Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Antlerman]

Did you see the other thread where he typed in huge letters that he would take on all questions regarding the inerrancy of scripture?

Yup. I did.

 

Argumentum ad caps or argumentum ad oversized font is always a very convincing method.

Just in case our eyes needed blinding flashes of huge font size to be able to read. If he does that again I'm going to shrink all his words in every post to tiny one point font, that you would have to really, really want to read to make the effort:

 

Imagine this is is him preaching how much, Jesus wasn't to give you everything you've ever wanted, including that new XBox360 for Christmas, and that if you only believe with all your heart, all you wishes will come true!

 

[Ouroboros]

Just in case our eyes needed blinding flashes of huge font size to be able to read. If he does that again I'm going to shrink all his words in every post to tiny one point font, that you would have to really, really want to read to make the effort:

 

Imagine this is is him preaching how much, Jesus wasn't to give you everything you've ever wanted, including that new XBox360 for Christmas, and that if you only believe with all your heart, all you wishes will come true!

 

Damn you. Now I have to put on my glasses!

 

Btw, I scanned through the link he gave us, and this part really stood out for me:

Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

How dumb is that?

 

1. Most atheists believe there was a beginning, it is called Big Bang.

 

2. The idea that matter has always existed is completely and utterly wrong since we believe in Big Bang and science. What can't be destroy is energy, not matter, so this sentence is so dumb that it would break the dumbometer.

 

3. The Humanist Manifesto does not say "Matter is ..." it says "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." However, the manifesto does not by that mean it didn't have a beginning, only that the beginning was not divine.

 

4. Is this a concise statement of an atheist's belief? No, it's not! How deceitful!

 

It's enough to just look at that paragraph and know that the author is a liar and out to charge against atheism with deception and falsehood.

[LFAuthenticity]

Ok stranger, I visited your site, and I have to say that it is pretty weak. Since you asked, I am currently about to graduate from university and have been a student of psychology and when I think of scientific evidence to back up a theory I think of peer reviewed journal articles, hypothesis testing/experimentation and consensus among people who specialize in their respective field of study. Therefore, your website is pretty easy to dismiss as random typing using minimal references.

 

"Have you ever asked God to reveal Himself to you?" Yes. Nothing happened.

 

"Have you ever prayed for divine intervention and had it happen?"

 

Yes/No. Maybe? I believe in probability and coincidence though so I have never really attributed anything to god's hand in my personal life. I prayed for some guidance once, and the next day someone handed me some pamphlet asking me where I thought I would spend eternity (which isn't that rare considering the area I live in). So I started reading the bible and researching the claims that the pamphlet made. Being handed that pamphlet indirectly led me to this site in which everything I read confirmed how I was already feeling about the christian religion (as well as any other religion that tries to shove their 'truth' down my throat). So if that was divine intervention it was totally lost on me LOL. Assuming there is a god, what makes you sure that the truth 'created' for you would be the same 'truth' created for me?

 

"Can you think of any life stories that something beyond chance happened and to this day you cannot explain it away?"

 

Nothing I can't really explain away or that can't be explained by the natural wo. It would be cool if something like that did happen but I'm not going to start actively looking for that either.

 

"If you do not mind sharing, can you tell me just a little of your childhood as it relates to what was expected from you?"

 

I wrote something in the testimonial section pertaining to me and my childhood and my existence up until now, more that that is pretty irrelevant.

 

I believe there may or may not be some sort of something out there in the universe but your interpretation of the truth doesn't sit well with me. I am content in the quiet life I have and if I found some sort of compelling reason to believe and change how I live then I would.

[the stranger]

Pamphlets I am generally told, in the classes I take as school aren't reliable sources, got any better?

 

Valk, I actually agree with you. In fact, even I did not agree with everything in this "Pamphlet", but used it just as a simple basic start that would take little time to go through. I think then it is about time to get real, huh. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

Have you read any of the testimonies on here? I think most, probably all, of us ex-Christians prayed for God to reveal Himself to us. I certainly did. When I was desperately trying to cling to my faith, I spent hours in tearful prayer, asking God to restore my faith and to give me some sign to show me that He cared about me. After a few years of total silence from God, I had to stop obsessing about Him for the sake of my sanity. It's been nearly 20 years now and God still hasn't revealed Himself to me but it's okay because I now know it's not because He has abandoned me, it's because He doesn't exist.

 

I have to be honest with you. Up until I looked at your post I had ready very few testimonies on the site. Now, however, I have read many many more. I too, believe it or not, have gone through much testing. Through my times of struggle and pain, God has never done what others would conclude to be a miracle. There was times in my life where I gave up on God, and said unless you show yourself to me in a way that I can believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will never believe in you again. If I were to tell you God did all I asked and expected I would be lying. Truth is, He did at certain times, nothing. So what did I do? I left!

 

It was not the great sound of thunder and lightning, nor the miracles and signs that drove me back to God, but it was the whisper, the whisper of the Holy Spirit saying and calling, come back to where you belong, my lost child! It was the emptiness, the isolation, the desperation, and the sadness of feeling all alone that started to make me learn, God is not here to serve me, but I am here to serve Him. God does not cater to my demands, but does as He knows best. I can accept Him as God, or reject Him for not being subject unto me, which would make Him anything but a God. Sometimes it all boils down to the word of God. Do we believe it is all true, inspired by God Himself, or just another fairy tale? If the second choice is made, then what do we have to stand on, and if the first choice is made, then feelings of bubbles or not, we must believe what God tells us in His book, for His book is Himself living through us. If nothing more, I would encourage you to just read one verse a day. If anyone here can show me the bible is not true, and is not the most reliable book on earth for the absalute truth, I will take back my advise to you. God speaks to us through His very word, and we have to take His word as the truth, feelings or not. You will be in my prayers. I wish beyond measure I could take your pain and doubt away, but this is something I have no control over. I am sorry for the times you have had to endure, and I can relate perhaps more than one might think, on much more than the isolated events mentioned above.

 

I too, could have easily joined this forum with very much the same view, but I chose to believe regardless of what I was going through, or how distant God seemed to be, but even in this, it was God who whispered to me in songs. I say this not to place myself is any better at all, as I can do nothing good apart from Jesus, but to just encourage you to not lose all hope in something I believe we all know deep down is so real, whether He responds to our prayers or not.

 

Kittypaws, thank you for sharing some history with me. My heart does go out to you.

 

View Postthe stranger, on 25 November 2010 - 11:23 PM, said:

Why is it that many on this very site will say that through a period of time Jesus seemed to rain blessings on their life, and helped them change in so many ways, thus because of the Holy Spirit living inside of them? Then after great testing, and seemingly unanswered prayers, the faith subsided, along with their peace of mind, and of heart.

 

 

Give us examples. I have been here a long time and don't recall such testimonies. Most of us simply found Bible God to be unbelievable.

 

Deva, a valid question indeed. I have just got done reading many of the testimonies, and they all certainly have their own story to tell, but I saw many that seemed to be going to collage, or getting married and blessed with a good job, or at the very least had a fairly stable life until troubles rolled in. Some had doubts because of their troubles, and it seems others had troubles because of their doubts. Now testimonies do vary, but I have read many post that have some relation to my above post. I can show you if you really want, but they are easy eneugh to pick out. However, make the request one more time, and I will show you. Sometimes I have to be kicked to get me on the ball, but I think in this case, I will get on it myself.

