Adam Gets My Eve

[Thackerie]

 

... Some Christians see Eve's seed as a reference to Jesus.  Also the animal God killed in order to clothe Adam and Eve, could be a reference the sacrificial system, ultimately referencing Jesus. (Because it was God who killed the first animal to clothe us.  That God did the first sacrifice for human's sake)

 

 

Yes, I've noticed that a lot of christians are so desperate to try to make some sense of the convoluted mess that became their bible that they go through all sorts of mental gymnastics, including back-reading later bits into the earlier bits. I guess it's because they're ignorant of how what became the bible evolved over the centuries. The shame is, so many of them are willfully ignorant.

[mymistake]

{snip}

 

Yes, it's because of Adam's disobedience, everything became corrupt.  Yet God made it so by one man's obedience, everything will be better than it was when Adam was perfect.  These days here we are living in, yes they're tough and filled with grief.  However, there's hope.  There's something I want to say about this, but I don't know how to say it.  As for the point that God should have let Adam and Eve die, that word means more than just falling over dead I believe.  If Adam and Eve were dealt the full punishment, not only would it mean the end of the human line, but Adam and Eve wouldn't just cease existing.  They would continue to exist, but outside of the presence of God, which would be considered great torment.  God loved them too much.  So He was merciful on them.

 

 

{snip}

 

I don't know if God lied about the consequence.  Of course the reasons I give might be seen as a copout, and I don't blame you if you saw it that way.  Would you like me to list reasons why God wasn't lying when He said they would die once they ate of the tree?  Some Christians see Eve's seed as a reference to Jesus.  Also the animal God killed in order to clothe Adam and Eve, could be a reference the sacrificial system, ultimately referencing Jesus. (Because it was God who killed the first animal to clothe us.  That God did the first sacrifice for human's sake)

 

 

Try to understand that in the Old Testament there was no life after death.  The concept had not yet been invented.  When somebody annoyed one of the gods they were killed.  Death was the punishment.  There was no redemption.  This earlier version of gods was far more merciful than what would come later when Egyptian and Greek ideas made their way into Jewish and Christian theology.  If the Old Testament god smited you then you were not tortured forever and ever for not believing in the infinite mercy of God.

 

The stuff about Eve's seed and the snake head was an explanation for why humans are so afraid/hateful toward snakes.  It doesn't mention Jesus.  Killing animals to make clothes doesn't mention Jesus.  You (and whoever fed you this apologetics) are reading into the story what isn't there.  It would be hundreds of years between Ezra creating the modern Genesis and Paul creating Jesus Christ.

 

As for living forever all organisms have systems for dealing with the battle of survival.  Death is clearly inevitable.  All the organisms known fight to survive.  This is all consistent with evolution but quite the contradiction to the idea of a perfect garden where nothing dies until a certain fruit is eaten as part of an obedience test.  The more that is read into the story the more the events in the story become meaningless.  Why go through the motions of pretending there will be a perfect garden if God knows that man will fall and all organisms will spend the next 6,000 years fighting to survive?

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

They knew what God said, and they knew the consequences.  The punishments could have been the result of the blaming game they played afterward, and or their attempt to hide themselves from God.  Adam didn't just blame the woman, he also blamed God as well.

 

Who Adam blamed or did not blame is irrelevant. All that matters is who their god blamed. You need to understand, if Eve was gullible and the snake told her that her god had lied, you've got to wonder what might have been going through her mind right then. She would have had to have thought, "What if the snake is right?" A person that is curious and gullible is going to test this, to find out who exactly is telling the truth. She was not omniscient and could not have known who was honest and who was not. Her god was a being with a lot of power, but you don't base whether or not a being is honest based on how much power they have. It seems that both El and the snake were both equally deceptive. When Eve eats some of the fruit and does not instantly die, she would have thought, "The snake told the truth!" If that is the case, then Adam would have also been convinced that the snake was honest and would have also eaten. They would both have been gullible, convinced that the snake was being honest, but only then did the fruit kick in and give them their sense of right and wrong.

 

 

Yes, it's because of Adam's disobedience, everything became corrupt.  Yet God made it so by one man's obedience, everything will be better than it was when Adam was perfect.  These days here we are living in, yes they're tough and filled with grief.  However, there's hope.  There's something I want to say about this, but I don't know how to say it.  As for the point that God should have let Adam and Eve die, that word means more than just falling over dead I believe.  If Adam and Eve were dealt the full punishment, not only would it mean the end of the human line, but Adam and Eve wouldn't just cease existing.  They would continue to exist, but outside of the presence of God, which would be considered great torment.  God loved them too much.  So He was merciful on them.

 

But El forced all humans to be born corrupt and suffer the consequences of Adam's actions. When a deity or person that is in a leadership position places everyone's fate on the decisions of one citizen/human, without that citizen/human's knowledge, then that deity or human leader is corrupt if they punish all humans/citizens for the crime of that one person. Plain and simple.

 

So what El said to Adam and Eve was, "If you eat from this tree that I forbid you from eating, I will kill your physical bodies but allow you to keep existing in an afterlife full of great torment."? Keeping them alive was most definitely not mercy. You see, two people living after death in great torment is nowhere near as terrible as billions in that situation. What the god in the Bible has done is punish all humans for the actions of Adam, forced all humans to be corrupt so that they could not avoid sin, and gave them a long list of rules that he knew they could not fully obey because they were forced to break them. If what the Bible says about "God" is true, then billions would be suffering after death, right now, in great torment. There is nothing merciful about this. If what your apologetics says about "God" is true then the same thing applies. This is pure sadism.

[Ralet]

 As for the point that God should have let Adam and Eve die, that word means more than just falling over dead I believe.  If Adam and Eve were dealt the full punishment, not only would it mean the end of the human line, but Adam and Eve wouldn't just cease existing.  They would continue to exist, but outside of the presence of God, which would be considered great torment.  God loved them too much.  So He was merciful on them.

 

Why the end of the human line? He could have made new one. ^^ offtopic but: What are you thoughts on death? Did God create "death" and "hell"(as a place outside of his presence)? If he did, how is it merciful to create something horrible in the first place? How is it merciful to save some people from a burning building that you set on fire yourself?

[mymistake]

 

 As for the point that God should have let Adam and Eve die, that word means more than just falling over dead I believe.  If Adam and Eve were dealt the full punishment, not only would it mean the end of the human line, but Adam and Eve wouldn't just cease existing.  They would continue to exist, but outside of the presence of God, which would be considered great torment.  God loved them too much.  So He was merciful on them.

 

 

Why the end of the human line? He could have made new one. 

