Christians - Fess Up To Your Beliefs

[Guest end3]

Long story short Leaf,

 

I think God is tired of bad choices and lack of faith in the relationship God had hoped for when man was created. He now paints us a picture of what that relationship would look like through Jesus as well as the added value of salvation. Simple enough.

 

Sure, He could zap us all to be loving robots, but that would mean a relationship for Him much like the blow up doll you own....

 

End,

 

I've been turning your recent comments about God and trust in my brain now for some time. As I embark on my first proper study of Genesis, this idea is more interesting to me. I want first to get clear on your view.

 

It sounds like, in your view:

 

- God created Adam and Eve with the intent that they would have choice, but with the hope (which necessarily comes hand in hand with fear) that they would not sin

 

Yes, but I don't understand the fear part, I think there would be no fear.....none.

 

- the relationship between God and these two humans was mutually and completely satisfying before the fall

 

I would certainly think so from a human perspective, and "good" is what the bible uses for God's take on initial creation.

 

- Adam and Eve were as pure as Jesus, before the fall

 

I would think close P.

 

Is that right?

 

Pretty good start from my vantage point.

[Guest end3]

I guess what I'm getting at here is this could be a reason why God doesn't appear as omniscient. In Christianity, he gives up being God so man can be God only they limited this to Jesus alone. In Hinduism, God is all the divine actors. God gets so involed with the play, that forgetfullness occurs. When one plays a game, they don't want to know the outcome because if they did, it would already be past and there would be no fun in continuing.

 

Just some thoughts...

Just as Jesus could be God made into man, infinite made into finite, transcendence made into experience, we, humanity and even animal life, could be God made into that exact same thing.

 

We are God's experience.

 

I guess it is surely possible, good or bad outcome.

[Guest end3]

Is trust a mechanism that is totally separate from God...? One which he can adhere to perfectly, but that he did not create? Or did God create the mechanism itself?

 

I would assume it to be His mechanism.

[Guest end3]

By "His environment", did you mean the supernatural one? Are we and our world outside of God's environment?

 

I will do my best to describe my beliefs P. I think the Garden of Eden was essentially Heaven.....meaning if you could open the door to Heaven, it would be the Garden of Eden or much like it. Granted, this is my own understanding. I also think Heaven is a place within God. If you are "in God", you are in a place synonomous to Heaven, but without boundries. I view earth and our physical environment as a subset of, or lesser shell within the realm of Heaven/God. We are in God now, but separate/separated by our human nature. Hope that helps. I will try more if need be.

 

Humans can never conform perfectly to our environments and situations because they are, generally, complex and dynamic...but perhaps less so for cults which succeed in segregating themselves. Survival requires flexibility to different situations. Our brains are pattern-seekers and approximators due to limited brain capacity...our brains aren't perfect, rational computers with the ability to instantaneously and accurately assess all factors and present to the higher brain the right option and the sinful one (which might still hold appeal). "Sin" is often an inevitable result of necessary adaptation. No adaptation=extinct. Sin is an unavoidable part of the mechanism which sustains the human organism. Therefore, individual sins may to an extent involve some choice, but to sin over all? No choice. In fact, we have to sin or die. In this view, desegregation leads to more sin. Is segregation, therefore, good, because it reduces sin (non-conformity)? Or is it bad, because it reduces temptation and, thus, opportunities to establish trust? Is separation from the world, good, or bad? Is integration with the worldy while resisting sin a sign of a mature relationship (high level of trust)?

 

Good question P.....makes me think of the water cycle. Water, as it exists as less contaminated or as increasingly pure, can be used for many more life sustaining uses I would think than water that is subject to a bad environment. i.e. dissolves or collects suspended impurities. If you look at the segregation part, the farther the water travels towards the ocean and specifically through today's environment, the more impurities it collects on the way to the ocean. There is also the possibility that the water gets segregated into a lake rather than continuing the voyage to the ocean.

 

Is integration with the worldly while resisting......? IMO as always, I believe the abililty to resist and remain "pure" as in the water example, is a function of somemthing outside of the water itself. The sun evaporates the water and leaves the impurities behind to be sent down as rain again.... The water chooses the path of lease resistance and cannot purify itself.

[Guest end3]

If you sin, then you cease to conform to that environment, and death is warranted. Unless, unless there is something to give in return for your refusing to conform to that environment. But you can't God didn't provide for the original condition, because he did in the garden....

