Adam Gets My Eve

[midniterider]

Biblegod is a flip flopper and the Christian Right loves it! WTF?

 

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."  Romans 6:23

 

Make up your mind, flip flopper! Is it death or eternal life? So one day you're in heaven and he decides it's "death" again. "Off to hell with you all!"  :-) lol.

 

How can we trust his word when he keeps changing it? haha.This would be a great political campaign commercial.

[midniterider]

     What else with Abraham.  We all know this.  Xians love this story.  "God" tells Abraham to take Isaac and burn him up really good as a sacrifice.  So what's Abraham to think?  Well, if it were me I would think "I must burn my son up really good."  And when it's all said and done what actually happens?  Apparently the rules change in this court setting.  At the last second Isaac doesn't get burned up really good.  An animal does.  But "god" gave his "word."  That word being Isaac was supposed to die in a fire.  But behind the scenes that "word" meant something else. 

 

     So "god's" might "word" isn't as binding as you want me to believe.  Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have fell down dead that very day, Sodom would not have been negotiable and Isaac would have been a very crispy kid.  None of which occurred even though "word" was given assuring me otherwise.  This is one crappy court.  Apparently, your "god" is corrupt.

 

 

But, but, but, but wait a sec ... let me manufacture some BS research an answer that will be consistent with God upholding his word yet at the same time contradicting it. :-)

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

@ crazyguy123

 

 

 

1. Even though we are born with the corrupt nature, God takes that into account.  We still have a free will to choose to be right or to do evil.  It's that will, that want to, that God looks at.  All of the stuff we do because of our nature, God is merciful to.  In fact, that's what the sacrficial system covered up.  Yet if one willingly ignored that (considering if you knew God's ways and so forth) and willingly did evil, that was their choice alone. 

 

It's like for us to say we try to do our best, but nobody's perfect.  Adam's nature takes into account nobody being perfect.  God overlooks that through the sacrificial system.  Yet for those who embrace evil, that's who God's judgment falls on.  As time went on, more people were going that route.  Of course there was more oppurtunity for people to go that route, compared to Adam's immediate children.  That's when around the time of the flood, God regretted creating man because more and more people were going that route.  The suffering was supposed to bring the people back to God, but more were freely choosing to embrace evil.  That's when God said He regretted creating man.

 

 

2.  In what way would you say the flood failed?

 

 

3.  As I stated in another post, the killing of the children was part of the judgment on the whole people, to wipe out their seed from the face of the earth.  The original command to drive out the Canaanites was partly because of their iniquity on the face of the earth.  One possible reason why God ordered for a whole people to be wiped out, is because the people may have killed innocent children themselves.  We are told these nations have done many crimes, and God was patient with them for hundreds of years.  Yet time came where their crimes reached an empass, and God decided to unleash His judgment on them.  And God found Abraham, and promised the land to his descendants.  So the elimination of the entire people in those cities was the overall judgment on those nations.  You might still say that's murder, but it's to be viewed as vengeance.  Even if that's true, it does seem contradictory on another level.  That if we have free will, the children never got to have their choices realized, and were killed because of their parent's choices.  I have a thought about that based on Scripture, and what's going to happen once Jesus returns to the earth.  Ultimately, our free will is about us choosing to be with God, or go our own way.  These children who died, will have that same opportunity.

 

 

What's evil about two men having sex with each other?  If Genesis is true and so forth, it's simply we were not designed for it. (I also assume women laying with each other would be viewed in the same light, even though it's not mentioned in the Bible)  Of course I don't deny people are attracted to the same sex.  It's just apart of our corrupted nature.  Of course I don't want to come across as a bigot and how they think.  There is nothing wrong with homosexuals anymore than there is anything wrong with all of us.  It comes down to whether or not the Bible is true in it's history.  If it's not, then we are all normal.  If it is, we aren't as how God created us originally.

 

 

4.  I wouldn't say the concept of Hell was a totally new concept to the people of Israel.  That is Hell being a place.  They knew it as Sheol, which I think is to be understood as more than just meaning a grave.  Saul sought advice from Samuel's spirit, so the concept of the spirit was known to Israel well before the writings of the NT.  However, more and more things were revealed over time.  One explanation of course can be seen in one of those videos that was posted on page 8 of this thread, that people simply revised the Bible over and over again.  That's plausible, but I still have reason to think otherwise on that.  There's still much to research.  Yet if you ask me about it from what I understand now, God simply revealed things over time.  I mentioned why it was necessary for the Law to come before Jesus, because the Law revealed how sinful we are and why we needed a Savior.  It's a human tendency to earn what you get.  Through the history of the Bible, it shows us grace and favor are superior to earning something, particularly earning something from God.  As every other religion teaches, you do right by your god's sight, you reap the benefits.  So it was better to reveal things over time, to get the maximum response to God's message.