 

 

"God could have . . . " is the fatal flaw of the entire Bible.  A God who could do anything could have forgiven Adam and Eve right there while the fruit was still fresh.  A God who could do anything wouldn't need to come to earth, pose as a human, live, die, rise again on the third day in order to forgive.  A God who could do anything wouldn't need to wait for missionaries to spread the word to all the people of the Earth.

 

Everything in the entire universe becomes a dance carefully controlled by God simply to amuse God.

[JamesG]

Hi heavenese and welcome to the ex-Christian forums.

 

I was thinking the same thing ralet it would not have been that hard to just let adam and eve die from the fruit and create a new line of humans.

 

I think your missing the point though heavenese you are almost arguing against something unrelated to my statements. You see here are the facts

 

1. God created Adam and Eve and Eden.

2. God created them to work in the garden for the gods as established by Genesis 2:15

3. eating the fruit did not corrupt them it made them more god like and gave them a better understanding of right and wrong

 

you are inferring everything else based on your past experiences and knowledge.

God did not create humans for companionship God gave a reason why man was created and that was to work the fields for them. We were not supposed to know right from wrong we were just supposed to work the fields nothing more. Now obviously once you understand right from wrong you could see how adam and eve could consider what god was doing was wrong and would not be very good workers so god kicked them out.

 

There was no plan for redemption because your assuming El Elyon cared in which case he didn't. In fact god gives his reason as to why he kicked out adam and eve it wasn't because they were corrupt it wasn't because they were good or bad it was because they were becoming like the gods. They could not have equals working the garden.

[par4dcourse]

How does a snake talk anyways?

[Heavenese]

 

 

... Some Christians see Eve's seed as a reference to Jesus.  Also the animal God killed in order to clothe Adam and Eve, could be a reference the sacrificial system, ultimately referencing Jesus. (Because it was God who killed the first animal to clothe us.  That God did the first sacrifice for human's sake)

 

 

Yes, I've noticed that a lot of christians are so desperate to try to make some sense of the convoluted mess that became their bible that they go through all sorts of mental gymnastics, including back-reading later bits into the earlier bits. I guess it's because they're ignorant of how what became the bible evolved over the centuries. The shame is, so many of them are willfully ignorant.

 

 

 

Yeah there have been misses because of translation, and also it can be fairly read as attempts to see what's not really there.  Yet if the Bible is inspired, and God had something to do with it's writing, I wouldn't be adverse to see pictures in certain stories of the Tanakh/OT.  Of course they would all have to be quite convincing, and need of examination.

 

 

 

 

 

{snip}

 

Yes, it's because of Adam's disobedience, everything became corrupt.  Yet God made it so by one man's obedience, everything will be better than it was when Adam was perfect.  These days here we are living in, yes they're tough and filled with grief.  However, there's hope.  There's something I want to say about this, but I don't know how to say it.  As for the point that God should have let Adam and Eve die, that word means more than just falling over dead I believe.  If Adam and Eve were dealt the full punishment, not only would it mean the end of the human line, but Adam and Eve wouldn't just cease existing.  They would continue to exist, but outside of the presence of God, which would be considered great torment.  God loved them too much.  So He was merciful on them.

 

 

{snip}

 

I don't know if God lied about the consequence.  Of course the reasons I give might be seen as a copout, and I don't blame you if you saw it that way.  Would you like me to list reasons why God wasn't lying when He said they would die once they ate of the tree?  Some Christians see Eve's seed as a reference to Jesus.  Also the animal God killed in order to clothe Adam and Eve, could be a reference the sacrificial system, ultimately referencing Jesus. (Because it was God who killed the first animal to clothe us.  That God did the first sacrifice for human's sake)

 

 

Try to understand that in the Old Testament there was no life after death.  The concept had not yet been invented.  When somebody annoyed one of the gods they were killed.  Death was the punishment.  There was no redemption.  This earlier version of gods was far more merciful than what would come later when Egyptian and Greek ideas made their way into Jewish and Christian theology.  If the Old Testament god smited you then you were not tortured forever and ever for not believing in the infinite mercy of God.

 

The stuff about Eve's seed and the snake head was an explanation for why humans are so afraid/hateful toward snakes.  It doesn't mention Jesus.  Killing animals to make clothes doesn't mention Jesus.  You (and whoever fed you this apologetics) are reading into the story what isn't there.  It would be hundreds of years between Ezra creating the modern Genesis and Paul creating Jesus Christ.

 

As for living forever all organisms have systems for dealing with the battle of survival.  Death is clearly inevitable.  All the organisms known fight to survive.  This is all consistent with evolution but quite the contradiction to the idea of a perfect garden where nothing dies until a certain fruit is eaten as part of an obedience test.  The more that is read into the story the more the events in the story become meaningless.  Why go through the motions of pretending there will be a perfect garden if God knows that man will fall and all organisms will spend the next 6,000 years fighting to survive?

 

 

 

You say the afterlife is something more of greek understanding, and that came many years after the writing of Genesis and so on.  Let me ask you a question, when was the Book of Job written?  Scholars believe this book actually was written not as a whole text in one time, but parts were written later within the context of the earlier writings.  I went to wikipedia, and they say it was finished between 6th-4th century BC.  That's not much further off then when you believe Ezra and company finished with Genesis?  In the Book of Job, it seems to suggest there is an afterlife, if you take into account the number of Job's children.  At the end of the book, God doubles everything that Job lost.  Job lost 7 children, so God should have given him 14 children at the end of the book.  No, God gives him 7 children at the end. (God doubles everything else)  Why is that?  It only makes sense if Job's children still had some existence, and in actuality, Job now had 14 children.  So here is an example of an OT book, written in parts before Genesis had been edited into the first five books of the Bible, of an afterlife view.  With that in mind, reading eternal life and having an afterlife picture isn't that far off when interpreting Genesis.

 

 

Also, I agree Christians could be reading Jesus into Eve's seed and so forth.  I've discuss this a great deal with others on other forums.  I think it's something debatable.  To your last point, I don't yet accept common descent, of course this is something I'm looking at.  Yet evolution and adaption, definitely proven.  Common descent is the best answer based on observation, but I'm holding out here for now.  I believe the survival instinct we have, is actually a reflection of our original eternal system.  That is all life is fighting to maintain how things once were.  Of course I don't know if this is getting a little off topic, and probably best reserved for the creation/science section.  God didn't know Adam and Eve would disobey Him because of free will.

[Heavenese]

 

They knew what God said, and they knew the consequences.  The punishments could have been the result of the blaming game they played afterward, and or their attempt to hide themselves from God.  Adam didn't just blame the woman, he also blamed God as well.