 

I know I already responded to this, End, but now I'm not sure I understood you because the last sentence is unclear. Would you mind rewriting it with the mission punctuation added. Also, I'm not sure where the dot-dot-dots are floating off to. I'm trying to respond to you without making assumptions about your position. I regret posting previously without clarifying this post first.

 

Best,

Phanta

 

I think you have to insert the word deny into the sentence, "but you can't deny"...I was probably in a hurry to make a point. Sorry.

[Guest end3]

Romans chapter 9 states that God created some unto destruction so that he could demonstrate his wrath and power to those who were created unto salvation. This would seem to confirm that those who don't choose god did exactly what they were created for. To burn as an example to those received god's mercy. It doesn't matter whether you like this or not. This is your god as presented in the bible.

 

My little sister, bless her, said that I am likely this very thing: a lesson to others who might sin; a deterrent. I'm glad I now have a Bible section for reference on this, as the more I think about...well, everything....and learn about the Bible, the more I see a movement of a collective human creation in which some (most?) must be discarded for the benefit of the few (many?). I was told this rule of any self-organizing system: inevitably some must fill the role of those which fall away.

 

Phanta

 

Let's go back to the water example....all water is subject to the sun, but some get recycled sooner. All will eventually.

[chefranden]

It's fascinating that every time a weakness in God's character is brought up, the Christian explanation is to compare God to a human father with all the limitations which comes with being a faulty and finite human. Does this comparison mean then that God is human, since God has the same restrictions and faults as humans? It must be.

 

You ask a good question....if we are in the image of God, what is that image? Doesn't seem like anyone wants to go there when reasonable answers to the questions posed are put forth.......most drop the conversation in favor of the standard rhetoric.

 

If you haven't already, (and it appears you haven't), please go read the first four pages to this thread and we can talk.

 

This is an image of a bear.

Can it shit in the woods?

 

You tell us what it means to be made in the image of God. And don't leave out the magic.

[Guest end3]

It's fascinating that every time a weakness in God's character is brought up, the Christian explanation is to compare God to a human father with all the limitations which comes with being a faulty and finite human. Does this comparison mean then that God is human, since God has the same restrictions and faults as humans? It must be.

 

You ask a good question....if we are in the image of God, what is that image? Doesn't seem like anyone wants to go there when reasonable answers to the questions posed are put forth.......most drop the conversation in favor of the standard rhetoric.

 

If you haven't already, (and it appears you haven't), please go read the first four pages to this thread and we can talk.

 

This is an image of a bear.

Can it shit in the woods?

 

You tell us what it means to be made in the image of God. And don't leave out the magic.

 

the rigid definition of image is not limited to a two dimensional non-shitting bear yielding no magic....but I appreciate the laugh.

[Tealeaf]

What is even going on here now????

 

For fuck sakes, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME I post the OP on any forum, this is what happens. Some Jesus freak takes it upon the,selves to instantly trip it off topic and on to the same old speculation on speculation about the imaginary and nonsensical.

[NotBlinded]

What is even going on here now????

 

For fuck sakes, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME I post the OP on any forum, this is what happens. Some Jesus freak takes it upon the,selves to instantly trip it off topic and on to the same old speculation on speculation about the imaginary and nonsensical.

Tealeaf, this probably wouldn't happen in the colleseum, but I'm really not sure that it has gone too far off topic. People are trying to get to the nature of God in order to even begin to understand your guestions. If God is all-knowing, then the scarifice of Jesus seems to be absurd. If God can forget, have hope, have fears, etc, then some of this burden is shifted to the creation. I'm not saying either is the case, but working within the Christian theology, this is a path that is needed in order to answer some of the questions you propose. There are no simple answers.

[Guest end3]

Is trust a mechanism that is totally separate from God...? One which he can adhere to perfectly, but that he did not create? Or did God create the mechanism itself?

 

I would assume it to be His mechanism.

 

So, God creates a law of trust and applies it to relationships. The law of trust includes benefits and consequences to conformity and non-conformity, respectively. Yes?

 

P

 

I didn't see where you had put this post in the new thread, so I wanted to answer it here before moving....

 

I don't know that the wording "law of trust" works well together . As none are able to keep the law, God's law in this case, then we are all guilty of breaking the law.

