Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Who Was The 'stenographer'?


Margee

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

This seems so stupid and I am almost embarrassed to post it, but I have to! :twitch:

 

Please - One last question - before I make my mind up totally.This question is sooooo important to me in order to 'let go' of this whole bible.

 

In the beginning.....................................................................................

If this one account can't be justified - then all the rest can't be justified either -right? :shrug:

 

If nobody can answer this question about the 'Garden' - then how do we know if we ever really fell from grace - that we eventually would need a savior?

 

If this 'account' is a made up story by ancient people - Then we are NOT sinners made by a 'monster god'.

 

A stenographer is a trained professional that makes use of specific forms of shorthand to accurately transcribe verbal communications as they occur or from a recording.

 

Who was the 'stenographer' who stood outside the garden and took down all the events of 'the fall'? Who actually saw and heard the talking snake? Who 'heard' all the things that were going on in 'The Garden'? Adam and Eve were supposed to be the only ones alive at the time????????

 

They say Moses told this story - but if that is the truth - moses came along quite some time later. :shrug: So if it was moses - how did he 'here' the story and from whom? And if it wasn't Moses - then who? This has to make sense to me. I have tried so hard to find this answer myself, but I can't..................

 

(Christians also) - I have been asking this question for a long time and nobody has been able to answer it to my satisfaction - Can I please here some of your answers? Who actually saw and heard this Genesis account?

 

Sincerely,Thank you for any replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you know how I stand on the issues. The bible is mythology coupled with some historicity. All of the "god" part is mythological. But I don't think that reaching this conclusion is quite so simple as you propose in your post.

 

I'll try tackling some of your questions.

 

In the beginning.....................................................................................

If this one account can't be justified - then all the rest can't be justified either -right? :shrug:

 

This depends on how one views the bible. If one views it as the literal word of god in toto, then I think what you suggest by this question has some validity. However, I think that what one will have accomplished by demonstrating that this one passage is not literally true, is to prove that the bible can't be taken literally in toto. But that leaves open the possibility that the bible might be literal in part and metaphorical in part, or even that it is totally metaphorical. I think that if pressed and helped to understand the impossibility of certain passages being taken literally, the vast majority of Christians would concede that parts of the bible are metaphorical, but they would still assert that other parts are literally true. The problem is pinning them down on which parts are which. So, my answer to your question quoted above is not necessarily.

 

If nobody can answer this question about the 'Garden' - then how do we know if we ever really fell from grace - that we eventually would need a savior?

If this 'account' is a made up story by ancient people - Then we are NOT sinners made by a 'monster god'.

 

I assume that what you are asking is if no one can prove that Adam and Eve actually sinned in the Garden of Eden as the story of the fall of man relates, then there is no proof that we actually need a savior like Jesus to die as an atonement for the sins of all people since we all inherited their sins as original sin.

 

I think this is an excellent question insofar as it relates to original sin. But the proof that is required of Christians goes beyond proving that the events literally happened. There is a second, third, fourth, and fifth step required of them. Step one whether there is proof that Adam actually sinned in the Garden of Eden? Step two is whether, assuming he did, all humans somehow inherited this sin by virtue of being born as a human being? Step three is whether there is any eternal consequence for inheriting this "original sin?" Step four is whether, assuming there is an eternal consequence such as going to hell for inheriting original sin, there needed to be a savior to die and act as an atonement for that original sin? And, Finally, step five is whether Jesus of Nazareth was this savior?

 

Obviously, answering all of these questions pretty much covers the gambit of theolory and apologetics. I won't try to go into all of that because it would take a really lot of space and discussion. But I will give at least one rather simple way to address most of the points. The concept of original sin was given to us by Paul. It is not an Old Testament doctrine and not currently a modern Jewish concept. If original sin were true, then it would make sense that god would have warned both Adam and Eve not just that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they would die, but that they would also go to hell and that all of their offspring for as long as people lived on the earth would inherit their sin and would be subject to hell because of it unless a savior was born and died as an atonement for this original sin. But this did not happen in the OT. It was only with Paul that this concept was born. That should tell you a lot.