 

Who Adam blamed or did not blame is irrelevant. All that matters is who their god blamed. You need to understand, if Eve was gullible and the snake told her that her god had lied, you've got to wonder what might have been going through her mind right then. She would have had to have thought, "What if the snake is right?" A person that is curious and gullible is going to test this, to find out who exactly is telling the truth. She was not omniscient and could not have known who was honest and who was not. Her god was a being with a lot of power, but you don't base whether or not a being is honest based on how much power they have. It seems that both El and the snake were both equally deceptive. When Eve eats some of the fruit and does not instantly die, she would have thought, "The snake told the truth!" If that is the case, then Adam would have also been convinced that the snake was honest and would have also eaten. They would both have been gullible, convinced that the snake was being honest, but only then did the fruit kick in and give them their sense of right and wrong.

 

 

 

Yes, it's because of Adam's disobedience, everything became corrupt.  Yet God made it so by one man's obedience, everything will be better than it was when Adam was perfect.  These days here we are living in, yes they're tough and filled with grief.  However, there's hope.  There's something I want to say about this, but I don't know how to say it.  As for the point that God should have let Adam and Eve die, that word means more than just falling over dead I believe.  If Adam and Eve were dealt the full punishment, not only would it mean the end of the human line, but Adam and Eve wouldn't just cease existing.  They would continue to exist, but outside of the presence of God, which would be considered great torment.  God loved them too much.  So He was merciful on them.

 

But El forced all humans to be born corrupt and suffer the consequences of Adam's actions. When a deity or person that is in a leadership position places everyone's fate on the decisions of one citizen/human, without that citizen/human's knowledge, then that deity or human leader is corrupt if they punish all humans/citizens for the crime of that one person. Plain and simple.

 

So what El said to Adam and Eve was, "If you eat from this tree that I forbid you from eating, I will kill your physical bodies but allow you to keep existing in an afterlife full of great torment."? Keeping them alive was most definitely not mercy. You see, two people living after death in great torment is nowhere near as terrible as billions in that situation. What the god in the Bible has done is punish all humans for the actions of Adam, forced all humans to be corrupt so that they could not avoid sin, and gave them a long list of rules that he knew they could not fully obey because they were forced to break them. If what the Bible says about "God" is true, then billions would be suffering after death, right now, in great torment. There is nothing merciful about this. If what your apologetics says about "God" is true then the same thing applies. This is pure sadism.

 

 

 

To your first response:

 

 

We can't assume Eve was gullible.  All we can say is she knew she wasn't supposed to eat from this tree.  God didn't punish them for their curiousity.  Eve could have went to God and asked about the snake, she didn't have to eat from the tree.  And again concerning the dying part, it could have been God's mercy on them, not that God was lying.  This might be reading into it, but the animal that God killed to clothe Adam and Eve, could have taken their punishemt, hints the set up of the sacrificial system.  Another explanation could be that they would surely die, not that they would die in that instance.  The wording is interesting concerning that "surely".  Why not just write "you will die in the day you eat"?  Why have the surely, unless there's something more here to understand?  They did die eventually, so I wouldn't write off that explanation about the surely.

 

That's interesting concerning why the fruit didn't kick in until Adam ate.  God did specifically give the command to Adam, so there's probably something to consider there.  Of course we could all just be reading things into a completely made up story, that's another explanation for the whole thing as well.  However, I don't think the fruit gave them the sense of right and wrong, but a new sense of consciousness.  Once they felt the change, they knew they messed up.  Not that the change itself allowed them this sense.  The only thing they gained was their own sense of right and wrong.  There was nothing wrong with this sense in and of itself, but they knew they disobeyed God's command to get it.

 

 

To your second response:

 

 

God doesn't force people to suffer, it's just in the genetics.  Of course us being born, is the result of God's mercy on Adam and Eve.  Yet because He was merciful to them, He is also merciful to us.  We all have the same free will choice they had.  I know this life is unbearable at times, for some even worse than that, stuff we can't imagine.  People are going through many things right now that we can't imagine.  As hard as it is, it will end one day.  And eternity with God will begin, better than before the fall. 

 

 

When you think about the things people are going through right now, to say these things seems heartless.  I mean, people are going through some things, stuff that even horror movie directors couldn't dream up.  But this day and age is finite.  Mathematically speaking, the things I say here makes sense, and would bring joy if true.  Yet in the meantime, God has provided power on earth, to bring a bit of His kingdom here on earth right now.  Most Christians don't fully believe on the true Gospel, 2000 years of man's traditions have been brought in.  Not enough examination of what the Gospels are saying.  Miracles are God's confirmation of the word, and He's not going to confirm something that is not His.  With that said, if we were doing miracles today like Jesus and the apostles have reportedly done in the Gospels, people would be getting that taste of of Kingdom that will last forever.  Making this life all the more bearable.

 

 

So all in all, even though we suffer in this corrupt world, we are in fact closer to God than Adam was in his perfect days.  Again, things will be even better in the end, then they were in the beginning.  It all works out, and nobody is wronged.

 

 

 

 

 As for the point that God should have let Adam and Eve die, that word means more than just falling over dead I believe.  If Adam and Eve were dealt the full punishment, not only would it mean the end of the human line, but Adam and Eve wouldn't just cease existing.  They would continue to exist, but outside of the presence of God, which would be considered great torment.  God loved them too much.  So He was merciful on them.

 

Why the end of the human line? He could have made new one. ^^ offtopic but: What are you thoughts on death? Did God create "death" and "hell"(as a place outside of his presence)? If he did, how is it merciful to create something horrible in the first place? How is it merciful to save some people from a burning building that you set on fire yourself?

 

 

 

Yes, He could have made a new one.  Once this age is over, and everything is said and done, God will make other things and do other things.  However, He loves us so much, He didn't want to lose us and still doesn't.  Remember, He created us in His own image.  We are His masterpiece.  Death ultimately means being seperated from God.  It's by His power we live.  Take His power away, we die.  Yet He created us to exist forever.  This quality isn't something that can be taken back it seems. (In other words, it would be going against God's own word in some area)  So Hell was created for anyone who didn't want to be with God.

 

 

 

 

 

 As for the point that God should have let Adam and Eve die, that word means more than just falling over dead I believe.  If Adam and Eve were dealt the full punishment, not only would it mean the end of the human line, but Adam and Eve wouldn't just cease existing.  They would continue to exist, but outside of the presence of God, which would be considered great torment.  God loved them too much.  So He was merciful on them.

 

 

Why the end of the human line? He could have made new one. 

 

 

"God could have . . . " is the fatal flaw of the entire Bible.  A God who could do anything could have forgiven Adam and Eve right there while the fruit was still fresh.  A God who could do anything wouldn't need to come to earth, pose as a human, live, die, rise again on the third day in order to forgive.  A God who could do anything wouldn't need to wait for missionaries to spread the word to all the people of the Earth.