 

Thanks for reminding me once again why I cannot accept any of this Christian dogma. If God truly took no pleasure in the death of the wicked, there would be no death! Especially since in other places it is said we are all sinners (wicked). God must be helpless. As for hell - it exists, according to you and your Bible, and God made it and condemns people to it simply for being born human. No more disgusting doctrine exists in all of religion. Christians can never even agree among themselves how to escape from said hell. I put it to you -- how can you be absolutely sure you are not going?

 

Great post. I could go on forever with this one, but I won't. LOL First, you probably remember where death came from, right. Everything that God created was when created good. In this good creation He also put in free will, thus not having us be robots. Through free will, Satan sinned, then convinced Eve and Adam to sin. Before this, animals did not eat other animals, and humans nor animals would have ever seen death. Death came as a result of sin, which we created by disobeying the one commandment that God told us not to do. Thus, no more evening walks with God, as He cannot stand sin.

 

It is true as stated, we are born with sin, thus cannot be apart from Christ in heaven. It is impossible because God cannot be around sin, and His holiness would kill us. God did not create death or sin, but it all started with Satan and his choice to try to over throw God and take His throne, then deceiving mankind. This was never what God desired to happen, but God believes in freedom.

 

So being born of sin, thus not being able to be with God in heaven, minus believing in Jesus because He paid the price of sin for us and unites us with the Father through his blood, there only leaves one other option. God wants us all in heaven. He is a God of love. But heaven would be hell, or at least no better than earth, if sin was allowed. And this cannot be since sin cannot be in the full presence of God. God created us in His own liking to be with Him in heaven, but we chose other wise. Then God sent His only begotten Son to die in our place to be with Him in heaven, but still, many choose other wise. Is this Gods fault?

 

Jesus performed many miracles and healed many of the sick when He was on earth, but still few followed. We can only follow through the calling of the Holy Spirit. Many could not and would not accept this truth. They wanted to crucify Christ because of their hatred for the truth. Many Christians today are being beheaded for this same reason. I am not saying this of all of you, but just stating fact as it is.

 

Yep, pie in the sky when you die. While on earth, Christians are no more favored than anyone else.

One thing is for sure, Christians are not above having the problems of this life. Christians get raped, killed, beat, stabbed, and are broke, just like many who do not believe. We are protected only to the extent that nothing will happen to us that is not in Gods plan.

 

We did not come from monkeys, but rather apes and humans share a common ancestor. At least state the question appropriately. "Came into being by an explosion"?? That's a new one. If true, yes, I would sooner believe it than that a planet suddenly popped into existence from nothing.

 

You are making a mistake by trying to demonstrate that creationism is true - by trying to conform reality with a 2000 year old book.

You read like a know-it-all preacher, when plainly you have a poor understanding of science and religion.

 

I am sorry if I appear to be a know it all pastor, because I know little, but have great faith. You guys on this site have already shown me what being boastful can do, and I never want to try being like that again. I am no better than any of you, and you all know that. I will address the latter later on.

 

Thank you Deva for responding.

 

Antlerman, I will respond later on to some of your great insite, and some of which i agree with.

 

My, my. You really are the melodramatic one, aren't you? Sorry to deny you your daily dose of persecution, but you're not important enough for anyone here to "hate" you. We disagree with you, of course, and we may find you silly or perhaps even irritating, but that's a long way from hate.

 

Sorry, kiddo, you're just would-be evangelizer #6758. A long line of christians before you have intruded onto this website and have attempted to drag ex-christians back into the cult. Sometimes it's funny; sometimes it's annoying; sometimes it's just boring. It's never effective.

 

So have at it, brave sir or madam christian. Do your best. You'll soon be gone and forgotten from this site. Then would-be evangelizer #6759 will take your place for awhile.

 

Remind me not to compete with you on math. I will take your post as a welcome, and will consider you my friend. Even friends can be irritating. I hope to stick around for sometime however. Even if I convince no one, there is so much here to learn, and I cannot let that escape me.

 

Jermemy Allen, thankyou for responding. I will address your concerns a little later tonight. God bless

 

Desert Bob, interesting post. As for me, I looked for everything but Jesus, but only Jesus filled the gap and void. I had no self worth before, only how many woman I could get, and other than that, was fairly depressed. Some call it the God hole. You can call it what you want. Whatever it is, in me, it has been fullfilled, and there is nothing that I could do to fill it, except accept my creator.

 

Howdy there, stranger. You new here in these parts? Since you're in Grand Rapids, I can't help but wonder if you're from my old alma matter, the now-defunct GRSBM.

 

To be honest with you, partner, I am not sure what you are referring to. Help me out. I take it your a little informative of the GR area. Hoping to move to Cincinnati pretty soon.

 

I can tell you though that in my experience most people live, overall, quietly and responsibly,

 

I think to some degree you have explained what I have typed, though ofcourse, there are many inbetween states. In the quote, however, I guess it depends on what part of town your from. In my life, growing up, I believe I have known more thieves, drunkards, druggies, and the such than the alternative. Does that make me better? Hardly, but I have seen many many people who do not want to change. I mean, for real, sex, who does not want it when they can get it. Yes, there are many that are not believers that are faithful and many Christians who are not. Just saying. I guess though to be honest, I just wanted something better than I had. drugs, sex, who needs it. I had responsibilities in which I was not truly taking care of. As for me, God placed in me that new heart to want the things of God.

 

Now concerning divorce rates, you are right. Who is to blame but the church. Now other things however, I would differ greatly. Prison, addictions, abusers, and child molesters. You will find that Christians do struggle with the same things, but are not near as likely to get involved in it (not that some don't). I bet the facts would back this part up.

 

 

 

MAN O MAN! The responses just go on forever! I never get this kind of response from a Christian website! LOL

 

Desert Bob, I will get to your later part a little later on.

 

Antlerman, let me feel big with my oversize words just this once LOL. I don't like shrinking. I will respond to the rest a little later. I guess I need to make this web site a career. LOL Really, thank you all for responding and I will be back later on, and yes, God bless the unbelieving to show His goodness to all!

[LFAuthenticity]

Seriously, the Stranger asks a bunch of questions... I answer his questions and my response got ignored LMAO.

[Deva]

Great post. I could go on forever with this one, but I won't. LOL First, you probably remember where death came from, right. Everything that God created was when created good. In this good creation He also put in free will, thus not having us be robots. Through free will, Satan sinned, then convinced Eve and Adam to sin. Before this, animals did not eat other animals, and humans nor animals would have ever seen death. Death came as a result of sin, which we created by disobeying the one commandment that God told us not to do. Thus, no more evening walks with God, as He cannot stand sin.

 

It is honestly hard to believe that any person of even average intelligence and education would take the Adam and Eve story as anything but a metaphor. Are you serious? You really think there was a time when animals did not eat other animals? Death came as a result of sin when during the course of roughly a billion years of the history of life on earth there has been nothing but evidence of death? Fossils? It it lives, it must die. That is a fact and has always been a fact.

 

Quote us chapter and verse where God give man "free will". Those words "free will" do not appear in Genesis. In fact, if you take the Bible as a whole, there are many passages that state that God specifically does interfere with our decision making process. Any interference by a supreme being would no longer be our own will, much less "free will". Did the pharaoh of Egypt have free will when God hardened his heart?

 

It is impossible because God cannot be around sin, and His holiness would kill us. God did not create death or sin, but it all started with Satan and his choice to try to over throw God and take His throne, then deceiving mankind. This was never what God desired to happen, but God believes in freedom.