 

 

What do I think about Hell?  It's first and foremost simply a place where God's presence is absolutely removed.  It was created to house those who want nothing to do with God.  I think from the information we're given in Genesis, God created us to live forever.  Even if he didn't create our bodies originally for such, there's a part of us that is eternal. (The part called the breath of life, which I believe is a reference to the spirit)  So Hell was created to house those who left God. 

 

 

5.  If God is going to correct teaching, He's going to do it through another teacher.  His Spirit now resides in the Church as Christians are taught, to work through us.  Perhaps that is why I'm re-researching these things for myself. (Researching the work many others have let go a hundred years ago)  If I'm successful in my research, I would be an example of God using a teacher to correct the teachings.  Yet He did come down and correct teaching once.  When God became Jesus, and taught the people.  Then He sent His disciples out to teach.  Somewhere down the road, the teachings went back to earning things, at least in part.  Yet this thing is an either or, and not a mixed teaching.  So I'll see concerning this.

 

 

6.  Yes, I'm definitely aware of Christians who suffer like this.  Why are they not being healed?  Again I believe it's mostly due to the teachings.  For instance, faith is important in Christianity, but we tend to make it a work or something to be obtained by effort.  It's just a word that simply means trust.  Jesus said faith the size of one of the tiniest seeds in existence was enough to move a literal mountain.  Yet if our view is obtaining more faith, we never really get around to operating in it.  I'm sorry for the little bit of preaching I did there, and I know that may sound like semantics, but it's stuff like that which makes the difference possibly.  If you look at the woman who was healed with the issue of blood, I doubt she was thinking about her faith level.  In fact, all the reports concerning Jesus miracles, I doubt many of them were thinking about if they had enough faith to be healed.  They were only conscious of Jesus' abilities, and God saw that as faith.  Yet Christians have a better point of view than even those who were reportedly healed by Jesus according to the Gospels.  Christians should see themselves as Jesus in a way, because we are in Him.  So if Jesus is healthy, then we are to.  The results of Jesus' blessings will then flow freely and be evident.

 

 

7.  There is another thing concerning Job here that we find out through these trials.  Job was dependent on his own righteousness.  There was a sense coming from Job that he earned what he got from God, concerning the riches and children he had.  That's why he wanted his day in court with God, but expressing God was powerful enough to do what He wanted without explanation.  In the end after God's confrontation, I believe Job pretty much state he wasn't as righteous as he thought he was, by repenting.  I hear what you're saying in your response.  I do have more thought concerning this, something of a Christian answer.

 

 

8.  Again I would disagree humanity was set up to fail.  The sin nature just introduced death into the world, but the ultimate choice of wanting to be right is still ours to make.  Concerning Adam and Eve's choce to eat from that tree, it's not so much their knowledge concerning what death was, but that they believed a lie.  Even if they knew what death and suffering was completely, it wouldn't matter if they believed the lie that death wouldn't occur if they ate from the tree.

 

 

9.  If the Bible is true, it should be that we come to God for truth's sake, not out of fear.  Even if we came to God in fear, eventually you will hate what you fear.  That's why it's taught it's the kindness of God that leads to repentance. (Repentance meaning to change the mind)

 

 

10.  I can't add much to this point. (It would be funny to see a dog walking a man on a leash) :-)  It is noted in Genesis 6 the animals corrupted their way on earth as well as humans, but I would say all creation was affected by Adam's sin.

 

 

11.  If it was 100% true or better yet if evidence came about that point the Bible is true in all it's historical points, would you seek to understand a little more concerning the things that happened?

 

 

1. When I was still a believer, your entire response to #1, I would have agreed with it 100% When I first had doubts of my own and deconverted, my entire view changed because the way that it looked to me, it looked as though the god of the Bible set humans up to fail from the very beginning.

 

2. The flood was meant to get rid of all of the evil in the world, but when evil remained and people became evil all over again, then the flood was probably pretty pointless, which to me, seems like a failure.