 

For me, yes, I am sure that trust includes benfits and consequences by conforming or not. I have also been amazed when my lack of trust was greatest, that intercession was that much stronger. I know that is not everyones experience, but I don't know the reason(s).

[Tealeaf]

What is even going on here now????

 

For fuck sakes, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME I post the OP on any forum, this is what happens. Some Jesus freak takes it upon the,selves to instantly trip it off topic and on to the same old speculation on speculation about the imaginary and nonsensical.

Tealeaf, this probably wouldn't happen in the colleseum, but I'm really not sure that it has gone too far off topic. People are trying to get to the nature of God in order to even begin to understand your guestions. If God is all-knowing, then the scarifice of Jesus seems to be absurd. If God can forget, have hope, have fears, etc, then some of this burden is shifted to the creation. I'm not saying either is the case, but working within the Christian theology, this is a path that is needed in order to answer some of the questions you propose. There are no simple answers.

 

Ah....so now I should try this in the colleseum?

 

That's the thing with this topic though. It's so simple. The nature of biblegod doesn't really even matter here. There are a few unavoidable aspects of the Christian story. Without them, it's not Christianity. Putting them all together, you get what I have outlined.

 

The nature of Yahweh doesn't matter in this sense. What we have is a story that, given the elements and point, makes no sense.

 

I guess the complicated thing is trying to figure out why over 2 billion people can't see this or choose to ignore it.

[Ouroboros]

As none are able to keep the law, God's law in this case, then we are all guilty of breaking the law.

All according to God's will. God made us that way. The freedom to oppose God was part of God's creation, right? So why did God do that? Knowing that people would go to Hell for it. He made us broken, and we carry the blame for it. It just doesn't add up for me, but you know that already.

[Guest end3]

As none are able to keep the law, God's law in this case, then we are all guilty of breaking the law.

All according to God's will. God made us that way. The freedom to oppose God was part of God's creation, right? So why did God do that? Knowing that people would go to Hell for it. He made us broken, and we carry the blame for it. It just doesn't add up for me, but you know that already.

 

The time before Adam and Eve "fell", how did they survive with God then, being made faulty? By grace?

[Mriana]

It is a mythical story, End. It never actually happened.

[chefranden]

As none are able to keep the law, God's law in this case, then we are all guilty of breaking the law.

All according to God's will. God made us that way. The freedom to oppose God was part of God's creation, right? So why did God do that? Knowing that people would go to Hell for it. He made us broken, and we carry the blame for it. It just doesn't add up for me, but you know that already.

 

The time before Adam and Eve "fell", how did they survive with God then, being made faulty? By grace?

 

The point of showing you the flaws in the story is to help you see that it is not real.

 

In story time there was little or no "before Adam and Eve 'fell'". The story goes right to the serpent. Why? Because any before time was unimportant. Granted the hole in the story gives you the room to stick in your own speculations. But that is all they are speculations about "the golden age"

 

Ask "Why did God want companions?"

 

In the other creation stories that surrounded this in time and geography. Humans were created because the gods were tired of working. They complained that it was high time they be treated like... gods. So people were made to do the grunt work of tilling the fields, and cleaning the sewers. And of course to bring the gods offerings -- the first use of share cropping.

 

In our story it is much the same. First God makes the earth for a garden of delights. But nothing is growing because he doesn't have any people to work. ...When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground...(Genesis2.4-5)

 

Nowhere in the story does it say that God made us to be companions. In fact the story says that he kicked them out of the garden least they become companions. "2 And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'"

 

It is obvious that the man was not designed to live forever. He had to have a bit of fruit to make it so. And now that he had the knowledge he might well do it.

 

What was the knowledge of good and evil? I say it was having their eyes opened to the fact that they were slaves. That is the importance of nakedness in this story. They know now that they are naked i.e. without power and vulnerable to the whims of their master -- like the naked prisoners in Abu Ghraib. God drove them out for the same reason tyrants have always valued ignorance and feared knowledge. The man was no longer a willing slave, because he could see other possibilities. He could see himself being a god not out of arrogant fantasy, but in fact. In heavenly society it just wouldn't do for the mud people to move on up to the east side. Gotta keep the mud people where they belong.

 

Your argument that God wanted a companion fails in Genesis.

 

Later though God takes Israel as a bride, which is a bit gay when you think about it. What was a bride in those days? She was your chattel, literally one of your cattle. She was supposed to be at your absolute beck and call. She might on occasion be an actual companion to some guys, but that was never her main job. She was your servant and son incubator. You ought not to stick modern romance into the story. In stead think Taliban woman and you get closer to the relationship that God wanted with his bride.