 

But this only covers original sin and not the concept of personal sins. From a theological standpoint, there still could be personal sins even without original sins and one could argue that these personal sins like stealing, lying, and murder would still require a savior for their ultimate forgiveness. And that issue is not addressed by merely debunking the garden of eden mythology. Though it can still be debunked by looking in the OT and seeing that never did the god of the OT tell people that if they disobeyed his laws that they would go to hell. Rather, the punishment was physical death and nothing spiritual whatsoever. Again, we have the NT to "thank" for this concept.

 

A stenographer is a trained professional that makes use of specific forms of shorthand to accurately transcribe verbal communications as they occur or from a recording.

 

Who was the 'stenographer' who stood outside the garden and took down all the events of 'the fall'? Who actually saw and heard the talking snake? Who 'heard' all the things that were going on in 'The Garden'? Adam and Eve were supposed to be the only ones alive at the time????????

 

They say Moses told this story - but if that is the truth - moses came along quite some time later. So if it was moses - how did he 'here' the story and from whom? And if it wasn't Moses - then who? This has to make sense to me. I have tried so hard to find this answer myself, but I can't..................

 

I think that the orthodox Christian and orthodox Jewish answer to your question is that the witness was god who literally told Moses the story and Moses acted as the stenographer to god the witness. Again, to fully debunk this requires a lot of work and far more than I can do with a simple post. But I think you are on the right track. You first question whether the witness ever existed. That is, does the god of the bible, the witness, actually exist. You can also attack it from the perspective of the stenographer as you put it. That is, questioning whether Moses, the stenographer, ever actually existed.

 

What I have found to be very satisfactory in questioning whether the story of the garden of eden and the rest of what the Jews call the Torah and Christians call the Pentatuch is a form of biblical criticism called the Documentary Hypothesis. In short, this hypothesis posits that these stories were handed down as an oral tradition until they were finally put into writing by, I believe, five (maybe more, I can't remember off the top of my head) different authors. These writers took varying accounts and attempted to meld them together into one semi-consistent set of stories. This explains why there are actually two separate creation stories in Genesis, each one coming from a different oral tradition and written down by different authors who gathered and wrote them down. If true, and I think it is, then there was no true eye witness to anything at all. Just a bunch of stories handed down from generation to generation until written down in what we now know as the Torah. Moses didn't write anything down and, in fact, the evidence is very strong that Moses, himself, never actually existed. Thus, there was no stenographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

WOW - Over came Faith! :o

 

You have certainly done your homework! I have only been in the 'beginning stages' of questioning all of this, for a few years now. I feel that I have so much to learn. :49:

 

It's very important to me - to someday be as comfortable as you when I am finally able to let all this 'doctrine' go. I have been 'brainwashed' for many years in 'the word of faith movement', that EVERYTHING in the bible was inspired by God. I am driving myself crazy right now (even tho you wonderful folks told me to take my time) - - - -I just can't get information fast enough!

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer this. I really appreciate it! Margee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margee, if you are interested in further reading into the Documentary Hypothesis, here's a pretty good read written for the masses (I mean not just for the scholars) and written by one of the leading scholars on the issue:

 

The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses by Richard Elliott Friedman.

 

I first learned of the Documentary Hypothesis when I was in college years ago and I took an elective course benignly called, "Genesis." It was during this course that I first heard of the concept that the book of Genesis might have been written by someone other than Moses. I was in my mid-twenties and found it fascinating. Though I still had many years of Christianity in front of me, once I started really questionning it all, what I learned in that class came flooding back to my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Margee, if you are interested in further reading into the Documentary Hypothesis, here's a pretty good read written for the masses (I mean not just for the scholars) and written by one of the leading scholars on the issue:

 

The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses by Richard Elliott Friedman.

 

I first learned of the Documentary Hypothesis when I was in college years ago and I took an elective course benignly called, "Genesis." It was during this course that I first heard of the concept that the book of Genesis might have been written by someone other than Moses. I was in my mid-twenties and found it fascinating. Though I still had many years of Christianity in front of me, once I started really questionning it all, what I learned in that class came flooding back to my mind.

 

 

I'm on it! :woohoo: Thanks Overcame!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I have heard two different explanations for how, the genesis story got to moses. Both of these, seem implausible to me.

 

One God told moses. (The reason that seems unlikely should be obvious.)