 

3. You're right, I do see it as murder when Yahweh kills children and infants for the choices their parents made. Do you think those dead children got that opportunity the moment they were brought up into Heaven? Basically, choose "Yes", they get to stay, choose "No" they get thrown into a lake of fire? Regardless, having them killed by sword was a little barbaric, don't you think? Wouldn't a benevolent god have had the children and infants all die peacefully in their sleep, as well as any people living in Canaan that were innocent, before the Isrealites went in to kill the guilty, unrepentant sinners? Also, how could we even be certain that the people of Canaan even knew what was a sin and what was not or who the right god was? Did Yahweh go and tell them or did he just expect them to know?

 

I sort of understand this idea that homosexual behavior is evil, simply because, if the Bible is true, humans were not designed to do that and the reproductive organs would have been meant for reproduction and the existence of homosexuality would have been the result of human's fallen nature. I do have one objection about that. It doesn't matter if the action does not result in reproduction, it does not and never has caused harm to anyone. The people who are homosexual discover their sexual orientation at a certain time in their life, but it's not like homosexuality or bisexuality is a desire to rape people. These people can't just change who they are, so why should they not just accept it and enjoy life as much as they can, just as long as they don't hurt anyone? Also, if you consider the overpopulation in the world today, shouldn't homosexuality be considered a good thing? I do not understand why the fact that it does not lead to reproduction is a justification for it being considered equally as wrong as murder and deserving of death by stoning.

 

4. I really am not sure how to reply to #4, so maybe someone else could provide a better response, since I'm not a major Bible scholar and wouldn't know where you get the idea from that the people of ancient Israel knew that Sheol was Hell, even if they didn't know every single detail about it.

 

So if Hell is just a place where Yahweh is not, then what is the point for there being fire, torture, and lots of screaming and wailing? If people want nothing to do with him, well, he could just remove them from existence. Punishing them is only going to make people hate him more, especially if it as sadistic of a punishment as burning someone in flames. They are not going to learn anything by being put into Hell, so that is basically all that torture in Hell is, never ending punishment, with no real purpose other than mercilessly torturing whoever is there.

 

5. If Yahweh corrected the teachings by becoming Jesus, then why doesn't he keep doing it? Sure, you might say, "Oh, those other Christian teachers have altered God's message", but there are denominations that could and probably would say the same as you. To the nonbelievers, they have no idea who is teaching the correct stuff. To us, Christianity as a whole just looks like a big mess. A religion with as many denominations as Christianity could most certainly be described as a mess.

 

6. If faith just means "trust" then it appears that lots of Christians have misplaced that trust. The Christians who suffered and died had faith that your god would ease their suffering, but they waited... and waited... and waited... then finally died, after a long amount of time of suffering. Christians and former Christians who have OCD, as I said before, have had Christianity completely screw them up. If your god was a benevolent god and knew that Christianity could royally screw up a person with this condition, then why did he not simply cure OCD? Was he just "testing" them? Was it some kind of test to see how well Christians with OCD held on to their faith, despite all of the misery that their condition caused them? If that is the case, then I can honestly say that any Christian who has OCD and is suffering because of Christianity, has definitely misplaced their trust.

 

7. I would like to see your full Christian response. You might need to move the response to the Lion's Den, if it involves preaching, because there are some strict rules about that sort of thing. I am not really an expert of the entire book of Job, since I have never really studied it thoroughly, but I plan to. This discussion probably can't go much further if I don't.

 

8. Well, I actually didn't have an objection to this.

 

9. But a lot of believers go to Christianity out of fear of being tortured after they die. I can't imagine why a god that would torture people in flames after they die should not be feared. The doctrine of Hell is the very thing that led to my deconversion and rationally, I could not understand how eternal torture in flames could ever be justified. You can't really rationalize that without making up a bunch of excuses to make it sound not as bad as it really is.

 

10. Yeah, the idea of a dog walking a man on a leash is funny. I didn't really ever have a memory of there being a section in the Bible indicating that animals corrupted themselves, just like the humans did. Any idea how they did that?

 

11. If it turned out that the Bible was 100% true, I think I still would have reached the conclusions that I did as a believer and would still have come to the conclusion that the god of the Bible was a monster. The things you have said to me in your most recent post certainly did get me thinking more than I had been before and even changed my views slightly, on some things, though I don't yet think I could see your god as a good one or reconvert.