 

Fortunately, it is just a story that can be forgotten, or rewritten as Christians constantly do.

[Ouroboros]

As none are able to keep the law, God's law in this case, then we are all guilty of breaking the law.

All according to God's will. God made us that way. The freedom to oppose God was part of God's creation, right? So why did God do that? Knowing that people would go to Hell for it. He made us broken, and we carry the blame for it. It just doesn't add up for me, but you know that already.

 

The time before Adam and Eve "fell", how did they survive with God then, being made faulty? By grace?

Because it's not the same God in that story.

 

The simple reason is that the Genesis+Flood story and some other stories came from older religions. You do know that the Noah/Flood story existed before the Old Testament was put together, right? So here comes "Israel", puts together stories of a bunch of god-concepts, and then it evolves into more and more intricate religious ideas, until the Christians comes and add on even more.

 

There were never any Adam and Eve. God never created them.

 

But to honor your question, I will try to answer you with some semi-religious/philosophical answer here: Christians are faulty, just like all humans. We all sin. But yet, Christians will go to Heaven, faulty or not. So God doesn't really have a problem with faulty humans, when he so chooses. So when it comes to Adam and Eve, they hadn't sinned yet, even though they were faulty constructions, they hadn't sinned, so God didn't have a problem having them around. But he intentionally created them with the capacity to sin, and even put them to a test, and ever more, let the snake in into the garden (the all knowing God was fooled by an angel? No way!) to tempt them. God in his all wisdom and knowledge already knew the snake would tempt them, and he already knew they would fall, because he already had made them capable of falling, and he also gave them the tree to be tempted by. So who is ultimately at fault here? The creation being the way God made it, or God intentionally making it so?

[Guest end3]

As none are able to keep the law, God's law in this case, then we are all guilty of breaking the law.

All according to God's will. God made us that way. The freedom to oppose God was part of God's creation, right? So why did God do that? Knowing that people would go to Hell for it. He made us broken, and we carry the blame for it. It just doesn't add up for me, but you know that already.

 

The time before Adam and Eve "fell", how did they survive with God then, being made faulty? By grace?

Because it's not the same God in that story.

 

The simple reason is that the Genesis+Flood story and some other stories came from older religions. You do know that the Noah/Flood story existed before the Old Testament was put together, right? So here comes "Israel", puts together stories of a bunch of god-concepts, and then it evolves into more and more intricate religious ideas, until the Christians comes and add on even more.

 

There were never any Adam and Eve. God never created them.

 

But to honor your question, I will try to answer you with some semi-religious/philosophical answer here: Christians are faulty, just like all humans. We all sin. But yet, Christians will go to Heaven, faulty or not. So God doesn't really have a problem with faulty humans, when he so chooses. So when it comes to Adam and Eve, they hadn't sinned yet, even though they were faulty constructions, they hadn't sinned, so God didn't have a problem having them around. But he intentionally created them with the capacity to sin, and even put them to a test, and ever more, let the snake in into the garden (the all knowing God was fooled by an angel? No way!) to tempt them. God in his all wisdom and knowledge already knew the snake would tempt them, and he already knew they would fall, because he already had made them capable of falling, and he also gave them the tree to be tempted by. So who is ultimately at fault here? The creation being the way God made it, or God intentionally making it so?

 

Why do you have to justify fault? They could have sided with God.

 

Please suppose it is true for a minute. If you could win the fault argument with God and verifiably somehow say, "ahh ha God, I got you on that one" Can you still do anything remotely God like except the things given to you by God?

 

What is your take on the vastness of creation compared to your tiny, tiny, existance?

 

Sounds like there is another reason to me Hans.

 

Do you think that the Genesis story is just made up to explain why there is death in our world?

 

If the story is true, doesn't your behavior remind you of A&E and many more through the book sayin, "no, we got this one God"

[chefranden]

Why do you have to justify fault? They could have sided with God.

 

Doesn't matter. God gave them the ability to not side with god, or they would not have been able to do it. If you build a car you are responsible for what it is able to do and not do. You could say that the driver could be responsible, but God can't because he made the driver too.

 

God was playing the odds. He bet his future happiness on a toss of the coin and he lost. "Let's see, heads they kiss my ass forever. Tails I get nailed to a bit of wood. Yes, well let's see how this goes." Or is God in charge of the odds too?