 

Two, Oral Tradition came from adam down to moses. (The reason I don't think that would have led to a accurate account of genesis was because of how long it was supposedly from Adam to Moses.) So anything is really possible if you take that wrote particularly if you think the exodus story is historical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oral Tradition came from adam down to moses.

 

This is the premise of a book I just started reading tonight. "Bondage of the Mind. How Old Testament Fundamentalism Shackles the Mind and Enslaves the Spirit" by R. D. Gold. He says the oral tradition however, goes much much farther than just Moses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Oral Tradition came from adam down to moses.

 

This is the premise of a book I just started reading tonight. "Bondage of the Mind. How Old Testament Fundamentalism Shackles the Mind and Enslaves the Spirit" by R. D. Gold. He says the oral tradition however, goes much much farther than just Moses.

 

GOD - I wanna read that book too!!!!!!! STOP,STOP..........................:notworthy::fun: SOOOOOOO many questions - so little time!

 

thanks Eugene39!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

This seems so stupid and I am almost embarrassed to post it, but I have to! :twitch:

 

Please - One last question - before I make my mind up totally.This question is sooooo important to me in order to 'let go' of this whole bible.

 

In the beginning.....................................................................................

If this one account can't be justified - then all the rest can't be justified either -right? :shrug:

 

If nobody can answer this question about the 'Garden' - then how do we know if we ever really fell from grace - that we eventually would need a savior?

 

If this 'account' is a made up story by ancient people - Then we are NOT sinners made by a 'monster god'.

 

A stenographer is a trained professional that makes use of specific forms of shorthand to accurately transcribe verbal communications as they occur or from a recording.

 

Who was the 'stenographer' who stood outside the garden and took down all the events of 'the fall'? Who actually saw and heard the talking snake? Who 'heard' all the things that were going on in 'The Garden'? Adam and Eve were supposed to be the only ones alive at the time????????

 

They say Moses told this story - but if that is the truth - moses came along quite some time later. :shrug: So if it was moses - how did he 'here' the story and from whom? And if it wasn't Moses - then who? This has to make sense to me. I have tried so hard to find this answer myself, but I can't..................

 

(Christians also) - I have been asking this question for a long time and nobody has been able to answer it to my satisfaction - Can I please here some of your answers? Who actually saw and heard this Genesis account?

 

Sincerely,Thank you for any replies.

 

I suspect that most of the bible is allegorical, not necessarily hypothetical. I wrote an article some months ago Christianity Shot in the Foot, in essence, reasoning that without original sin then humanity doesn't need a savior, thus doesn't need "Jesus" or his "crucifixion", so where does that leave Christianity?

 

If humanity truly needed a "savior" to succeed then there would be more than 25% of the World's population who are Christians. If 75% of humanity are not Christians then I'm also happy not to be one. I'll stick with the majority.

 

Reading through some of Genesis yesterday I came across the sons of god, mating with humans. "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they came in to any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:1-6:2)" Christians state that their god only had one son. So on research, sons of god refers to the sons of ALL of the gods. So, more than one god for the Canaanites/Israelites.

 

Adam and Eve, Adam made from clay and Eve made from Adam's rib? True? hahaha! Who was Cain's wife? His mother or his sister?

 

Noah and the Ark. True? Noah way! It had all been done before, in other, much older writings and societies. Almost every society on Earth has had a catastrophic flood in their writings and myths and fables.

 

Make of the bible what you will, Christians do it all the time.

 

Personally, I prefer to regard the bible as non-historic, mythical and allegorical, because very little of it is believable as historic "fact". Probably written for Bronze Age humans BY Bronze age humans as something inspirational, easily seen by the importance that the scribes/priests attributed to their society. Why, for instance would a god tell them that they were his only people. Why would a loving, caring god kill 3 million people for them and them alone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is why funda-'mental'-ists feel the need to disprove evolution

since no Adam => no original sin => no need for a saviour. I've always thought that

original sin was the explanation for why mankind has individual sins.

 

As a christian and a scientist I put my mind through hoops trying to rationalize the Bible

with what I knew about Creation. This is what I came up with.

 

Taking as premises the following:

 

1. Mankind is demonstrably sinful

2. God exists and has provided the remedy for this through by faith in Jesus as saviour

3. The Bible is *not* literally true, but has been compiled

over generations by men of faith according to their culturally

based understanding of the way the world is.