 

Nonsense. Where did sin come from? How is it that it could suddenly appear in one of God's perfect creations? Answer - God is responsible for that as for everything else. Yet you would let him off the hook with this "God cannot..." Meaning God is not a perfect being, but weak and ineffectual.

 

So being born of sin, thus not being able to be with God in heaven, minus believing in Jesus because He paid the price of sin for us and unites us with the Father through his blood, there only leaves one other option. God wants us all in heaven. He is a God of love. But heaven would be hell, or at least no better than earth, if sin was allowed. And this cannot be since sin cannot be in the full presence of God. God created us in His own liking to be with Him in heaven, but we chose other wise. Then God sent His only begotten Son to die in our place to be with Him in heaven, but still, many choose other wise. Is this Gods fault?

 

I submit that it IS God's fault as presented. Since he knew from the beginning how things would work out. What a colossal failure of a plan since most of the human race that ever existed is in hell. Fortunately for myself, I don't beleive anything in the above paragraph is true.

 

Jesus performed many miracles and healed many of the sick when He was on earth, but still few followed. We can only follow through the calling of the Holy Spirit. Many could not and would not accept this truth. They wanted to crucify Christ because of their hatred for the truth. Many Christians today are being beheaded for this same reason. I am not saying this of all of you, but just stating fact as it is.

 

Typical Christian persecution complex. You are also proud of it.

 

I am sorry if I appear to be a know it all pastor, because I know little, but have great faith. You guys on this site have already shown me what being boastful can do, and I never want to try being like that again. I am no better than any of you, and you all know that. I will address the latter later on.

 

How is it we are boastful? It seems to me that to the contrary, YOU are coming of as rather boastful.

 

We are protected only to the extent that nothing will happen to us that is not in Gods plan.

 

So dying painfully in various ways is "God's Plan." I have seen Christians do so. No thanks, don't want that plan. Fix me up with something else. You are in no way protected, you live and die like everyone else.

 

MAN O MAN! The responses just go on forever! I never get this kind of response from a Christian website! LOL

 

That is what you are here for. You want to stir things up and get a lot of attention for yourself.

[DesertBob]

Howdy there, stranger. You new here in these parts? Since you're in Grand Rapids, I can't help but wonder if you're from my old alma matter, the now-defunct GRSBM.

To be honest with you, partner, I am not sure what you are referring to. Help me out. I take it your a little informative of the GR area. Hoping to move to Cincinnati pretty soon.

If you don't know what GRSBM was then you didn't go there. Grand Rapids School of the Bible and Music, formerly located on the old Calvin College campus near Franklin & Hall. It was a non-accredited technical school, basically. There is still a missionary aviation (bush pilot) training program out at Lowell Airport, last I knew, that originally was part of GRSBM. I went there in 1974-75. Lots of IFCA kids went there for one year as I did, others stayed on for the full 3 years to be trained as pastors or missionaries.

 

IFCA = Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America = Bible Churches.

 

I lived in GR from '74 until '94, although it seems like a lifetime ago already.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Everything that God created was when created good. In this good creation He also put in free will, thus not having us be robots.

 

So, if god created freewill and everything god created was good, then how is it bad to exercise freewill however one wills?

 

Through free will, Satan sinned, then convinced Eve and Adam to sin.

 

Where do you find this? The bible says that the serpent was more cunning/crafty than other animals, NOT that it was a manifestation of satan.

 

Death came as a result of sin, which we created by disobeying the one commandment that God told us not to do.

 

The interesting thing in the garden story is that god said they'd die the day they ate of the tree, and the serpent said they'd be like god in their knowledge of good and evil. After they ate the fruit, they didn't die, and god proclaimed that they had become "like one of us, knowing good and evil." So, biblically speaking, the serpent told the truth and god lied to Adam and Eve.

 

Besides, how could they have known that disobeying was wrong if they didn't have the "knowledge of good and evil" until AFTER they disobeyed? And how is there any justice in punishing them for doing something that they had no capacity to understand was supposed to be wrong? This whole story is just completely absurd.

[the stranger]

LFA, I am so sorry, I will never forget you again! LOL Well, maybe I will, but I will answer you next, despite the fact you are not the next one in line. See, I really do care. PS. You can call me Frank.

 

First, however, Deva, I just want to correct a misunderstanding. It was not you guys that I was referring to as being boastful. I was here on the site a little while back, and with out meaning to, I came across as a know it all or to some a little boastful, as you suspect I am doing now. Through others on this site and through the stories they told, and the concern that they had for me, I changed my thinking in regards to this site. I grew to appreciate the history that many went through, and the times that they had endured. There was much more to this ex-Christian thing than I had ever thought possible! In saying that, I grew to have more respect for those on this forum and realized that despite what I thought I had, I did not and still do not have all of the answers. It was not intended as an insult to this site, but a compliment. I am sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

am currently about to graduate from university and have been a student of psychology

 

Now I know the problem! LOL Just kidding. I am proud of you. I never had the chance (or brains) to go further than my high school education. I hope it pays off for you, LFA.

 

"Have you ever prayed for divine intervention and had it happen?"

 

Yes/No. Maybe? I believe in probability and coincidence though so I have never really attributed anything to god's hand in my personal life. I prayed for some guidance once, and the next day someone handed me some pamphlet asking me where I thought I would spend eternity

 

As Jeff Foxworthy would say, "Here's your sign!" Just messing with ya. I guess believing everything is by chance is an option, but to me it certainly would take away the desire or reason for living. What would be the point if we have no reason, and chance has it we could die tomorrow? Why even go to school, or live a good life? Are you just wasting your life on trying to improve yourself? Maybe that's just somethings I would be saying. (I really am glad you are furthering your education)

 

as well as any other religion that tries to shove their 'truth' down my throat

 

This brings us to another fun question, just like Pilot asked, "What is truth?". Is there such a thing as truth? If so, is it anybodies truth? Did Hitler have truth? I reason that because of these things there has to reside a TRUTH far beyond ourselves, yet somehow, in ourselves. (Gen. created in the image of God)

 

Assuming there is a god, what makes you sure that the truth 'created' for you would be the same 'truth' created for me?

 

LFA, can there be more than one truth? Whatever works? I knew of men justifying rape of their own sons! It is impossible to have more than one truth, because that would make all truths nothing more than ones thoughts. Anything and everything goes because there is no absalute.

 

It is not a matter of the same truth created for me is the same as the truth created for you. It is a matter of the one and only truth, created for all. What we do with it is up to us!

 

"Can you think of any life stories that something beyond chance happened and to this day you cannot explain it away?"

 

Nothing I can't really explain away or that can't be explained by the natural wo. It would be cool if something like that did happen but I'm not going to start actively looking for that either.

 

I confess I know where you are coming from, in the aspect that anything can be explained away. Infact, when they could not, Satan was given the credit. I guess it boils down to faith, and seeing "randam things" all fall in place at the right time in the end. I have had too many things come together and work out in my life to say that it could just be by chance.

 

I wrote something in the testimonial section pertaining to me and my childhood and my existence up until now, more that that is pretty irrelevant.

 

Irrelevant? Not to me. I will look it up later. If curiosity kills the cat, I guess I must be the dog.

 

I believe there may or may not be some sort of something out there in the universe but your interpretation of the truth doesn't sit well with me. I am content in the quiet life I have and if I found some sort of compelling reason to believe and change how I live then I would.