 

Everything in the entire universe becomes a dance carefully controlled by God simply to amuse God.

 

 

 

That seperates God from any other one.  He holds Himself accountable to His own word.  That word doesn't change at all, not even if God wanted to just look the other way at Adam's disobedience.

[Heavenese]

Hi heavenese and welcome to the ex-Christian forums.

 

I was thinking the same thing ralet it would not have been that hard to just let adam and eve die from the fruit and create a new line of humans.

 

I think your missing the point though heavenese you are almost arguing against something unrelated to my statements. You see here are the facts

 

1. God created Adam and Eve and Eden.

2. God created them to work in the garden for the gods as established by Genesis 2:15

3. eating the fruit did not corrupt them it made them more god like and gave them a better understanding of right and wrong

 

you are inferring everything else based on your past experiences and knowledge.

God did not create humans for companionship God gave a reason why man was created and that was to work the fields for them. We were not supposed to know right from wrong we were just supposed to work the fields nothing more. Now obviously once you understand right from wrong you could see how adam and eve could consider what god was doing was wrong and would not be very good workers so god kicked them out.

 

There was no plan for redemption because your assuming El Elyon cared in which case he didn't. In fact god gives his reason as to why he kicked out adam and eve it wasn't because they were corrupt it wasn't because they were good or bad it was because they were becoming like the gods. They could not have equals working the garden.

 

 

That can't be right because they were already like God.  Of course this may go back to the documentary hypothesis because some say there are actually two accounts concerning the creation of the world.  Yet to your point about humans working the Garden, in something like slave fashion, they weren't slaves by any means.  God told them they could "freely" eat of any tree.  In terms of food, they could freely do what they please, and probably in everything else.  The only command, the "only" one, was not to eat of a certain tree.  Adam and Eve weren't dumb, they weren't uneducated.  They had a godly conscience.  They didn't even know they were naked for crying out loud, that is how pure their thoughts were. (Of course there's an interesting take on this, in that they were clothed with God's glory.  Kind of like how the Bible presents the angels.  So they were clothed like the sons of God)  Plus, before the fall, Adam worked, but he didn't get tired nor was stressful.  Adam didn't even sweat in his working.  It was a joy to work it seems, not something a slave would say.  Now if you combine the first chapter with the second, or simply just look at the first, God gave dominion over the whole world to Adam and Eve.  So the whole planet was there's.

 

 

So, they couldn't have been slaves.  If they were, I wouldn't mind being God's slave. (Of course as you know, the apostles considered themselves slaves to God)

 

 

 

 

How does a snake talk anyways?

 

 

That's a good question.  For now let's just say things were different back then.  Even evolution tells us snakes once had legs.  If Adam and Eve literally existed, they didn't look so much as how we look today.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

"God could have . . . " is the fatal flaw of the entire Bible.  A God who could do anything could have forgiven Adam and Eve right there while the fruit was still fresh.  A God who could do anything wouldn't need to come to earth, pose as a human, live, die, rise again on the third day in order to forgive.  A God who could do anything wouldn't need to wait for missionaries to spread the word to all the people of the Earth.

 

Everything in the entire universe becomes a dance carefully controlled by God simply to amuse God.

 

 

 

That seperates God from any other one.  He holds Himself accountable to His own word.  That word doesn't change at all, not even if God wanted to just look the other way at Adam's disobedience.

 

 

That isn't true or else God would have only one covenant.  You don't make an everlasting covenant and then toss it out and make up a new one if you hold yourself accountable to your own word.  Furthermore the nature of the Bronze Age covenant is so much different than that of the Iron Age covenant that is showcases how human religion was evolving at the time.

 

God was blood thirsty and needed to be appeased with pointless sacrifices of innocent animals.  God is racist and does everything to favor certain tribes while everybody else can just die.  God would smite people and called for genocide.  Then suddenly a few hundred years later God loves the whole world and want to save everyone from this afterlife God failed to mention before.  Suddenly people are full of the Holy Spirit when that wasn't mentioned before.

 

Let's face it.  God didn't make men.  Men made God.

[mymistake]

 

You say the afterlife is something more of greek understanding, and that came many years after the writing of Genesis and so on.  Let me ask you a question, when was the Book of Job written?  Scholars believe this book actually was written not as a whole text in one time, but parts were written later within the context of the earlier writings.  I went to wikipedia, and they say it was finished between 6th-4th century BC.  That's not much further off then when you believe Ezra and company finished with Genesis?  In the Book of Job, it seems to suggest there is an afterlife, if you take into account the number of Job's children.  At the end of the book, God doubles everything that Job lost.  Job lost 7 children, so God should have given him 14 children at the end of the book.  No, God gives him 7 children at the end. (God doubles everything else)  Why is that?  It only makes sense if Job's children still had some existence, and in actuality, Job now had 14 children.  So here is an example of an OT book, written in parts before Genesis had been edited into the first five books of the Bible, of an afterlife view.  With that in mind, reading eternal life and having an afterlife picture isn't that far off when interpreting Genesis.

 

 

Also, I agree Christians could be reading Jesus into Eve's seed and so forth.  I've discuss this a great deal with others on other forums.  I think it's something debatable.  To your last point, I don't yet accept common descent, of course this is something I'm looking at.  Yet evolution and adaption, definitely proven.  Common descent is the best answer based on observation, but I'm holding out here for now.  I believe the survival instinct we have, is actually a reflection of our original eternal system.  That is all life is fighting to maintain how things once were.  Of course I don't know if this is getting a little off topic, and probably best reserved for the creation/science section.  God didn't know Adam and Eve would disobey Him because of free will.

 

 

I'm sure Job had multiple authors.  The beginning and ending match each other but do not match the rest of the poem.  I couldn't tell you when Job was written except that it was before Ezra's time.  I would have to look up the archaeologic estimates.

 

Egyptian religion influenced Jewish religion first.  That is where the Ten Commandments came from.  But for some reason the Jewish culture did not immediately adapt the Egyptian idea of an afterlife.  Or if they did Ezra edited it out.  Later on the Greek culture came with Alexander.  That is when we start to see references to the abode of the dead and so on.  So it took the Greeks to get an afterlife into Jewish religion.

 

There is no mention of an afterlife in Job.  You are reading into it things that are not there.  Simply put God replaced some things and doubled others.  Why don't you ask yourself why God would kill ten innocent people just to settle a wager with the Accuser?  Is that justice?  Is that love?  The God in Job is El and El was not a God of justice or love.  He was the most high God.  He was the father of all the local gods and goddesses worshiped in the high places.  As for trying to make the Bible make sense . . . the only way to do that is to realize the Bible is the word of men.  Start from that truth and the Bible does finally make sense.