 

In any case you can't side with God even if you want to, and that is the important bit. God bet our happiness on the same coin toss. "Let's see heads they kiss my ass forever. Tails, their life is a bitch and then they burn in hell. I'll get myself nailed to a bit of wood and let some of them out of hell, but their life will still be a bitch. Sounds like a plan. Let there be serpent!" And there was serpent.

 

If it is true that God made "everything", then God made everything. We can't invent anything not even sin. As it is written: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

 

edit: Heck even Paul figured this out:19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

 

Now you might argue that A&E could be any kind of pot they wanted to, but I don't know. Once a pot is thrown, it is thrown don't you think? Still even though they may have been able to choose their pottiness, you can't. But it still seems to me that if God wanted A&E to be noble he would have thrown them that way.

[NonXNonExX]

It seems no one else understands Tealeaf's frustration with the way things are going on this thread. Maybe it's because i, too, was never a believer. Not that i wasn't exposed to a great deal of babbling nonsense growing up. We went to church regularly, i was baptized (though at the time i had no idea what that was supposed to mean) and we even went to vacation bible school in the summer. Moreover, many of my mother's relatives were nuns and priests.

 

Or maybe it's because i understand about not growing old more than some others here on the site. I am much, much older than Tealeaf but i still enjoy giggling at the Simpson's, watching Hellboy and being lead singer and guitarist in a club rock band.

 

Sorry for the long intro, but here's my answer to your original question, Tealeaf. You remember the old joke about the boss, right? It's sort of like that.

 

There are two basic rules to Xtianity.

1. Jesus (Yahweh, Holy Shit) is a kind and loving, 3-in-1, all-powerful god who wants only the best for all his creations.

 

2. For any exceptions, see rule #1.

 

Hope that clears things up for you.

[Ouroboros]

Why do you have to justify fault? They could have sided with God.

Yes, they could.

 

Was God God at that time? Was God able to forsee that this would happen, or was he just like humans and incapable of figure this out before it happened?

 

Consider God as the master chess player, knowing all the moves before they happen, wouldn't he have known they would fall? Or was it out of his reach to know? But if he knew, then it was acceptable to him that they fell, because he knew they would and he was okay with it. His plan was that they would fail, and he would let billions of people go to Hell for this human failure.

 

Please suppose it is true for a minute. If you could win the fault argument with God and verifiably somehow say, "ahh ha God, I got you on that one" Can you still do anything remotely God like except the things given to you by God?

 

What is your take on the vastness of creation compared to your tiny, tiny, existance?

So it was God's greatness that made him incapable of knowing? He was so big that it made him so small? He is the smartest being, creating a universe, but unable to know what would happen?

 

Sounds like there is another reason to me Hans.

Doesn't to me.

 

Do you think that the Genesis story is just made up to explain why there is death in our world?

Yes, and I think the Genesis story is made up to explain more than just death. It's original purpose was most likely to give a religious story to explain why we have to work so hard for food, and to explain why we have a consciousness, and death is one part of it too.

 

What is interesting is that Adam and Eve in the garden represents the hunting and gathering society. And the fallen Adam and Eve represents the agricultural society, and people looking back to their past, and how happy life was before they had to live a life of toil, minding the earth in their sweat for a few pieces of bread.

 

And also, the story is telling the background reason to why the gods are angry with humans, and why humans have to sacrifice and give gifts to the gods to please them, in hopes that the gods will give them a good harvest and not send disaster.

 

The story got many purposes, but it's just a story.

 

If the story is true, doesn't your behavior remind you of A&E and many more through the book sayin, "no, we got this one God"

That's the purpose of the story, to give the reader a sense of "that's me." It's a story made by and for the religion, to keep a certain control and guilty placed on the followers.

 

Remember, Adam and Eve did NOT know the difference between good and evil before they ate the fruit. They had not experienced it yet. They perhaps had the ability to choose one side or the other, but they had not yet learned what a good live was vs a bad life. They didn't have experience of death, nor sin, nor disobedience, nor thinking "no, we got this one God," because they were like children.

 

Imagine you were just born, knowing nothing about the world, and then someone tell you: you can play with any toy, but the toy of "Gnarglax" you cannot touch. If you touch it you will Blurb the Blurb.