 

Sometimes I wish that I had a little more quiet, but that is a different story LOL. Let me ask you though, what if everything fell apart? Would you then more urgently seek the answers of reasoning and would you want to a bit more earnestly?

 

It has been good talking with you, LFA.

 

 

Desert Bob, thank you for the info. Your right, never went there. I only remember it being as Calvin. Grand Rapids ain't no Chicago, but it sure has changed since 94! Actually, I grew up as a kid in Sparta, 15 miles north of town.

 

 

So, if god created freewill and everything god created was good, then how is it bad to exercise freewill however one wills?

 

Hi Cit. Paul writes that all things are permissible (that is, living by the Holy Spirit) but not all things are benefitail. ((Forgive me, I did not Ace spelling)

 

A child has the free will to run in the middle of the road (as my dog often does, that is, whenever there is a car coming -- good thing I got a leash LOL) but it would not be wise to do so. Free will is a responsibility, not just a luxury. Bad decisions create a very messy world. Would you rather be a robot? It would be much harder to love God then, would it not?

 

Where do you find this? The bible says that the serpent was more cunning/crafty than other animals, NOT that it was a manifestation of satan.

 

I have to confess, I have never heard this one before. Paul makes it clear in Romans. Infact, Satan is referred to the serpent many times. If you really want to debate this we can, but I do not think you will have to look hard to understand this truth.

 

The interesting thing in the garden story is that god said they'd die the day they ate of the tree, and the serpent said they'd be like god in their knowledge of good and evil. After they ate the fruit, they didn't die, and god proclaimed that they had become "like one of us, knowing good and evil." So, biblically speaking, the serpent told the truth and god lied to Adam and Eve.

 

Besides, how could they have known that disobeying was wrong if they didn't have the "knowledge of good and evil" until AFTER they disobeyed? And how is there any justice in punishing them for doing something that they had no capacity to understand was supposed to be wrong? This whole story is just completely absurd.

 

This is good. I like this.

 

First, it should be noted that Adam did die that day, in the aspect that he became mortal, as before he was not. In other words, that day made death come to him and to all mankind.

 

Secondly, it should be noted the word used is "yom" which can have more than the one meaning.

 

Genesis 2:16-17 (Amplified Bible)

 

16And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

 

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

 

------------------------

 

Genesis 2:4 (Amplified Bible)

 

4This is the history of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens--

 

---------------------------

 

Now was the relation of the word day in this same context? Not a single day, for God created in six days. Therefore the word day can simply mean a period of time, or a general reference to a time area and/or space.

 

Thirdly, because of this it should be noted that many translations dismiss the word day and play it out in their translation as it was meant to be, as we do not speak in the same way now as we did.

 

----------

 

Now the second part of your question, the knowledge of good and evil, was simply a knowing of such, or now knowing that there is both. They did not even realize they were naked. They were like the animals in this one aspect. However, that did not make them stupid. They knew what commands were, and they knew what not keeping a command was also. Maybe that is why they were so easily deceived.

 

It is all a matter of understanding what we are reading, friend.

 

------------------------

 

I will respond further very shortly.

[the stranger]

Antlerman, I mean no disrespect, but that picture (avatar), that kind of scares me. But then again, for this same reason I try not to look in the mirror too much. LOL

 

Well, here we go:

 

You clearly don't have any resources to help with "science" questions as in the first instance you entirely misstate the theory of Evolution, and that of the Big Bang. No scientist in the world believes humans came from monkeys, and yet this tripe is repeated all the time as misinformation to make science look silly.

 

I am all ears, teach me! If we did not come from monkeys (or Apes), where did we come from?

 

Secondly, there was no "explosion" in the begging of this universe. It is best understood as more a great expansion. "Bang" is an unfortunate term that stuck but is a bit of a misnomer.

 

I would love to hear more on this as well. Believe when I say I did not learn these things from the church, but right from my school!(public) But I am listening.

 

 

Thirdly, you link you provided as a science resource is anything but that. It's entire series of weak logic arguments (as opposed to actual science anything), is in fact based on a single, glaring error, this statement:

 

Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

 

That is a factual error. Steady State theory went out quite a few decades ago, and unlike Christians who when faced with changing information, they mainly dropped that understanding in favor of the widely accepted theory of the Big Bang.

 

 

In the case of believing in no beginning, you are correct. I have heard that very rarely in my life time. Though it is out there.

 

For factual evidence, give me something to go on. What do you base your theory on when relating to science. There is such a wide rang to flow from, so let us narrow it down to a smaller focus target. Then we can talk some more.

 

So given a choice between the two, one which is opened to information and is willing to modify their views to accommodate that data, and the other which for all intents and purposes buries their head in the sand through concocting all sorts of silly logic arguments against the evidence in order to cling to their own outdated ideas, which of these two options do you think leads to the greater knowledge and happiness in the individual and the world?

 

First may I suggest another possibility? Christians are open to science that PROVES the truth. Not science (or what they call science) that is nothing more than a wild guess. The bible told science before we knew what the word science was! We look from a different angle. Science proving the bible. The only difference is, you do the opposite. We may be more alike than you think! As far as modifying, the bible year after year only proofs more and more that it was right long ago. At one time most believed in a flat world, but the bible never taught such a thing. The only true change in science just further supports the bible, but after you give details as to what direction to go, we will get into that later. I will say one thing, I find more security in the word and facts that never change, my friend.

 

To put you squarely on the spot here, IF you were to accept that the evidence is valid that the age of the cosmos is about 14.4 billion years old, the earth is roughly 4 billion years old, humans are the product of the evolution of species beginning in the sea, moving onto land, into early mammals, into early primates, and later branching off into apes and humans (monkeys would actually be a distant cousin branch of common lineage, not our ancestors, BTW)... IF you were to accept this, would your faith be unable to accommodate this and fail? And if so, then what is your faith actually in??

 

To be honest with you, Antler, there are many a Christians out there that do believe this way. I do not hold it against them. To each his own. The bottom line of my faith is Jesus Christ. That is truly the only thing that matters. It is fun to debate, but I would never tell someone they cannot believe in Jesus just because they take the believe in science different than me. It is about our hearts, and souls, and minds, to believe or not to believe in the one creator. Let me rephrase my post. There are many who believe God created us and the world through the way "modern science" lays it out.

 

I do believe the direction you would like to take this is of the age of the earth. If so, just confirm, and we will go from there.

 

As far as my believes go, I take the bible literally, and to do that I cannot also believe the same way as you. It has nothing to do with if one can go to heaven or not, or have Jesus as their King or not, but for me, I can not take the bible to be literal plus believe in this "modern science". It is nothing I would hold against anyone on a personal level. I guess it depends on what way a Christian observes and understands the bible.

 

You see I have no issues with those who believe in God, or those who view themselves as Christians who do not have to resort to concocting all manner of denials in order to hold to a belief about that God. Believing in Genesis as science and factual history, is a belief about the Bible. And when I am presented with the sort of arguments of denial that you offer, I have to question just really how deep your faith actually is that you have to pull a bag over your head in this manner to maintain it, and that you suggest others do as well?

 

 

I can respect that. That is why we have to determine if your way of seeing the scientific evidence is the only way to see it and if it holds up to the test of scrunity. After all, if science as a whole changes so often, you know there is many views on scientific evidence as well.