[JamesG]

I  am using slave in the general sense of the term for example a guard dog is a slave in the sense that it was trained for a singular purpose to guard and protect its master. its only command in a general sense is to protect. It can eat of any of the food provided but it must not eat from the masters table. this does not mean that guard dogs are unhappy fulfilling their masters wishes or commands in fact they get satisfaction out of it. However when they fail and can no longer carry out their duties they are unfit to be guard dogs and are cast out in a sense.

 

Humans were created with a specific purpose to work the fields of eden just because god gave them the freedom to eat does not mean they were free to do what they will with their lives. We have drugs today that keep sex slaves happy with their position in life this doesn't make it right or good just because adam didn't suffer as a slave worker in the fields does not mean he was not a slave.

 

Genesis 2:15 establishes the reason for mans existence

 

"That can't be right because they were already like God."

 

Genesis 3:22-23 establishes why they were kicked out

 

 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.” ²³ So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

 

I bolded the part in which you seem to be confused on your statement cannot be true because Genesis 3:22 infers that before eating the fruit they were not like them  and eating the fruit of life would complete this process.

 

"Adam and Eve weren't dumb, they weren't uneducated.  They had a godly conscience.  They didn't even know they were naked for crying out loud, that is how pure their thoughts were. (Of course there's an interesting take on this, in that they were clothed with God's glory.  Kind of like how the Bible presents the angels.  So they were clothed like the sons of God)"

 

You are just making this up to rationalize the bible to fit your belief system you have no real applicable evidence for this not even biblical ones. It is merely opinion.

 

As far as god giving them dominion this also doesn't mean that slaves don't have power it depends on the slave structure. Have you ever heard the term Head slave? they were given dominion over the other slaves this does not mean they were not slaves.

 

maybe I shouldn't use the term slave as this does not seem palatable to you how about indentured servant? Man according to the bible was created to work the fields for the gods. so they could enjoy and relax in eden without having to maintain their gardens. Its sort of like hiring a gardener giving him dominion over your lawn feeding him and housing him but he can never leave and you will never pay him.

[Heavenese]

 

 

 

 

"God could have . . . " is the fatal flaw of the entire Bible.  A God who could do anything could have forgiven Adam and Eve right there while the fruit was still fresh.  A God who could do anything wouldn't need to come to earth, pose as a human, live, die, rise again on the third day in order to forgive.  A God who could do anything wouldn't need to wait for missionaries to spread the word to all the people of the Earth.

 

Everything in the entire universe becomes a dance carefully controlled by God simply to amuse God.

 

 

 

That seperates God from any other one.  He holds Himself accountable to His own word.  That word doesn't change at all, not even if God wanted to just look the other way at Adam's disobedience.

 

 

That isn't true or else God would have only one covenant.  You don't make an everlasting covenant and then toss it out and make up a new one if you hold yourself accountable to your own word.  Furthermore the nature of the Bronze Age covenant is so much different than that of the Iron Age covenant that is showcases how human religion was evolving at the time.

 

God was blood thirsty and needed to be appeased with pointless sacrifices of innocent animals.  God is racist and does everything to favor certain tribes while everybody else can just die.  God would smite people and called for genocide.  Then suddenly a few hundred years later God loves the whole world and want to save everyone from this afterlife God failed to mention before.  Suddenly people are full of the Holy Spirit when that wasn't mentioned before.

 

Let's face it.  God didn't make men.  Men made God.

 

 

 

Unless the new convenant fulfills the area of the first one.  Jesus fulfilled the first covenant, so in Him, we fulfill it to.  In the first covenant, man had a part and God had a part.  Man couldn't hold up their end.  So God became a man, and did the man part.  So now, it's all God, and man reaps all the benefits.  Of course God gains a people.  So just like Jesus said, He didn't come to destroy that first covenant, but fulfilled it.  So ultimately what the new covenant represents, is God giving us the power to do what the first covenant demanded.

 

Besides, that first covenant applied to the people who were still alive.  It was applied to the generations Israelite people who would live after it was given.  Yet once those generations died, the Law no longer applied to those who died.  When we are baptized, we are baptized into Jesus death, and raised a new creature.  The Law no longer applies to a person who is in Jesus.

 

 

God wasn't blood thirsty.  In fact, there are OT verses that says the blood of animals doesn't satisfy Him.  If you want a picture of God's heart and what He intended, you have to look at life before the fall of man.  All that other stuff such as slavery, death, and so on happened afterward.

 

 

 

 

 

You say the afterlife is something more of greek understanding, and that came many years after the writing of Genesis and so on.  Let me ask you a question, when was the Book of Job written?  Scholars believe this book actually was written not as a whole text in one time, but parts were written later within the context of the earlier writings.  I went to wikipedia, and they say it was finished between 6th-4th century BC.  That's not much further off then when you believe Ezra and company finished with Genesis?  In the Book of Job, it seems to suggest there is an afterlife, if you take into account the number of Job's children.  At the end of the book, God doubles everything that Job lost.  Job lost 7 children, so God should have given him 14 children at the end of the book.  No, God gives him 7 children at the end. (God doubles everything else)  Why is that?  It only makes sense if Job's children still had some existence, and in actuality, Job now had 14 children.  So here is an example of an OT book, written in parts before Genesis had been edited into the first five books of the Bible, of an afterlife view.  With that in mind, reading eternal life and having an afterlife picture isn't that far off when interpreting Genesis.

 

 

Also, I agree Christians could be reading Jesus into Eve's seed and so forth.  I've discuss this a great deal with others on other forums.  I think it's something debatable.  To your last point, I don't yet accept common descent, of course this is something I'm looking at.  Yet evolution and adaption, definitely proven.  Common descent is the best answer based on observation, but I'm holding out here for now.  I believe the survival instinct we have, is actually a reflection of our original eternal system.  That is all life is fighting to maintain how things once were.  Of course I don't know if this is getting a little off topic, and probably best reserved for the creation/science section.  God didn't know Adam and Eve would disobey Him because of free will.

 

 

I'm sure Job had multiple authors.  The beginning and ending match each other but do not match the rest of the poem.  I couldn't tell you when Job was written except that it was before Ezra's time.  I would have to look up the archaeologic estimates.

 

Egyptian religion influenced Jewish religion first.  That is where the Ten Commandments came from.  But for some reason the Jewish culture did not immediately adapt the Egyptian idea of an afterlife.  Or if they did Ezra edited it out.  Later on the Greek culture came with Alexander.  That is when we start to see references to the abode of the dead and so on.  So it took the Greeks to get an afterlife into Jewish religion.

