not like God meaning they were not omnipresent, omniscient or eternal or perfect like him. Another aspect of being like God is knowing Good and Evil, that's it.

 

Eve said the Serpent decieved her. Have you never encountered someone trying to palm the blame off onto someone else? "He made me do it!", "It's not my fault, he told me to!", "He said you wouldn't mind!" She was trying to wiggle out of it, while sucking up to the boss. Would you be brave enough to call God a liar to His face?

I'm sorry. My bad. Yes I have encountered such situations. But I don't see how God is lying that way.

 

Every time before he did something to Job, Satan came to God and asked his permission. god told him exactly what he could or could not do, and Satan obeyed him to the letter. God said "yeah, sure, you can take everything he has and make his life miserable" for what amounts to a bet.

Yes. That would be so in that aspect. But does satan send his minions to come attack us? Scar us with burns and marks to torture us? No. He only increases the temptations we face with modern technology and conveniences to make us destroy ourselves. That would be it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you believe in God or Satan doesn't really matter in a sense. The Bible may be filled with contradictions, but so is life. The bible also has methods of living a good, honest life. It gives indications of what to expect and what to be wary of.

 

Whether demons are outside forces, or destructive habits, or even emotions locked away from consciousness, they still have the power to bring a man to ruin.

 

An indivdual has to "know" who or what his/her demons are and how to make "powerless" those "demons". Sometimes these "demons" are too powerful to fight on our own. ( Keep in mind these "demons" I am speaking about may not necessarily be from some other realm, but from deep within the sub-conscious. )

 

If you dont believe in God, then you are are just not ready to do so, and for all intense and purposes, this may be what your life experience is to be. I can not be the judge of who or what your experiences are to be for you. I can only judge what I experience and what I feel I need to learn for my path.

 

Nobody is going to change an atheist to a God fearing( figure of speech ) person in a forum on the internet, or visa versa. We may present varied paths that will seem as valid to incorporate into anothers, but even an experience from a suggestion will be completely personal to whomever has the experience.

 

Alot of people seem to have made the mistake that thinking the God? thread was about whether God exists or not. This wasn't my intention, nor is that supposed to be its focus. I only wanted to validate the possibilites of theories presented within ancient texts that were written in a religious/God format. If you follow the debates in the God? thread you can see the ( attempted ) return to time travelling ideals and I indicate that several times.

 

It is the validity of those texts that I am debating. Gods existence turned out to be a side effect.

 

To Be Continued....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding King Solomon, there are major archaeological sites that have been discovered in Jerusalem and throughout Israel that are associated with Solomon of the Bible. In particular, the sites of Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo are stated in the Bible to have been chariot cities fortified by Solomon (1 Kings 9:15, 19). Excavations at these sites (some still in progress) have uncovered massive walls, gate systems, water-tunnels, silos, and storehouses all bearing the style of royal monumental architecture.

 

Solomon can be found in the fact that archaeological remains evidence the First Temple attributed to him. These examples confirm that the biblical description of the First Temple agrees with historical models of the time, and fits the architectural design expected for a building engineered by Phoenician artisans (2 Chronicles 2:13-14). In addition, 10th century inscriptions have come to light that mention the First Temple. One is a small ivory object carved in the shape of a pomegranate. On it is an inscription using the well-known biblical phrase "the house of the Lord." It has been identified as scepter head that once topped a staff and that it most likely belonged to a priest who officiated in the First Temple. A second inscription mentioning "the house of the Lord" was discovered on an ostracon (a broken piece of pottery used for writing). Most likely it served as a receipt for a donation given at the Temple. In addition, the extensive use of large quantities of gold in the ancient world accords with the descriptions of Solomon's use of gold in the 10th-century B.C. in adornment for the Temple (1 Kings 6:15, 21-22, 28-30) and other items in his royal Palace and the house of the Forest of Lebanon (1 Kings 10:16-21).5 The biblical figure of 666 talents of gold (US 25 tons) reported for Solomon (1 Kings 10:14) is not extraordinary by comparison with the 7,000 tons found by Alexander the Great in Persia (1,180 in Susa alone). Egyptian hieroglyphic texts further record a gift by Pharaoh Osorkon I to his gods of 383 tons of gold and silver during the years of 924-921 B.C.6 This places Osorkon's gift in the period immediately following the death of Solomon. Evidence of gold-plated temples exists from Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt (where also gold-plated furniture is well-attested), while golden shields like those described for the house of the Forest of Lebanon have appeared in the Royal Cemetery at Ur, Ras Shamra (Ugarit), and in cuneiform lists of conquered items during the Assyrian monarch Sargon II. Such details reveal that the biblical account of Solomon, like that of his father David, are historically accurate to the time and place of writing.