 

I apologize if any of my previous responses to you were ever hostile. I tried to keep hostility and sarcasm out as much as possible, but it was really difficult. It really did not help the discussion when I saw you as another salesman coming to sell a product that I had already rejected. Unfortunately, that's how I see most Christians, from the meanest fundamentalists to the friendliest, so trusting most believers is quite difficult.

[Heavenese]

     Courts don't have "Case dismissed" where you're from?  Strange.  Not that anyone is in a court room in this story or court room rules even apply.  You have a situation where people were told they would die on that day and that has been taken to mean not literally die on that day but something else (I'm not going to go over the possibilities).  In contract law that would mean they did not have a meeting of the minds as to the terms and conditions of the contract and it would not hold up.  But it did.  Here.  In this court.  But it's not a court.  So it doesn't matter.

 

     Does "god" play this game anywhere else?  Sure.  Abraham gets this a couple of times.  When he negotiates with "god" for Sodom.  He's going to see if the whole place needs to be destroyed.  But Abraham proposes 50, then 40, etc, on down to 10.  If 10 people are found then it won't be destroyed.  So "god" negotiates?  His "word" was the place needed to be destroyed.  Then his "word" was 50.  Then his "word" kept dropping.  If "god" *knew* his word was really 10 and Abraham stopped at 30 then what?  Abraham determines the limit or "god" goes ahead with the limit of 10 as per his "word?"  Or we just *know* that it was all going to be 10 all along and had to play out like a movie?  Because that's all that's happened here.  "God" had a "plan" that Abraham had to talk him down to 10 instead of "god" just coming clean and saying "Abraham, if I find 10 good people I won't destroy the place."

 

     What else with Abraham.  We all know this.  Xians love this story.  "God" tells Abraham to take Isaac and burn him up really good as a sacrifice.  So what's Abraham to think?  Well, if it were me I would think "I must burn my son up really good."  And when it's all said and done what actually happens?  Apparently the rules change in this court setting.  At the last second Isaac doesn't get burned up really good.  An animal does.  But "god" gave his "word."  That word being Isaac was supposed to die in a fire.  But behind the scenes that "word" meant something else. 

 

     So "god's" might "word" isn't as binding as you want me to believe.  Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have fell down dead that very day, Sodom would not have been negotiable and Isaac would have been a very crispy kid.  None of which occurred even though "word" was given assuring me otherwise.  This is one crappy court.  Apparently, your "god" is corrupt.

 

 

 

The thing with Abraham, God didn't say He was going to destroy the city outright.  It is said only that He was going to see if their actions were as wicked as the outcry states it is.  So this wouldn't be an example of bargaining over God's word.

 

 

Utlimately what I'm referring to in that God is bound by His word, is He's not going to overlook crime committed against Him.  The crime must be punished, or else God breaks His word.  The sacrificial system allows God to punish the crimes and at the same time give the offender grace.  You do see a little bit of both throughout the OT, and neither system causes God to break His word.  Yet He much rather give someone grace.

 

 

Abraham could have sacrificed his son, but God would have raised him up again. (Because God already said Isaac was the promise seed)  So instead of doing that, God stopped Abraham, and provided a ram in Isaac's place.  The whole point was to see if Abraham would follow Him wholeheartedly, and God told him to offer Isaac.  For all intents and purposes, Abraham did that pretty much, he had the knife in his hand ready to carry out the deed.  So God says of him that he didn't withold Isaac from Him.  So this is what I mean concerning God being bound by His word. (Excuse me for all the capitalizations of every reference to God.)

 

 

     Your "logic" is busted.

 

     Genesis 1

21 And God made great sea-beasts, and every sort of living and moving thing with which the waters were full, and every sort of winged bird: and God saw that it was good.

 

     According to the bible this "god" can, and did, make things just like this verse describes and now you're telling me that it just can't manage it any longer.  The very idea that it suddenly went from the creator "god" of Genesis 1 to the hunter-gatherer you keep foisting on me is ridiculous.  Is your "god" a God or is your "god" a caveman? 

 

     Further, if your "god" cannot simply create skins sans the rest of the animal then deal with the rest of the problem.  How did "god" come by those skills?  Did it simply do it all via magic?  The hunting?  The killing?  The skinning?  The preparing?  The sewing?  All of it.  This would have been the very first time it had encountered any of these things, correct?  It would then have had to make the very first sacrifice knowing that somehow this would effect some sort of magical change upon itself for whatever reasons.  Lots of firsts here.  In the "perfectness" that "god" existed in prior to this it couldn't have known what would, and would not, deal with sin that didn't exist yet so it must have been learning it all right at this moment I guess?  Since sins came from people and all.