 

I concluded the following.

 

1. God has eradicated all evidence of himself from the universe that is detectable by rational thought so that he is available only by faith.

2. This means that all the arguments about the historicity or otherwise about the Bible are irrelevant

3. The primary motivation for Christian belief (for the unbeliever) is thus the testimony of other people - i.e. the argument from experience

- also "faith comes by hearing the word" (i.e. not from *reading* the Bible)

 

This thinking was motivated by the 'will to believe'.

 

I have been very influenced by C S Lewis since my early childhood (I read all the books in 2 weeks when I was 7), but not having had a Christian upbringing I didn't grasp that Aslan was Jesus until I re-read the series when I was 18.

 

In particular Lucy's first trip to Narnia and her telling her unbelieving brothers and sisters about it is a metaphor

for finding God and telling others about it.

 

At the end of the day I couldn't cope with the Christan teaching about hell - however having convinced myself of the above

I have found it doubly difficult to deprogram myself - I know more about the Bible than I ever did as a believer and I can

see quite clearly that it doesn't hold together very well - I don't see how Sola Scriptura works at all!

 

As far as I can see the only thing holding me back from complete unbelief is the thought that other peoples religious experience might be valid in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a Christian point of view, the events that are recorded before Moses' time are oral history recorded infallibly by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I.E. While Moses' was writing the Torah, the HS guided him so that he would record only what really happened. Though some might suggest Moses' was given this knowledge through some sort of revelation, this view is not the most popular (at least in the circles I was in). The problem being, did Moses actually write the Torah? According to the Documentary Hypothesis (of which someone mentioned it already) they would say no. There are actually several authors and when you look at the examples they provide, it's rather convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

1. God has eradicated all evidence of himself from the universe that is detectable by rational thought so that he is available only by faith.

2. This means that all the arguments about the historicity or otherwise about the Bible are irrelevant

3. The primary motivation for Christian belief (for the unbeliever) is thus the testimony of other people - i.e. the argument from experience

- also "faith comes by hearing the word" (i.e. not from *reading* the Bible)

 

This thinking was motivated by the 'will to believe'.

 

At the end of the day I couldn't cope with the Christan teaching about hell - however having convinced myself of the above

I have found it doubly difficult to deprogram myself - I know more about the Bible than I ever did as a believer and I can

see quite clearly that it doesn't hold together very well - I don't see how Sola Scriptura works at all!

 

As far as I can see the only thing holding me back from complete unbelief is the thought that other peoples religious experience might be valid in some way.

 

Oh My god andyjj - this is what I am going thru right now! I know the bible so much better today than ever, and the more I really read it...........:Doh:

 

Where are my fellow Christians to help answer this? you still may be able to 'save' me - IF you can give me a sensible answer! (and don't tell me to go on 'faith')

 

Thank you all so much for replying to this - I really appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that someone will point out the logical flaws in my thinking...

 

Like "what's the point of having the Bible at all if we can't rely on it?"

 

Also - Christians will argue that the Holy Spirit will lead people to the truth. If that is the case why:

1. The 'Catholic' church (pre 2nd millenium) claimed it had the Holy Spirit - 'Apostolic' Tradition & the Bible were the basis of the Christian Faith

2. The 'Catholic' Church split in 1054 (if memory serves me correct) into the Roman Catholic & Orthodox faiths

3. The Reformation ditched the 'Tradition' part and generated a multitude of sects with different doctrines

4. Many 'Christian' churches anathematize each other

 

If the Holy Spirit really is behind Christianity in a meaningful sense then why is there so much confusion?

 

When I was an evangelical protestant I was a bit bemused by the multiplicity of Christian Faiths - how could I know which one was the correct one since there were so many? This led me into the RC church eventually..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another thing....

 

All that the Christian Church has told us (well most of it) over the centuries about the world we live in has turned out to be false. See

 

The History of the Warfare of science with theology

 

for details. Some major examples

 

1. The shape of the Earth

2. The Age of the earth

3. The nature of the Solar System

4. Illness (especially mental) being caused by demons (don't know if either penicillin or prozac helps against demonic possession)

 

 

And so on. Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is why funda-'mental'-ists feel the need to disprove evolution

since no Adam => no original sin => no need for a saviour. I've always thought that

original sin was the explanation for why mankind has individual sins.