 

With the advent of the twentieth century the pendulum swung back toward an affirmation of biblical legitimacy. Even as the nineteenth century came to a close a return to biblical conservatism was forcing its way forward with discoveries such as that of the ancient capital of the Hittite Empire at Boghaz-Köy (Hattusha) along with more than 10,000 clay tablets chronicling its prodigious civilization! No longer were the Hittites a non-existent race nor were there grounds for excising the Patriarchs from plausibility as being equally historical. There also emerged from ancient Egypt a set of cosmetic tablets depicting King Narmer of the first dynasty (3100 B.C.). On one of the tablets the image of the king is revealed holding writing tablets, confirming that this first of Egypt's dynastic pharaoh's was literate. And since Moses had been educated in "all the learning of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), he must have also been well versed in this scribal skill.

 

In 1994 archaeologists discovered a stone inscription at the ancient city of Dan, which refers to the "House of David." The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) is important because of it's ancient reference to King David outside the Bible.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But vice versa, it is more possible for God to create Man in his own image.

Again you say that it's more possible for there to be a God than not. You've not yet explained your thinking behind this. You just state it as fact.

 

I don't understand why would Man want to make a slave himself to a creator creating all sorts of evil and punishments, is that what Man would really want to do?

I find it a bizarre mode of thinking, too, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It's actually very common.

 

Simply because it is arrogant as it does not take into consideration what the masses would agree upon.

So, in your estimation, it is dangerous to not think like the crowd? Not following the herd is a bad thing?

 

This may be so, but have you listened to what they have to say?

Yup. It may please you to think that my beliefs are simply the result of my being uninformed or not having thought about it, but I have studied and examined this subject as widely as I can for more then 25 years.

 

The original manuscritps are still around for your information, only in several bits and pieces.

No they are not. Here: http://www.carm.org/evidence/inspiration.htm

 

Can you find me one cite that claims to have seen the autographs? Where are they kept?

 

They knew Good and Evil after eating the fruit.

Yes, after, not before. Can you be held accountable for doing evil when you have no concept of evil? I don't think so. God obviously does.

 

And what was the thing that they thought was evil? Being naked. Is that an emotional hang-up or what?

 

He did not use any of his powers to strike them out of Eden painfully.

Genesis 3: 16 To the woman he said,

 

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

 

with pain you will give birth to children.

 

Your desire will be for your husband,

 

and he will rule over you."

 

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

 

"Cursed is the ground because of you;

 

through painful toil you will eat of it

 

all the days of your life.

 

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

 

and you will eat the plants of the field.

 

19 By the sweat of your brow

 

you will eat your food

 

until you return to the ground,

 

since from it you were taken;

 

for dust you are

 

and to dust you will return."

God didn't cause them any pain as punishment? You yourself have said that He acted out of anger.

 

Ah. Yes, they call in the name of Jesus. So does Contemporary Islamists like Osama Bin Laden who cry out Jihad to make war upon Man. It is the same in which case the name of Jesus is used for war and bloodshed. It is more of Man's selfishness and politics that they fight, and certainly not in the name of Jesus.

You originally asked: "Do you see modern christians killing each other for no reason because they claimed Jesus in the Bible told them to?" The answer is "Yes. Modern Christians do kill each other because they claim that Jesus told them to".