 

I don't mean this in disrespect, but all this adds up to a weak faith, and faith in a belief, not in God. A genuine faith in the existence of God would not need to deny facts, but would welcome them into understanding and include them into something that by very definition is beyond what we can see, taste, touch, and smell. But you don't get this I suppose.

 

No disrespect taken. I understand your side. Do I believe in "God" or do I believe in what I believe to be factual science? God calls us to use our minds, brains, heads and all of that sort of thing. It is not just blind faith, but faith seen when acted upon. When one believes, one can put together things that otherwise could not be. Bottom line, is the science you know so well all true, just like you believe. Does it really stack up?

 

I appreciate the sincere questions. I think we will have much to discuss. God bless

 

I will respond to the other post shortly.

[the stranger]

Dear Allen, I will not even began to try to defend myself about your thought of my post. I do want all to know, however, as all of these post are, at least I would assume, they are generally for the entire reading group, even when a name is placed in front. I do not know Joss so good as to judge. Besides, that is not my call.

 

If you were offended Joss, I do apoligize, but please realize that these were over all statements for all to read and respond to and not all directed at you personally.. My intent is to offer hope in a fallen world, not more thorns to the thorn bush of life. I just want you to know that there are two opinions to the story and what could be a happy ending. For me, the peace of Jesus is too too much to ever give up!

 

 

Not really. When you boil the evidence down, it turns out that there is not that, not like the evidence for evolution for instance. The evidence for evolution is much larger and more convincing, less guesswork and belief, more facts and knowing.

 

Ouroboros, it is good to talk with you again. Out of all I have met on this site, I respect no one more. Me and Antlerman wil be debating this science issue here shortly. Of course you are welcome to join in.

 

Aren't you lucky to have found God?

 

More like He found me. I could go on, but I do not want to pour salt in your wounds. However, later on I would like to talk more about your past. I will never forget it.

 

This is the point I wanted to give my response to.

 

My answer: Many times. Too many to count. My last prayer was that God would reveal himself to me. I'm still waiting all these years later. I will stay an unbeliever until he answers...

 

And actually, I think many of the ex-Christians here did exactly the same thing.

 

 

And this is why I respect you so much. After all you have been through, you are still waiting to hear an answer. Still willing to give God an aer.

 

My computer is freezing, so I will have to get to the rest a little later.

[Deva]

First, however, Deva, I just want to correct a misunderstanding. It was not you guys that I was referring to as being boastful. I was here on the site a little while back, and with out meaning to, I came across as a know it all or to some a little boastful, as you suspect I am doing now. Through others on this site and through the stories they told, and the concern that they had for me, I changed my thinking in regards to this site. I grew to appreciate the history that many went through, and the times that they had endured. There was much more to this ex-Christian thing than I had ever thought possible! In saying that, I grew to have more respect for those on this forum and realized that despite what I thought I had, I did not and still do not have all of the answers. It was not intended as an insult to this site, but a compliment. I am sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

I accept that, but you passed over the remainder of my post - which was directed at your absurd idea of God being "not able" to be in the presence of sin and the crazy idea that the Garden of Eden was literally true.

 

I can only assume you can offer no defense other than the "Word of God" being inerrant and literally true.

[DesertBob]

I guess believing everything is by chance is an option, but to me it certainly would take away the desire or reason for living. What would be the point if we have no reason, and chance has it we could die tomorrow? Why even go to school, or live a good life? Are you just wasting your life on trying to improve yourself?

That is a fair question. It is a common human impulse to want control (not necessarily for ourselves -- in the case of Christians it would be to know that someone trustworthy is in control) and to "leave nothing to chance" is considered to be due diligence.

 

Christian conversion testimonies often center around the idea that the testifier's life was rudderless and purposeless and that god gave them purpose (another way of saying that the problem was life being random, without reason or purpose, hence the solution). Or that they felt "lost" and god "found" them -- another way of saying they were alone and now belong to something larger than themselves, which at bottom, is another way of saying they've found meaning.

 

The human condition, for virtually everyone, includes a search for meaning and purpose. The question is, where does one find it? Is it "out there" someplace, prefabricated and given and awaiting discovery? Is it at least in general terms the same for everyone? Or is it something one makes for oneself -- is it unique to each individual?

 

Could it be that the central task of human sentience is to make meaning and purpose for oneself? Is it even possible?

 

Many possible answers exist apart from Christianity. You seem to suggest that Nihlism or some form of existential despair is the only alternative. But there are others. There are vibrant, optimistic, ethical people outside of Christianity. Many within the faith operate under the illusion that people of faith have a monopoly on these things. I'd urge you to look at the superb role models that exist in the world who do not profess faith. And even among those who do -- how many of them are in one of the vastly different faith traditions from yours or manage to talk about their ideals without bringing their particular beliefs into it?

 

Life is full of paradox. One of the great paradoxes, I think, is that when you let go of all your "ought to's" and just let life be what it is (or, at least, what we can know with any certainty about it), it can become a beautiful thing. If we are mortal, rather than immortal, then life becomes all the more precious, our time and energies all the more focused. If our loved ones can be taken from us at any time, for any reason or for no reason, then we will be much less likely to take them for granted. If there is not an anthropomorphic, omnibenevolent paternal sky god watching over us, we will be all the more responsible and careful and look out all the more for each other. If there is no universal right or wrong, we will take all the more care to do well in the context of each situation we find ourselves in and less likely to fear "the other" -- more likely to respect them and have compassion on them. Maybe, even, more likely to see our unity with them and with all that is.

 

One of the great fallacies of Christianity is that it has a corner on the market when it comes to meaning, purpose, and morality, and that without it, society would descend into primal chaos. One of the great delights of my deconversion was the realization that the sky did not fall, I did not suddenly succumb to an urge to become a moral degenerate, that my ethics and morality were not only intact, but strengthened, because, guess what? I was now doing the right things out of love, without a patina of fear sprinkled over it -- fear of displeasing god. Why do the right things for the wrong reasons -- because I should, or must, or ought to, rather than because I WANT to? Yes, I have a shadow, as do you and as does everyone -- but I also am a good person, capable of love, and that love is within me, I am not a mere reflector of some external source of love.

 

Although I am honest enough to admit there are things about my life and about life in general that don't please me -- and I've sometimes discussed them in this space -- I had these issues when I was a Christian and being a Christian didn't help them, only numbed them and wounded me with broken promises. I am now obliged to deal with them and to deal in reality, and at times that's hard. But I am making progress -- something I couldn't say was true while I was in the faith.

[Ouroboros]

Ouroboros, it is good to talk with you again. Out of all I have met on this site, I respect no one more. Me and Antlerman wil be debating this science issue here shortly. Of course you are welcome to join in.

 

Aren't you lucky to have found God?

 

More like He found me. I could go on, but I do not want to pour salt in your wounds. However, later on I would like to talk more about your past. I will never forget it.

You're very cordial, and it's appreciated.

 

He found you? That's all nice, but how come there are 2/3rd of the world he never found? By saying that he found you instead of you found him only makes it sound very arbitrary who God picks. God picks favorites.

 

This is the point I wanted to give my response to.

 

My answer: Many times. Too many to count. My last prayer was that God would reveal himself to me. I'm still waiting all these years later. I will stay an unbeliever until he answers...

 

And actually, I think many of the ex-Christians here did exactly the same thing.

 

 

And this is why I respect you so much. After all you have been through, you are still waiting to hear an answer. Still willing to give God an aer.

Of course.