 

I don't think that purely from a theological standpoint "...original sin [is] the explanation for why mankind has individual sins." The reason is that when Adam and Eve "sinned," there was not yet original sin and yet they "sinned." And their "sin" could only be classified as an individual sin, or as I would say, a personal sin not related to any [purely from a Christian theological point of view] as yet non-existent original sin. So, again from a purely theological point of view, the order of things was that Adam's personal (or individual) sin led to original sin and it is not necessarily original sin that leads to personal sins.

 

Now, let's get away from theology and take a look at the concept of original sin for what it really is. If you wanted to create a savior figure on whom everyone depended for their salvation, then you must fashion a theology which makes everyone, no matter how good or bad they are, as needing salvation. The concept of personal sins comes close but that leaves too many potential gaps like babies, or those who were never taught about god's law and thus could not willfully disobey them, or those unable to understand them for whatever reason (like children or those with learning disabilities). These people could arguably be made to appear as if they didn't need this savior figure. What is the "cure" for this potential gap in the need for a savior figure. Well, that's where original sin comes into play. With the original sin concept, no one, no matter their age, their mental abilities, their ignorance, or anything else, is without the need for a savior to die as an atonement for them. Your savior figure, therefore, becomes universally needed. Voila, your potential religious adherents are all people over all of time.

 

That's the purpose of the concept of original sin and that's why Paul invented it. The guy was a brilliant marketer of his new religion. And he was a major liar and deceiver and has done tremendous damage to countless individuals who have suffered and are now suffering from the view that they are worthless individuals whose natural destiny is hell. If there was a hell, and there is not, then my first candidate for admission would be Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - never really thought of it like that. I seem to remember Paul saying something like "Through the disobedience of one man (adam) sin entered the world" the upshot being that through one man (Jesus Christ) sin would leave the world. Can't remember chapter and verse though. I had always understood the the global sinful nature of mankind was as a direct result of Adam's sin. Otherwise we would each be born with a clean slate - not having a sinful nature would mean that we didn't need to be 'born again' and could attain heaven under our own steam - isn't that Pelagianism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - never really thought of it like that. I seem to remember Paul saying something like "Through the disobedience of one man (adam) sin entered the world" the upshot being that through one man (Jesus Christ) sin would leave the world. Can't remember chapter and verse though. I had always understood the the global sinful nature of mankind was as a direct result of Adam's sin. Otherwise we would each be born with a clean slate - not having a sinful nature would mean that we didn't need to be 'born again' and could attain heaven under our own steam - isn't that Pelagianism?

 

The thing about Christian theology is that it can be twisted and shaped into practically whatever form one wants it to be. That's why there are so many denominations. And each of those denominations, some with vastly differing theological interpretations, can point to scriptures that support their views. The concept of original sin and its consequences is no different. One can do with it pretty much what one wishes to do. But here is the verse of which you speak, put in context:

 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

 

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

 

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

Romans 5:12-21.

 

What I find most interesting here is that, according to these passages, the consequence for original sin is that all became sinners and it was sin which resulted in death, not just to Adam, but to all people thereafter. Notice that, at least according to these verses, the consequence was not eternal punishment in hell, just death. And the benefit of Jesus' atonement is eternal life, not also being rescued from hell. Hell is a concept allegedly spoken of by Jesus and supposedly recorded in the gospels and theologians grafted it onto Paul's teachings as an attempt to make it all more consistent. But Paul wrote before the gospels were written which suggests that the Christian concept of hell was adopted sometime after Paul's teachings or perhaps parallel with but separate from Paul's teachings and only became part of orthodox Christianity with the writing of the gospels and their subsequent adoption under Constantine.

 

This is one more slightly more subtle, but, I think, persuasive argument that hell is a lie. It is also why some Christians do not believe in the hell concept (as in eternal punishment) but believe in annihilation (i.e., death) as the consequence for not being a Christian. Both concepts can be supported by scriptures. It's a ragged mess which is another reason not to believe any of it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Margee, here's a link that explores many of the problems of Christianity, and spends a bit of time on the unreliability of the Bible. The author also wrote a book, but you can get a lot of great information from the website.