 

          mwc

 

 

 

We are told that on the seventh day, God rested from His work.  So He ceased from creating things.  Yet it's interesting it said the tunics were made of skin.  For one, Adam and Eve were already clothed with fig leaves.  Why make clothes at all?  So I think there's strong indication from the writer here that this is meant to be a picture.  First being that it's God who covers you up, and not your own doing.  Second, since the people were under the system of sacrifices, it wouldn't be too far fetched to think the writer is making the point this should be seen as a picture of the sacrificial system.

 

As for God coming by the skills, God knew what sin and death was.  I personally believe this is why He doesn't regret creating man the day Adam sinned.  He already knew the plan to bring Adam back.  You later have the first mentioning of an offering with Cain and Abel.  Where did this thing come from all of a sudden?  How did they know to offer God anything?  Adam and Eve never offered anything to God?  The only possible answer is going back to that mention of God making tunics of skin to clothed Adam and Eve. (Which actually relates very closely to Cain and Abel's offerings.  Adam and Eve had vegetation for clothing, yet God clothe them with animal skin.  Later God rejects Cain's offering of vegetation, and accepts Abel's offering of the animal)  So there's implications there.

 

 

 

 

 

So the short answer is you never criticize God's actions. You research a way to be able to make his harsh actions seem palatable and justified. It would not reflect well on you to be worshiping a mean God that does mean things like flooding the whole world because he's angry at everyone he created, for example. So God must always be defended because when you defend God you are really defending yourself. :-) That's my take on it, anyway.

 

Why do you assume God knows what he's doing? Why assume there is a God at all? Why is Christianity the one true religion you believe? Why not Islam? Or Scientology? Have you researched these questions as well?

 

As an agnostic I enjoy not having to invent some reason to explain to myself why God didn't answer some prayer or why God allows rotten things to occur or exist or why he did something mean in the bible.

 

 

 

God is simply a title.  It implies having vast knowledge, especially for a creator god.  Now, there's a whole lot of characteristics people have on a god, but I'm not fooling with all that here.  My research isn't necessarily about finding an answer for God's actions.  It's about finding proof or not for the Bible being true.  I have reason to look further into it.  I've done little research into a couple of other beliefs, and haven't found the same reason to in it.  Yet by looking at the history of Israel, I've found reason to look into this thing a little more deeply.

 

 

 

Biblegod is a flip flopper and the Christian Right loves it! WTF?

 

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."  Romans 6:23

 

Make up your mind, flip flopper! Is it death or eternal life? So one day you're in heaven and he decides it's "death" again. "Off to hell with you all!"  :-) lol.

 

How can we trust his word when he keeps changing it? haha.This would be a great political campaign commercial.

 

How is it changing here?  How are the wages of sin the same as the gift of God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. When I was still a believer, your entire response to #1, I would have agreed with it 100% When I first had doubts of my own and deconverted, my entire view changed because the way that it looked to me, it looked as though the god of the Bible set humans up to fail from the very beginning.

 

2. The flood was meant to get rid of all of the evil in the world, but when evil remained and people became evil all over again, then the flood was probably pretty pointless, which to me, seems like a failure.

 

3. You're right, I do see it as murder when Yahweh kills children and infants for the choices their parents made. Do you think those dead children got that opportunity the moment they were brought up into Heaven? Basically, choose "Yes", they get to stay, choose "No" they get thrown into a lake of fire? Regardless, having them killed by sword was a little barbaric, don't you think? Wouldn't a benevolent god have had the children and infants all die peacefully in their sleep, as well as any people living in Canaan that were innocent, before the Isrealites went in to kill the guilty, unrepentant sinners? Also, how could we even be certain that the people of Canaan even knew what was a sin and what was not or who the right god was? Did Yahweh go and tell them or did he just expect them to know?