 

There is no mention of an afterlife in Job.  You are reading into it things that are not there.  Simply put God replaced some things and doubled others.  Why don't you ask yourself why God would kill ten innocent people just to settle a wager with the Accuser?  Is that justice?  Is that love?  The God in Job is El and El was not a God of justice or love.  He was the most high God.  He was the father of all the local gods and goddesses worshiped in the high places.  As for trying to make the Bible make sense . . . the only way to do that is to realize the Bible is the word of men.  Start from that truth and the Bible does finally make sense.

 

 

 

I don't think you can write off what's written concerning Job.  The only thing that was not doubled, were the children.  So it's not as simple as God doubling somethings and not others.  In fact, it was the children that Job most feared for.  So the highlight of the story was something around Job's children. (They were Job's most prized possession)  If God didn't double them at the end, there's good reason to say Job still had his children, and they weren't lost.  Of course we know about the Jewish Sheol.  It have to mean something more than just a fancy word for grave.  Look at the story concerning Saul trying to bring Samuel back from the dead.  So Saul had an idea that Samuel still exist in some form.  The Greeks may have brought their version of the afterlife over (By the way, I believe all religions have truth in them, but only one is the complete truth), but that didn't change much concerning what the Hebrew people thought of the dead.  As far as the dead still having an existence.

 

 

 

I  am using slave in the general sense of the term for example a guard dog is a slave in the sense that it was trained for a singular purpose to guard and protect its master. its only command in a general sense is to protect. It can eat of any of the food provided but it must not eat from the masters table. this does not mean that guard dogs are unhappy fulfilling their masters wishes or commands in fact they get satisfaction out of it. However when they fail and can no longer carry out their duties they are unit to be guard dogs and are cast out in a sense.

 

Humans were created with a specific purpose to work the fields of eden just because god gave them the freedom to eat does not mean they were free to do what they will with their lives. We have drugs today that keep sex slaves happy with their position in life this doesn't make it right or good just because adam didn't suffer as a slave worker in the fields does not mean he was not a slave.

 

 

Yet again, Genesis gives more information than simply working in the Garden of Eden.  We were created in God's image,, meaning we were like God in a sense.  He gave the whole earth to Adam and Eve.  Of course all of that was the beginning.  Who knows what else God would gave Adam and Eve had they not ate of that tree.  They were special to God.  Of course even if all that is true, I guess you could still say they were simply servants to God, and nothing more.  I think in the ultimate sense however, it would be a matter of opinion concerning who Adam and Eve were to God.

[mymistake]

 

 

{snip}

Unless the new convenant fulfills the area of the first one.  Jesus fulfilled the first covenant, so in Him, we fulfill it to.  In the first covenant, man had a part and God had a part.  Man couldn't hold up their end.  So God became a man, and did the man part.  So now, it's all God, and man reaps all the benefits.  Of course God gains a people.  So just like Jesus said, He didn't come to destroy that first covenant, but fulfilled it.  So ultimately what the new covenant represents, is God giving us the power to do what the first covenant demanded.

 

Besides, that first covenant applied to the people who were still alive.  It was applied to the generations Israelite people who would live after it was given.  Yet once those generations died, the Law no longer applied to those who died.  When we are baptized, we are baptized into Jesus death, and raised a new creature.  The Law no longer applies to a person who is in Jesus.

 

 

God wasn't blood thirsty.  In fact, there are OT verses that says the blood of animals doesn't satisfy Him.  If you want a picture of God's heart and what He intended, you have to look at life before the fall of man.  All that other stuff such as slavery, death, and so on happened afterward.

 

{snip}

I don't think you can write off what's written concerning Job.  The only thing that was not doubled, were the children.  So it's not as simple as God doubling somethings and not others.  In fact, it was the children that Job most feared for.  So the highlight of the story was something around Job's children. (They were Job's most prized possession)  If God didn't double them at the end, there's good reason to say Job still had his children, and they weren't lost.  Of course we know about the Jewish Sheol.  It have to mean something more than just a fancy word for grave.  Look at the story concerning Saul trying to bring Samuel back from the dead.  So Saul had an idea that Samuel still exist in some form.  The Greeks may have brought their version of the afterlife over (By the way, I believe all religions have truth in them, but only one is the complete truth), but that didn't change much concerning what the Hebrew people thought of the dead.  As far as the dead still having an existence.

 

 

 

 

 

What does it mean to fulfill the area of the first covenant?  That humans were not able to obey the Law shows that the Law was flawed and poorly thought out.  Why would a perfect God make flawed laws knowing that humans couldn't live up to them?  It's even worse when you consider these flawed laws demand for people to execute their children and include other barbarism. The Law of God was simply the aspects of Egyptian religion that had been commandeered and reworked.  The Egyptian law gave too many rights, respect and privileges to women for Jewish priesthood and monarchy.  So they made some changes.

 

If the law doesn't apply to Christians then why are Christians so upset about gays, fornication and so many other "sins"?

 

For every Old Testament verse you cite that says God isn't satisfied with the blood of animals I can find two that say God calls for sacrifice.  The Bible contradicts itself a lot because the men who wrote it didn't agree with each other.  There is no "life before the fall of man" for me to look at.  It's just a paragraph in a story.  "God" was a strong supporter of slavery and left specific instructions on who could be taken as a slave and how it was to be done.  Or rather, God was a puppet that said whatever the men who wrote the Bible wanted God to say.  The Bible authors loved slavery.

 

If God didn't double Job's children then that merely means God didn't double Job's children.  If you add meaning to it then you are adding meaning.  When you decide what God meant by something you are doing the same thing the Bible authors did when they made God say something.  God makes for a good puppet for an audience who believe God is real.  For people who recognize the illusion the trick doesn't work.

[JamesG]

ASIMO the robot was created in mans image does this make him a man or like a man? no not even remotely so.

 

now that we agreed man's purpose as a servant lets open up the discussion onto god and specifically define him.

 

what attributes do you place upon god?

What is your version of god?

[emshi21]

My argument is still that whatever the circumstances surrounding what the tree was capeable of, Eve ate it to gain knowledge. Why should she be punished for wanting to gain knowledge? Never made sense to me! If I had a child and their only fault was a thirst for knowledge, I would consider them pretty damn perfect!