 

Rejection of Pascal's Wager - Paul Tobin

 

Hope it helps!

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find most interesting here is that, according to these passages, the consequence for original sin is that all became sinners and it was sin which resulted in death, not just to Adam, but to all people thereafter. Notice that, at least according to these verses, the consequence was not eternal punishment in hell, just death. And the benefit of Jesus' atonement is eternal life, not also being rescued from hell.]

 

Now, I'm not about to start reading the Bible again just yet - but I can't recall Paul talking about Hell at all - although the word 'damnation' (KJV?)comes up from time to time - I suspect this means 'condemnation' in fact.

 

If only I could read the original Greek :grin:. However Paul was a Pharisee and as far as I am aware, they did believe in Hell - or at least afterlife punishment. Doesn't Paul mention the Second Death somewhere? (or would that be pseudo-Paul, to coin a phrase).

 

Certainly the concept of Hell had been around for hundreds of years before Paul -(Book of Enoch)

 

So did Paul invent the concept of Original Sin, or was it around in Jewish thought at the time?

 

I must stop thinking along Christian lines when thinking about these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I am watching and listening very careful to this post. I want so badly to have 'peace' in my brain! :help: Thank you everyone. (My silly humor is the only thing that keeps me from having a total 'meltdown' with all of this!) :wacko:

 

Franciscian Monkey - I'm checking out the link you sent me Thanks.

Andyjj - you sound so much like me!:scratch: We Just want the truth!! :woohoo:

 

Overcame -I think you should be a bible scholar and run classes to teach us!! :grin:

 

I am a 'student' for all you 'teachers' out there! I wish I could just 'wave a magic wand' and just know and understand all of this! :magic:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is one more slightly more subtle, but, I think, persuasive argument that hell is a lie. It is also why some Christians do not believe in the hell concept (as in eternal punishment) but believe in annihilation (i.e., death) as the consequence for not being a Christian."

 

Christianity, as others have said, creates the disease in order that we should all then be so grateful to god for giving us the cure. Just like with eternal life. When I was a Christian, I never desired eternal life. It's just the alternative (eternal fire) was not exactly a palatable choice either.

 

If God were truly so gracious and "loving," he would have all men automatically have eternal life. Why the spiritual slavery to earn it? Afterall, he says it's a "gift," not based on works. Yeah right. Try following the Bible literally, hating your own life, "to live is christ and to die is gain," etc and then tell me that eternal life isa free gift. Another way that the Bible wants to have hit both ways: making god appear so gracious by calling it a free gift but at the same time holding people in spiritual bondage to obedience of a god always on the verge of being pissed, all for the sake of not losing the "gift."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

"This is one more slightly more subtle, but, I think, persuasive argument that hell is a lie. It is also why some Christians do not believe in the hell concept (as in eternal punishment) but believe in annihilation (i.e., death) as the consequence for not being a Christian."

 

Christianity, as others have said, creates the disease in order that we should all then be so grateful to god for giving us the cure. Just like with eternal life. When I was a Christian, I never desired eternal life. It's just the alternative (eternal fire) was not exactly a palatable choice either.

 

If God were truly so gracious and "loving," he would have all men automatically have eternal life. Why the spiritual slavery to earn it? Afterall, he says it's a "gift," not based on works. Yeah right. Try following the Bible literally, hating your own life, "to live is christ and to die is gain," etc and then tell me that eternal life isa free gift. Another way that the Bible wants to have hit both ways: making god appear so gracious by calling it a free gift but at the same time holding people in spiritual bondage to obedience of a god always on the verge of being pissed, all for the sake of not losing the "gift."

 

jasonwhatever - you couln't have said that any better! I -100% agree with you!

 

I'm still asking - where are the Christians to help save me? Please - if you don't want me to go to hell - respond! I need to talk to you! :vent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi margee,

 

I think you will be having problems with sections of the bible when the writers are describing events they are privy of,,, like how does the gospels writers know what jesus prayed in the garden of gethsemane or how did the beads of blood drip or sweat. Or how did the judges writers know what transpired between delilah and the philistines soldiers.

 

It must be taken in faith, that God inspired the writers (who may or may not be present at the events) to write, and since it is God inspired, it must be ,,,,,,,,,,,,(fill in the blanks yourself)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.