 

My computer is freezing, so I will have to get to the rest a little later.

You need to have it put on a pullover or sweater so it can keep warm...

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I mean no disrespect, but that picture (avatar), that kind of scares me. But then again, for this same reason I try not to look in the mirror too much. LOL

I like that guy. It's actually an artists rendition of what the Flores Hobbit looked like based on the forensics of the skull they found, dated 18,000 B.C.E. What I like about it is that look of primitive man looking into the fire under the night sky, on the verge of the dawn of consciousness - the Typonic man, as it were, awaking from the dream of his existence into self-awareness.

 

Since you brought it up...

 

You clearly don't have any resources to help with "science" questions as in the first instance you entirely misstate the theory of Evolution, and that of the Big Bang. No scientist in the world believes humans came from monkeys, and yet this tripe is repeated all the time as misinformation to make science look silly.

 

I am all ears, teach me! If we did not come from monkeys (or Apes), where did we come from?

A common ancestor the we both share. The short answer is we are all primates. Monkeys are a separate branch of primates, we are another. The lineage of modern man comes from these predecessors:

 

Ardipithicus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years ago

Australopithecus anamensis - 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago

Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years ago

Australopithecus africanus - 3 to 2 million years ago

Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago

Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago

Homo erectus - 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago

Homo sapiens archaic - 400 to 200 thousand years ago

Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200 to 30 thousand years ago

Homo sapiens sapiens - 200 thousand years ago to present

 

There are no monkeys in this list.

 

Secondly, there was no "explosion" in the begging of this universe. It is best understood as more a great expansion. "Bang" is an unfortunate term that stuck but is a bit of a misnomer.

 

I would love to hear more on this as well. Believe when I say I did not learn these things from the church, but right from my school!(public) But I am listening.

Obviously the range of talking about cosmology is pretty huge, but as a simple primer course:

 

"In the beginning", was a super-dense singularity which for reasons not known rapidly expanded creating strands of energy particles into the emptiness of space. These cooled into the first particles of matter, which then formed the simplest atomic structures of hydrogen atoms, gravity formed them into gas clouds, which then condensed into giant balls of gas which then ignited into nuclear reaction creating enormous suns. These consumed the surrounding gasses until eventually feeding on themselves, converting the atoms into heavier and heavier elements until it finally converted down to the heaviest element of iron which it could no longer convert. Suddenly these massive suns strewn throughout the universe in their own times imploded on themselves with such enormous forces the sheer energy expanded converted the elements further into all the elements of our periodic tables, and spread them throughout space.

 

These elements floating about in space as star dust, began collecting together into larger and larger chunks, the way dust bunnies collect underneath your bed, until they formed bodies whose gravity attracted other bodies, and still more bodies, and still more bodies until for many of them the sheer pressure converted the cores of these planet-sized bodies into molten center. On our ball of star dust called Earth, the hot core cooked all these elements separating the lighter and heavier elements apart, the way you would see fat rise to the surface in a pot of boiling soup on your stove. Carbon, is one of those lighter elements, and it is carbon the comprises most of what our biological bodies are made of!

 

As the earlier solar system settled, our moon was formed from the collision of another massive body with early earth, a magnetic core was established which protected the surface from solar radiation, the surface cooled, life began to emerge out of the pools of amino acids on the surface forming first rudimentary photosynthesizing organisms (plants) which converted nitrogen into oxygen, seeding the atmosphere, then earlier animal cells emerged in the great oceans, creating the first organized systems of animal cells into the ancient sea sponge; from which the first Echinoderms emerged, from which greater and more complex organisms emerged, to then the first animals transitioning onto land spreading out into all the world, the sea of oxygen above land, to which higher and higher forms of animal life emerged.

 

Then the earliest primates emerged, and brains developed in complexity, built on the earlier more primitive brains, then mind emerged, and the dawn of human consciousness awoke into the world - cultures were formed, technologies were developed, and now we are here today using every single thing from the beginning of the universe through the emergence of mind in this discussion you and I are having right now.

 

Pretty amazing, isn't it?

 

Every single thing I mentioned in there has strong evidential support.

 

Thirdly, you link you provided as a science resource is anything but that. It's entire series of weak logic arguments (as opposed to actual science anything), is in fact based on a single, glaring error, this statement:

 

Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

 

That is a factual error. Steady State theory went out quite a few decades ago, and unlike Christians who when faced with changing information, they mainly dropped that understanding in favor of the widely accepted theory of the Big Bang.

 

 

In the case of believing in no beginning, you are correct. I have heard that very rarely in my life time. Though it is out there.

Which pretty much negates that entire site you offered. It's bad information.

 

For factual evidence, give me something to go on. What do you base your theory on when relating to science. There is such a wide rang to flow from, so let us narrow it down to a smaller focus target. Then we can talk some more.

Everything I mentioned about is based on reputable science which follows stringent rules of peer-review. The entire system of modern science is all about a system of checks and balances that reduces personal biases (or religious views) from skewing the information gleaned from observation. If you wish to examine a fact, examine the system of knowledge itself as to the reliabity of it.

 

Not that anyone should expect it to be flawless, but as a tool of discovery of the natural world, nothing can compete with it. So taking a religious faith with the idea that the Bible is science and that it can be the final arbiter of the way of things in the natural world, is in fact a very, very bad system of knowledge. In this case, science has mountains of hard evidence to point to which anyone can examine. In your case, you have a very small select group of non-scientists, and frankly non-scholars in Biblical matters for that matter, who badly interpret the literature of the Bible and project it through all their cultural and religious biases onto the natural world and end up with nonsense. That, is a fact of discussion we can focus on if you wish.

 

The rest of this has such strong peer-reviewed support its not worth you and I challenging the experts on.

 

First may I suggest another possibility? Christians are open to science that PROVES the truth. Not science (or what they call science) that is nothing more than a wild guess.

No. You are starting with the answer of the what you think the truth is, without the evidence to tell you what that truth is. Essentially, I hear this, "If science agrees with my reading of the Bible from my perspective as a 20th American who has no formal training in ancient history and literature, with a high school diploma, then it's good science. If it's doesn't square with my thinking about things, then it's unreliable." Sum it up?

 

Nothing I have stated thus far can in any way, shape, or form be construed as "wild guess". A million times over no. Your reading of Genesis on the other hand......

 

(continued...)

[Antlerman]

The bible told science before we knew what the word science was! We look from a different angle. Science proving the bible.

That is absolutely untrue. I see the Muslims now taking the same tactic of bad interpretations of the Koran and twisting science around to make it sound like that Koran had special insights long before man did! You're doing the same thing, I'm very familiar with these sort of arguments, and I can just say trust me, I could easily expose the errors being made to support these sorts of things quite easily, but I really don't wish to waste time on such trivial claims that others have dismantlement a thousand times over already. Just give me a little act of faith on this one. It's junk.

 

The only difference is, you do the opposite.

Don't be so sure you know exactly what I do. I tend to go places others don't. But I can say that the main difference in approach is this: You start with the answer in your mind and look to support it; the scientist starts with the question and looks to provide and answer as yet unknown through the examination of the evidence. Which approach do you think is going to give the better answer? Starting with your idea as the truth and biasing finding what supports your ideas and to hell with those who disagree, or by looking to having your ideas informed by examination of the data, starting with a "I don't know" thought first?

 

As far as modifying, the bible year after year only proofs more and more that it was right long ago.