 

Maybe, you would have forgotten that not all pastors are benevolent or perfect as it seems?

I haven't forgotten it. I was pointing it out to you. You can't now take something that I've told you and claim it as if you had told me it. Lest you forget, you said: "You don't see bishops or pastors telling people to fight them because their religion is being insulted." Again, the answer is "yes, you do see pastors telling people to fight them because their religion is being insulted."

 

You may want to think that nobody preaches hate under the guise of Christianity, but it's simply not true.

 

Not as proof that can be seen but can be believed.

That, then, is not proof.

 

I am interested to hear what the flaws are and in which theory.

That's awhole other thread. Or two. Hell, a novel or two wouldn't cover that subject. Suffice to say that i don't think humankind has cracked the mystery of creation just yet.

 

This is pointed out to some of your replies.

?

 

It is not by scripture[...]

You said it was. Your answers are so inconsistent that it's hard to keep up.

 

In Genesis 1-2 and in the first half of part 3, there was no death mentioned when God created anything.

Just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean that it wasn't possible. Adam and Eve going to the toilet isn't mentioned in the Bible, but we have to assume it happened.

 

Similarly, you said that the Serpent told the truth and God lied. I've been wondering where was that found in Genesis?

This is why you need to read my posts. I explained this in my first post. Go back and read where I quoted the Scripture extensively. You can't not read it and then claim that because you haven't been bothered to read it that I didn't say it.

 

That was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice.

So do you accept the fact that it's possible for people (and mythological figures) to do stupid things, then?

 

So, you are comparing to a non-perfect human to a perfect God?

Didn't I make that clear? Yes. BTW, why do you believe that God is perfect? You yoursaelf have said that he acted out of anger. God describes himself as "jealous". Are those examples of perfection?

 

I accept you interpretation[...]

Then don't tell me that I shouldn't say such things, or that saying such things is unethical.

 

I do understand that the Bible has its own contradictions, I have my doubts too. I do not just put all my trust in the Bible and say it's right not before I know what it is trying to tell me.

Okay. That's progress at least. I'm glad that you can accept that the Bible is not perfect.

 

But if you can accept that the Bible can be wrong, then why do you seem to find it so hard to accept that I am saying one particular part of the Bible disagrees with the commonly held belief?

 

Yes. That would be so. Just as it would seem, my english here is above average in standard and we study the same english practised in Britain.

That helps to explain some of our communication problems. And, yes, your English is good. I wouldn't be brave enough to try to discuss in-depth religious issues in a second language.

 

I do not know when in the scriptures does it say that.

Actually, I agree with you on this point. I don't think that the Serpent as described in the story of Eden was supposed to be the Devil. I think that that's revisionism by the Churches to make the Devil responsible for man's fall from grace. The fact remains, however, that that is how the vast majority (if not all) Christian Churches interpret it.

 

Wouldn't it be different if they didn't eat the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In my opinion, no it wouldn't.

 

Another aspect of being like God is knowing Good and Evil, that's it.

But you can't know this. All we know is what's written in the Bible. And that says that God was afraid of Adam and Eve because they had become like him.

 

Yes. That would be so in that aspect.

So you agree that God allowed what essentially amounts to the torture of Job. How is that loving and kind of him?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just been looking at the Dr. Scott website, OvrLrd. I can't actually listen to anything that he says because RealPlayer doesn't work on my computer. I can't find any transcripts either. However, i did find this article which I find interesting http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Gene-Scott/gene-scott

 

I can't say anything about his teachings because I don't know what they are, but I must admit that alarm bells went off when I saw the requests for money on his site. Then I read that article, and it does seem to me that he is little different from most TV evangelists.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody has their critics. He is a very strong individual and it isnt suprising that somebody wrote that article. His comments have been take out of context, so it would be difficult to comment on those.

 

In watching him myself, I have found that his understanding of ancient texts is in-depth and enilghtening. His personal "emotional" outbursts don't detract from the information he presents.

 

Just as the Bible itself has those portions that we can question for "taste", and it also has those portions that are valuable pieces of information.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...