 

It would be hard to understand what this someone is talking about, wouldn't it?

[Abiyoyo]

This is a copy and paste I have put on a number of forums. It sounds like more of a confrontation to the Christian so you ExChristians can just pretend you are still Christians while reading haha.

Any input would be useful.

 

----

When confronted with the horrific events of the OT, many Christians either choose to ignore them or attempt to explain them in a piss poor manner that always contradicts itself or one of the basic teachings of the faith. Thing is, many so called Christians don't even read the bible and simply take the word of anyone pretending to be wise on the subject. First, you need to actually read the damn thing, through and through.

 

 

 

Ok. That was a long OP in a long thread that has been hashed out as many times as I can remember on these forums. So, I will give you a simple answer. One that makes sense, one that you probably will see as another Christian just trying to dodge the "true, honest' answer". The true honest answer is that it was written by human beings that DO have characterizations and apply character in their writings.

 

Since you are bothered with these Christians that have not read the Bible through and through, you should already know that for as many characterized parts of the OT about God, their were parts that were not characterized. Example. The people did this, and now this will happen because they did this thing ...or The people have angered my wrath and kindled my everlasting flame, which will burn until their flesh melts away, because they have disobeyed the Lord, and I shall make their barren and desolate etc etc.

 

See the difference. You should, since you have read the Bible through and through.

[Mriana]

It seems no one else understands Tealeaf's frustration with the way things are going on this thread. Maybe it's because i, too, was never a believer. Not that i wasn't exposed to a great deal of babbling nonsense growing up. We went to church regularly, i was baptized (though at the time i had no idea what that was supposed to mean) and we even went to vacation bible school in the summer. Moreover, many of my mother's relatives were nuns and priests.

 

Or maybe it's because i understand about not growing old more than some others here on the site. I am much, much older than Tealeaf but i still enjoy giggling at the Simpson's, watching Hellboy and being lead singer and guitarist in a club rock band.

 

Sorry for the long intro, but here's my answer to your original question, Tealeaf. You remember the old joke about the boss, right? It's sort of like that.

 

There are two basic rules to Xtianity.

1. Jesus (Yahweh, Holy Shit) is a kind and loving, 3-in-1, all-powerful god who wants only the best for all his creations.

 

2. For any exceptions, see rule #1.

 

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

Oh I think I understand it. Why do you think I haven't said a whole lot in this thread? Why do you think my last go around with End was about him calling Tealeaf, Teabag and alike? I think he was the one I also threw back at him my relatives Fundamngelical beliefs concerning Xian perfection and all, due to his cussing and alike. He wasn't even acting like those Xians I know.

[Guest end3]

Let's say, as you propose, that A&E were like children, and as we all once were, not in the "know" concerning good and evil......as God had created.

 

God provides the children with adult counsel. Do not "eat" of this children, least you die......as we do for our children. I say this in a literal and figurative context.

 

This in itself is not a fullproof plan for all the children to eat as the adult had perscribed. Some will side with the parent, and some won't.....as we can all testify.

 

Question for you,

 

What would be an alternative?

[Mriana]

Let's say, as you propose, that A&E were like children, and as we all once were, not in the "know" concerning good and evil......as God had created.

 

What's A&E? Arts and Entertainment?

 

God provides the children with adult counsel. Do not "eat" of this children, least you die......as we do for our children. I say this in a literal and figurative context.

 

OH! An invisible sky daddy that watches you even when you go poo-poo! *Joan Rivers voice* OH GROW UP! *Spong's voice* We need to grow up.

 

This in itself is not a fullproof plan for all the children to eat as the adult had perscribed. Some will side with the parent, and some won't.....as we can all testify.

 

It is impairing cognitive development and stunting mental growth. Children don't need to be brainwashed and such a concept is mentally abusive and hijacks various cognitions. Psychologists have studied this hijacking and there was a recent lecture put on video about all of this. It was even posted in the blog section of this site. It is a very good lecture, you should watch the video of it.

 

Question for you,

 

What would be an alternative?

 

To grow up and stop brainwashing and mentally abusing children. No one needs an invisible sky-daddy. Such a thing does not exist and anyone who believes it needs some serious psychological help or an education. Whatever, they need help. GEEZE! Talk about having a God virus! Keep it to yourself, PLEASE! Not even Jews by what you are saying, just watch Joan Rivers in a recent stand up- she jokes about Xians and their bizarro beliefs.