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

To your first response:

 

 

We can't assume Eve was gullible.  All we can say is she knew she wasn't supposed to eat from this tree.  God didn't punish them for their curiousity.  Eve could have went to God and asked about the snake, she didn't have to eat from the tree.  And again concerning the dying part, it could have been God's mercy on them, not that God was lying.  This might be reading into it, but the animal that God killed to clothe Adam and Eve, could have taken their punishemt, hints the set up of the sacrificial system.  Another explanation could be that they would surely die, not that they would die in that instance.  The wording is interesting concerning that "surely".  Why not just write "you will die in the day you eat"?  Why have the surely, unless there's something more here to understand?  They did die eventually, so I wouldn't write off that explanation about the surely.

 

That's interesting concerning why the fruit didn't kick in until Adam ate.  God did specifically give the command to Adam, so there's probably something to consider there.  Of course we could all just be reading things into a completely made up story, that's another explanation for the whole thing as well.  However, I don't think the fruit gave them the sense of right and wrong, but a new sense of consciousness.  Once they felt the change, they knew they messed up.  Not that the change itself allowed them this sense.  The only thing they gained was their own sense of right and wrong.  There was nothing wrong with this sense in and of itself, but they knew they disobeyed God's command to get it.

 

What more could there possibly be to understand just because it says "Surely". It means they will surely die. Which means they can be certain they will die. "Surely" has nothing to do with when or how they will die, just that they will. So, if Eve was not gullible and did not go ask "God" about the snake, then should we assume that she was working with the snake as part of a plot to "Deceive Adam and curse all of humanity for my actions... MUHAHAHA!"?

 

I think that it is probably pointless to talk about a myth as if it actually happened. The story of Adam and Eve was written for the same purpose as the story of Pandora's Box. Suffering and death has always been a part of the world and there never was a time when it was not, so primitive people made up a story to explain where suffering came from. That doesn't change the fact that all of humanity and all of the animals were forced to suffer because of Adam's and Eve's actions, according to the story. If it had been true, maybe the snake had scaly arms and was holding up a camera (that El later incinerated) and Adam looked at the camera and said, "THIS IS JACKASS!" and then he and Eve started eating fruit from the forbidden tree.

 

 

To your second response:

 

 

God doesn't force people to suffer, it's just in the genetics.  Of course us being born, is the result of God's mercy on Adam and Eve.  Yet because He was merciful to them, He is also merciful to us.  We all have the same free will choice they had.  I know this life is unbearable at times, for some even worse than that, stuff we can't imagine.  People are going through many things right now that we can't imagine.  As hard as it is, it will end one day.  And eternity with God will begin, better than before the fall. 

 

 

When you think about the things people are going through right now, to say these things seems heartless.  I mean, people are going through some things, stuff that even horror movie directors couldn't dream up.  But this day and age is finite.  Mathematically speaking, the things I say here makes sense, and would bring joy if true.  Yet in the meantime, God has provided power on earth, to bring a bit of His kingdom here on earth right now.  Most Christians don't fully believe on the true Gospel, 2000 years of man's traditions have been brought in.  Not enough examination of what the Gospels are saying.  Miracles are God's confirmation of the word, and He's not going to confirm something that is not His.  With that said, if we were doing miracles today like Jesus and the apostles have reportedly done in the Gospels, people would be getting that taste of of Kingdom that will last forever.  Making this life all the more bearable.

 

 

So all in all, even though we suffer in this corrupt world, we are in fact closer to God than Adam was in his perfect days.  Again, things will be even better in the end, then they were in the beginning.  It all works out, and nobody is wronged.

 

I also agree that no god forces anyone to suffer because I see no reason to believe in one, but if the story of Adam and Eve had been true, then I still see no reason to think that El was merciful. He planted a tree with fruit hanging from it that would cause all life to suffer just because one species ate from it. If suffering was going to be the end result, a merciful god would have destroyed the tree and created Adam and Eve version 1.5 or something, not allow all life to suffer because of the original Adam and Eve and wait for thousands of years of punishing innocent creatures for the sins of the guilty just to send his son to Earth so that he could kill him and bring him to life, which does not result in the salvation of all, instead it causes something far more sinister. Instead of death, if the New Testament is accurate, now billions are going to be tortured in the after life in flames, possibly forever.

 

If the creator of everything is the God of the Bible, then why should I trust him? Honestly? He sounds about as trustworthy as the leader of some gang who protects you, as long as you are a good little slave, but if you don't keep him happy, he kills your entire family and burns you to death.

 

Your claims about an end of the world and paradise coming one day, I see no reason to believe those things. There is no evidence at all that the god described in the Bible is real, there is no evidence that the creation story in the Bible is the only one that is correct, out of all the other creation myths there are from other religions, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of miracles. "Miracles" are just a bunch of wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

[JamesG]

You also really cant fault adam and eve as they did not know right from wrong. I'll put it into another context for you. They had no idea what lying was as the world in which they existed had no lies that they could perceive. When the serpent told them something contrary to what god told them they were faced with a dilemma what was the truth? Both statements cannot simultaneously co-exist with each other either the serpent was telling the truth or god was  eve decided to try well turns out god was lying and the serpant told them the truth. How can you trust anything god says when at the very beginning of the whole book he is caught lying?

[RipVanWinkle]

Heavenese: Either the Bible is the inerrant word of God or it isn't. Either it is to

be read by using a straight-forward, plain, simple and direct interpretation of the

words or it is not. Accordingly, once you start interpreting the bible in such a way

that it says things that add to or detract from the "four corners", it is you , not god, writing scripture. In other words, you are presuming to speak for god, and your

extraneous fluff is not god's word. Bottom line: You can't contend the bible is god's

word and also claim that your interpretation saying additional things not within the

Bible is also god's word. Your stuck with what the Bible actually says, not what you

want it to have said, although,I can certainly understand why you would want to escape from the plain meaning of a lot of scripture.

 

The Bible does Not say Adam and Eve were "God conscience or conscience of their

relationship with God." (Whatever that means.) DID YOU MEAN "CONSCIOUS"?

The Bible does not say: "Anything going against God would be considered evil by them." You had just said that they did not know of good and evil. BUT THEY KNEW GOING AGAINST GOD WAS "EVIL"? Eh? You said, "What it really means is you having your own

"sense judgment" about things. Determining your own self what is good and bad." Really? Xtian Apologists are always claiming that atheists are not capable of having a moral

code: knowing good from bad. Here you are saying just the opposite. When you guys

think it serves your purpose, arguments we use which are claimed by apologists to be

wrong suddenly are valid if it is to your advantage. Moreover, here again you are

interpreting the bible to say what is beyond its plain language. Your interpretation is pure fluff.

 

That's all I have time for now. Let's follow this up tomorrow. bill

[JamesG]

I think that's pretty spot on bill. However, not sure if he's an apologist or not. I mean he is trying to defend it yes but I would consider an apologist in my opinion as someone who is more well versed in disseminating an argument into word salad. Here he is simply trying to digest what has been said and trying to reason out of an uncomfortable truth, which is not really a tactic.