The opposite is true. Now I will be generous and say this, outside matters of history and science, there are truths in the Bible which in fact transcend culture because they are existential human truths, matters of love, for instance. Even though they are couched in the language of the day with gods and demons, and whatnot, the human perceptions being expressed can in fact carry beyond the immediate ancient contexts. So in that sense, it may be said in certain areas that it "got it right". But this same statement is easily made for any great text of human sacred literature throughout history. It is hardly validation of it as authoritative, by any means.

 

 

I will say one thing, I find more security in the word and facts that never change, my friend.

And there, my friend, lays the existential crux of why you cling to beliefs and not true God! God is about becoming aware, and you cannot become aware, if nothing changes! Your, and many, many others clinging to the illusion of having The Answers, with an unchanging capital A, is driven by fear. It is not a spiritual desire or drive at all, but the exact opposite. It's is the illusion of Knowledge, without actually growing into that. It is a substitute for enlightenment, giving you the illusion of completeness while not actually doing what is necessary towards the end. The pull is there, the fear prevents what is necessary - letting go of your illusion of security in exchange of Light.

 

You want to have a discussion with me? Let's zero in on this fact.

 

To be honest with you, Antler, there are many a Christians out there that do believe this way. I do not hold it against them. To each his own. The bottom line of my faith is Jesus Christ. That is truly the only thing that matters.

From what I hearing, I would say the bottom line of your faith is you seeking the illusion of security. No offense, but it's what I hear.

 

It is fun to debate, but I would never tell someone they cannot believe in Jesus just because they take the believe in science different than me.

You've demonstrated you have next to no knowledge of science, so then how can you rightly claim to have any belief about it one way or the other? That's a fair question, isn't it?

 

It is about our hearts, and souls, and minds, to believe or not to believe in the one creator.

Some food for thought for you. You said "hearts, and souls, and minds". Look at the last word in this Trinity of self if you will: Mind. Mind.

 

Balance. If you remain ignorant, if you deny evidence, if you reject the greatest tools of reason the world has ever developed in the pursuit of knowledge, then how, how can you possible claim to embrace the development of the whole person in a spiritual self- "hearts, and souls, and mind"?

 

Think about it.

[Ouroboros]

A common ancestor the we both share. The short answer is we are all primates. Monkeys are a separate branch of primates, we are another. The lineage of modern man comes from these predecessors:

 

Ardipithicus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years ago

Australopithecus anamensis - 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago

Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years ago

Australopithecus africanus - 3 to 2 million years ago

Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago

Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago

Homo erectus - 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago

Homo sapiens archaic - 400 to 200 thousand years ago

Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200 to 30 thousand years ago

Homo sapiens sapiens - 200 thousand years ago to present

 

There are no monkeys in this list.

True. There are no monkeys in that list, but if you extend the list even further back in time, we, the apes and us humans, share an ancestor with monkeys. And together, we share ancestors with all mammals, and fish, and plants, and bacteria...

 

Also, I have to point out that the order primate contains prosimians (lemurs) and semians (monkeys, apes, humans). So just by ordering us in the primate group, we are considered to be related to monkeys as well.

 

It's actually not wrong to say that we share an ancestor with monkeys, because we do. It is wrong however to say that monkeys are our closest in the tree of ancestors since it is the apes, and more specifically chimpanzees, who are our closest relatives. And it's also wrong to say that we descended directly from monkeys or apes because they are their own speciation branches from our common ancestors.

 

Sorry to be so picky.

 

I just wanted to share this thing below. This is the circle of life, showing the ancestral links between a large amount of species (if all species would be represented on that circle, the edge would be just a gray washer.)

 

 

 

 

Antlerman 1:1

"In the beginning", was a super-dense singularity which for reasons not known rapidly expanded creating strands of energy particles into the emptiness of space. These cooled into the first particles of matter, which then formed the simplest atomic structures of hydrogen atoms, gravity formed them into gas clouds, which then condensed into giant balls of gas which then ignited into nuclear reaction creating enormous suns.

 

...

Every single thing I mentioned in there has strong evidential support.

Selah.

 

---

 

Oh, I found another pretty image of ancestry. Haeckle's paleontological tree:

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

So, if god created freewill and everything god created was good, then how is it bad to exercise freewill however one wills?

 

Hi Cit. Paul writes that all things are permissible (that is, living by the Holy Spirit) but not all things are benefitail. ((Forgive me, I did not Ace spelling)

 

A child has the free will to run in the middle of the road (as my dog often does, that is, whenever there is a car coming -- good thing I got a leash LOL) but it would not be wise to do so. Free will is a responsibility, not just a luxury. Bad decisions create a very messy world. Would you rather be a robot? It would be much harder to love God then, would it not?

 

Have you really thoroughly thought through what you're saying here? I doubt it, because the implication here is that nothing is actually sinful. All is permissible, after all, and comparing bad choices with a child innocently running into the street removes the "sin" aspect.

 

Where do you find this? The bible says that the serpent was more cunning/crafty than other animals, NOT that it was a manifestation of satan.

 

I have to confess, I have never heard this one before. Paul makes it clear in Romans. Infact, Satan is referred to the serpent many times. If you really want to debate this we can, but I do not think you will have to look hard to understand this truth.

 

Indeed you don't have to look hard to understand the truth in this matter. Allow me to enlighten you.

 

Paul did not write Genesis, and Romans is not a Hebrew text. Agreeably, Revelation calls the devil "that old serpent," but neither is that a Hebrew text. Those are texts written much later in a different language by other individuals of another religion. To impose their claims on the Genesis text, written by others far removed from the NT authors, is unscholarly.

 

Look closer at the Genesis text:

 

Genesis 3:1

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?

 

There is NO claim in this ancient myth that the serpent was satan. It simply says that "the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field."

 

In addition, look at this:

 

Genesis 3:14

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

 

If this was merely a manifestation of satan, then why would god punish serpents? Is your god that unjust?

 

You see, it's abundantly obvious to the unbiased reader that the idea that the serpent was satan is something that christains erroneously read into the text of Genesis, because it's not there.

 

The interesting thing in the garden story is that god said they'd die the day they ate of the tree, and the serpent said they'd be like god in their knowledge of good and evil. After they ate the fruit, they didn't die, and god proclaimed that they had become "like one of us, knowing good and evil." So, biblically speaking, the serpent told the truth and god lied to Adam and Eve.

 

Besides, how could they have known that disobeying was wrong if they didn't have the "knowledge of good and evil" until AFTER they disobeyed? And how is there any justice in punishing them for doing something that they had no capacity to understand was supposed to be wrong? This whole story is just completely absurd.

 

This is good. I like this.

 

First, it should be noted that Adam did die that day, in the aspect that he became mortal, as before he was not. In other words, that day made death come to him and to all mankind.

 

If they were immortal before "the fall," then what was the point of the "tree of life"?

 

Secondly, it should be noted the word used is "yom" which can have more than the one meaning.

 

Genesis 2:16-17 (Amplified Bible)

 

16And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

 

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

 

------------------------

 

Genesis 2:4 (Amplified Bible)

 

4This is the history of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens--

 

---------------------------

 

Now was the relation of the word day in this same context? Not a single day, for God created in six days. Therefore the word day can simply mean a period of time, or a general reference to a time area and/or space.

 

You can haggle all you want over "day," but when you look at the fact that what the serpent told Eve would happen is exactly what happens in the story, then it becomes quite clear that the serpent told the truth. Allow me to quote the text:

 

Genesis 3

[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

[5] 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.

….

[22] And the

LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

[23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

So, they became like the gods in their knowledge of good and evil (just like the serpent said). Also, they weren't put to death for their action (just like the serpent said), but were rather driven from the garden (and proceeded to live some 900+ years!). So much for the serpent being the liar, huh?

 

Secondly, while there may be a chance that it's true that the usage of "day" in Genesis 2 is more open to interpretation than the clearly defined days in Genesis 1 (I used to use that same argument when I was a christian), I'm not so sure that that's not exaggerated by the creationists. After all, the contrast is made with the claim that "day" in Gen 2 couldn't mean a single day because there were six days in Gen 1, but the fact is that these are two different creation accounts, which means that using one to prove the other doesn't work.

 

Thirdly, even if "day" could be meant nonliterally in Genesis 2:17, keep in mind that Adam supposedly lived over 900 years after "the fall." Isn't that just a bit more than the time-frame one would expect?

 

But again, the real contrast is with what the serpent said, which is exactly what proceeds to unfold in the story. I find it interesting that you completely avoided this point in your response to me.

 

Thirdly, because of this it should be noted that many translations dismiss the word day and play it out in their translation as it was meant to be, as we do not speak in the same way now as we did.

 

But sometimes translators' dismissal of words in the text is done to smooth over problems in the text rather than more accurately convey the meaning.

 

Now the second part of your question, the knowledge of good and evil, was simply a knowing of such, or now knowing that there is both. They did not even realize they were naked. They were like the animals in this one aspect. However, that did not make them stupid. They knew what commands were, and they knew what not keeping a command was also. Maybe that is why they were so easily deceived.

 

If "the knowledge of good and evil" was simply "knowing that there is both," then wouldn't that mean that they didn't know it before eating the fruit? If they didn't know of there being good or evil, then how could they understand the concept? If they didn't know "good," then how could they know that it was good to obey? If they didn't know "evil," then how could they know that it was evil to disobey?

 

You see, the whole thing is just silly. It's ancient mythology, nothing more. Those who believe it's true have to jump through ridiculous hoops to try and make it sound reasonable, but then end up with a tangled mess of nonsense.

 

It is all a matter of understanding what we are reading, friend.

 

Exactly! You're still blinded by the lens of indoctrination, just like I was for many years. Once you finally understand what you're reading, you'll realize how ridiculous it is to take it seriously. Good luck, and maybe you'll eventually see the light.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Christians are open to science that PROVES the truth. Not science (or what they call science) that is nothing more than a wild guess.

 

Translation: Christians are only open to science or psudo-science that seems to them to validate their preconceived "truth." Anything else is written off as a "wild guess."

 

Been there, done that.

 

Stranger, the scientific method is to examine the world, perform tests, accumulate data and draw conclusions from that data. The christian method is to assume the conclusions and then manipulate the data to try to make it fit. Which approach is clearly more concerned with truth? And which approach is clearly more concerned with maintaining preconceived ideas despite the evidence?

[Ouroboros]

Christians are open to science that PROVES the truth. Not science (or what they call science) that is nothing more than a wild guess.

 

Translation: Christians are only open to science or psudo-science that seems to them to validate their preconceived "truth." Anything else is written off as a "wild guess."

Well put. I saw his post earlier, and that part really stood out from the rest of it. That's exactly why religious people have a hard time accepting science, truth, reality, and facts about life, they don't want to when it doesn't fit their preconceived beliefs.

[DesertBob]

I like that guy. It's actually an artists rendition of what the Flores Hobbit looked like based on the forensics of the skull they found, dated 18,000 B.C.E. What I like about it is that look of primitive man looking into the fire under the night sky, on the verge of the dawn of consciousness - the Typonic man, as it were, awaking from the dream of his existence into self-awareness.

And here all this time I thought it was a production still from Planet of the Apes :-)

[Ouroboros]

I like that guy. It's actually an artists rendition of what the Flores Hobbit looked like based on the forensics of the skull they found, dated 18,000 B.C.E. What I like about it is that look of primitive man looking into the fire under the night sky, on the verge of the dawn of consciousness - the Typonic man, as it were, awaking from the dream of his existence into self-awareness.

And here all this time I thought it was a production still from Planet of the Apes :-)

What Antlerman doesn't know is that the skull was Adam's. We're looking at a rendition of the guy who brought us all down. The first sinner. The guy who screwed us over by eating the fruit and giving us the inheritable sin...

[kittypaws]

What Antlerman doesn't know is that the skull was Adam's. We're looking at a rendition of the guy who brought us all down. The first sinner. The guy who screwed us over by eating the fruit and giving us the inheritable sin...

 

When I was a Christian, I actually puzzled over at what point in evolution The Fall happened (I was never a creationist). Unsurprisingly, I couldn't come up with a satisfactory answer, so I swept the whole problem under the carpet - as is often necessary when trying to cling to a set of beliefs that doesn't make much sense.

[Antlerman]

I like that guy. It's actually an artists rendition of what the Flores Hobbit looked like based on the forensics of the skull they found, dated 18,000 B.C.E. What I like about it is that look of primitive man looking into the fire under the night sky, on the verge of the dawn of consciousness - the Typonic man, as it were, awaking from the dream of his existence into self-awareness.

And here all this time I thought it was a production still from Planet of the Apes :-)

What Antlerman doesn't know is that the skull was Adam's. We're looking at a rendition of the guy who brought us all down. The first sinner. The guy who screwed us over by eating the fruit and giving us the inheritable sin...

Of course you know me, I can get all philosophical about this, and I will....

 

The Adam and Even myth actually has some real teeth to it in the sense that the awakening of man's awareness brought about a separation from the Garden - we became aware of ourselves apart from the Garden, moving into the word of dualism; that of subject and object, self and other.

 

The fall of man is the sense of disconnection from his mother's womb, so to speak. With the rise of consciousness, there came the fall of our naive fusion with the Great Mother. That said however, that fusion was at the expense of self-awareness. So this "paradise" of Eden was more like the sense of self a rodent has as it scampers about on the forest floor seeking to avoid being eaten. The myth of perfect awareness of God in harmony with Nature, is a projection of man's existential desire for final union of conscious mind with the world from which he was born.

 

So yes, as this Typhonic man of mind in the avatar sat staring into the fire awakening to his dualistic self, that was the fall from "Paradise", into our existential hell of separation from the Great Mother. Awareness of separate self and the our very mortality, not just of body, but of our self sense projected into eternity through our creation of time.

 

OK, I digress....

 

BTW Hans, the Ouroboros which is your name, is actually one step before my typhonic man, where nature is in that state of undifferentiated fusion, the snake eating its own tail. So if anything, your Avatar from before with the snake actually represents Eden, in that sense. The undifferentiated reality of preconscious mind.

 

Alright, now I really do digress

[Antlerman]

What Antlerman doesn't know is that the skull was Adam's. We're looking at a rendition of the guy who brought us all down. The first sinner. The guy who screwed us over by eating the fruit and giving us the inheritable sin...

 

When I was a Christian, I actually puzzled over at what point in evolution The Fall happened (I was never a creationist). Unsurprisingly, I couldn't come up with a satisfactory answer, so I swept the whole problem under the carpet - as is often necessary when trying to cling to a set of beliefs that doesn't make much sense.

Well hey! There you go. I just offered a couple thought to that for you.