[mymistake]

{snip}

We can't assume Eve was gullible.  All we can say is she knew she wasn't supposed to eat from this tree.  God didn't punish them for their curiousity.  Eve could have went to God and asked about the snake, she didn't have to eat from the tree.  And again concerning the dying part, it could have been God's mercy on them, not that God was lying.  This might be reading into it, but the animal that God killed to clothe Adam and Eve, could have taken their punishemt, hints the set up of the sacrificial system.  Another explanation could be that they would surely die, not that they would die in that instance.  The wording is interesting concerning that "surely".  Why not just write "you will die in the day you eat"?  Why have the surely, unless there's something more here to understand?  They did die eventually, so I wouldn't write off that explanation about the surely.

 

That's interesting concerning why the fruit didn't kick in until Adam ate.  God did specifically give the command to Adam, so there's probably something to consider there.  Of course we could all just be reading things into a completely made up story, that's another explanation for the whole thing as well.  However, I don't think the fruit gave them the sense of right and wrong, but a new sense of consciousness.  Once they felt the change, they knew they messed up.  Not that the change itself allowed them this sense.  The only thing they gained was their own sense of right and wrong.  There was nothing wrong with this sense in and of itself, but they knew they disobeyed God's command to get it.

 

 

 

 

{snip}

God doesn't force people to suffer, it's just in the genetics.  Of course us being born, is the result of God's mercy on Adam and Eve.  Yet because He was merciful to them, He is also merciful to us.  We all have the same free will choice they had.  I know this life is unbearable at times, for some even worse than that, stuff we can't imagine.  People are going through many things right now that we can't imagine.  As hard as it is, it will end one day.  And eternity with God will begin, better than before the fall. 

 

 

When you think about the things people are going through right now, to say these things seems heartless.  I mean, people are going through some things, stuff that even horror movie directors couldn't dream up.  But this day and age is finite.  Mathematically speaking, the things I say here makes sense, and would bring joy if true.  Yet in the meantime, God has provided power on earth, to bring a bit of His kingdom here on earth right now.  Most Christians don't fully believe on the true Gospel, 2000 years of man's traditions have been brought in.  Not enough examination of what the Gospels are saying.  Miracles are God's confirmation of the word, and He's not going to confirm something that is not His.  With that said, if we were doing miracles today like Jesus and the apostles have reportedly done in the Gospels, people would be getting that taste of of Kingdom that will last forever.  Making this life all the more bearable.

 

 

So all in all, even though we suffer in this corrupt world, we are in fact closer to God than Adam was in his perfect days.  Again, things will be even better in the end, then they were in the beginning.  It all works out, and nobody is wronged.

 

 

{snip}

Once this age is over, and everything is said and done, God will make other things and do other things.  However, He loves us so much, He didn't want to lose us and still doesn't.  Remember, He created us in His own image.  We are His masterpiece.  Death ultimately means being seperated from God.  It's by His power we live.  Take His power away, we die.  Yet He created us to exist forever.  This quality isn't something that can be taken back it seems. (In other words, it would be going against God's own word in some area)  So Hell was created for anyone who didn't want to be with God.

 

 

 

 

This is standard Christian misinformation.

 

1) Eve was gullible in the story.  It clearly demonstrates that she was tricked by the talking snake.  It's part of the story even if you wish the Bible said something different.

 

2) The story implies that God punished the humans for disobedience.

 

3) God has caused thousands of cute little innocent animals to suffer.  Even if God isn't real the suffering was because burnt offerings were part of the barbaric Jewish religion.

 

4) God punishing six billion people when God could have just punished two can never be mercy.  Look at the numbers.  2  vs.  6,000,000,000   

 

5) In the story the punishment didn't kick in until Adam ate it because to the Bronze Age tribes women were property.  Only a man can think like a person.  Only a man can take responsibility for his actions.  A woman has to be owned by a man.  A woman must ask a man what to do.  The Old Testament is very sexist.

 

6) Don't read too much into the Forbidden Fruit giving humans special consciousness.  It never happened.  It's a fairy tail.

 

7) If God is all knowing and all powerful then God is responsible for all suffering.  This is the classic Problem of Evil.  And God didn't show mercy to Adam and Eve - see point 4.

 

8) You have no reason to believe an "eternity with God" will ever begin.  You have no objective evidence for this that isn't explained better by something simpler.  If there is no Heaven then Christianity is evil - tricking people into wasting their precious lives chasing after things that are not important.

 

9) There is no empirical evidence that miracles happen or that Christians are any better off than any other population.  Having faith in miracles does occasionally cause some people to ignore or refuse real help so faith leads to real suffering.

 

10) If God loves us and doesn't want us to lose then salvation would not depend on being born to a Christian family or a Christian land.  The religion a person has as an adult mostly depends on being indoctrinated as a child.  The Bible makes it clear that more people will be lost than saved - narrow road and all that.  So God is a failure.  A talking snake could have one conversation and then for thousands of years God is playing damage control and even dying on a cross can't undo what the snake did with a few words.

 

11) Humans were not created or designed.  Our primary light source causes cancer.  We could never last forever.  The atoms in your body were born when you were part of a supernova explosion.  You are the universe briefly looking at itself.  There is no clear design or purpose.  It's just random stuff that happens over time in a chaotic place.

 

12) Christians say Hell is for those who don't want to be with God but this is just a cop out to pardon God for being evil.  Nobody chooses to not be with God.  This is just silly.  You can't reject somebody who doesn't exist or somebody you think does not exist.

[LivingLife]

Guys, if you missed my thread, Heavenese is here by my invitation, he has serious questions and the xians don't have any answers or intelligent dialogue. He is not here to prove anything and I did warn him not to come in guns blazing to save us heathen. From what I could gather he wanted theological discussions of depth and was not getting them on where I met him.

Seeing many of us have been through the mill of apologetics, I think he will find better answers here or points to ponder.

He is not an ass like OC or Thumby or JayL

I am reading but not engaging as you guys seem to have it in hand.
 

[mymistake]

He is not an ass like OC or Thumby or JayL

 

 

I agree.  

 

All Christians are fed a steady diet of misinformation.  It's how Christians believe their religion in spite of seeing reality right in front of them.  I can't blame your friend if he finds a way to protect his beliefs.  I did that myself for over 30 years.  We all did it for a time.

[JamesG]

Yeah i am glad he showed up to the discussion. Added another dimension to the dialogue. Its good to have someone try and locate holes in your argument. I hope this has been equally satisfying for him.