 

I sort of understand this idea that homosexual behavior is evil, simply because, if the Bible is true, humans were not designed to do that and the reproductive organs would have been meant for reproduction and the existence of homosexuality would have been the result of human's fallen nature. I do have one objection about that. It doesn't matter if the action does not result in reproduction, it does not and never has caused harm to anyone. The people who are homosexual discover their sexual orientation at a certain time in their life, but it's not like homosexuality or bisexuality is a desire to rape people. These people can't just change who they are, so why should they not just accept it and enjoy life as much as they can, just as long as they don't hurt anyone? Also, if you consider the overpopulation in the world today, shouldn't homosexuality be considered a good thing? I do not understand why the fact that it does not lead to reproduction is a justification for it being considered equally as wrong as murder and deserving of death by stoning.

 

4. I really am not sure how to reply to #4, so maybe someone else could provide a better response, since I'm not a major Bible scholar and wouldn't know where you get the idea from that the people of ancient Israel knew that Sheol was Hell, even if they didn't know every single detail about it.

 

So if Hell is just a place where Yahweh is not, then what is the point for there being fire, torture, and lots of screaming and wailing? If people want nothing to do with him, well, he could just remove them from existence. Punishing them is only going to make people hate him more, especially if it as sadistic of a punishment as burning someone in flames. They are not going to learn anything by being put into Hell, so that is basically all that torture in Hell is, never ending punishment, with no real purpose other than mercilessly torturing whoever is there.

 

5. If Yahweh corrected the teachings by becoming Jesus, then why doesn't he keep doing it? Sure, you might say, "Oh, those other Christian teachers have altered God's message", but there are denominations that could and probably would say the same as you. To the nonbelievers, they have no idea who is teaching the correct stuff. To us, Christianity as a whole just looks like a big mess. A religion with as many denominations as Christianity could most certainly be described as a mess.

 

6. If faith just means "trust" then it appears that lots of Christians have misplaced that trust. The Christians who suffered and died had faith that your god would ease their suffering, but they waited... and waited... and waited... then finally died, after a long amount of time of suffering. Christians and former Christians who have OCD, as I said before, have had Christianity completely screw them up. If your god was a benevolent god and knew that Christianity could royally screw up a person with this condition, then why did he not simply cure OCD? Was he just "testing" them? Was it some kind of test to see how well Christians with OCD held on to their faith, despite all of the misery that their condition caused them? If that is the case, then I can honestly say that any Christian who has OCD and is suffering because of Christianity, has definitely misplaced their trust.

 

7. I would like to see your full Christian response. You might need to move the response to the Lion's Den, if it involves preaching, because there are some strict rules about that sort of thing. I am not really an expert of the entire book of Job, since I have never really studied it thoroughly, but I plan to. This discussion probably can't go much further if I don't.

 

8. Well, I actually didn't have an objection to this.

 

9. But a lot of believers go to Christianity out of fear of being tortured after they die. I can't imagine why a god that would torture people in flames after they die should not be feared. The doctrine of Hell is the very thing that led to my deconversion and rationally, I could not understand how eternal torture in flames could ever be justified. You can't really rationalize that without making up a bunch of excuses to make it sound not as bad as it really is.

 

10. Yeah, the idea of a dog walking a man on a leash is funny. I didn't really ever have a memory of there being a section in the Bible indicating that animals corrupted themselves, just like the humans did. Any idea how they did that?

 

11. If it turned out that the Bible was 100% true, I think I still would have reached the conclusions that I did as a believer and would still have come to the conclusion that the god of the Bible was a monster. The things you have said to me in your most recent post certainly did get me thinking more than I had been before and even changed my views slightly, on some things, though I don't yet think I could see your god as a good one or reconvert.

 

I apologize if any of my previous responses to you were ever hostile. I tried to keep hostility and sarcasm out as much as possible, but it was really difficult. It really did not help the discussion when I saw you as another salesman coming to sell a product that I had already rejected. Unfortunately, that's how I see most Christians, from the meanest fundamentalists to the friendliest, so trusting most believers is quite difficult.

 

 

 

1.  Yeah, I can understand why it looks that way.

 

 

2.  My Christian answer would be the flood was actually a form of protecting Noah, the last one who had God's favor on the earth.  That had that generation continue to live on, once Noah died, everyone on earth would be corrupt, and I believe Ralet mentioned about the giants and the tainting of the human line.

 

3.  I believe these children will make their choice later.  Yet I don't have much to add about God's methods here other than this was apart of His judgment on the people.  Most will say I'm defending God's actions, but right now all I'm doing is researching the facts of the Bible.  In those videos on page 8, it concludes the Israelites true origin being a group of people from the Canaanite regions coming together and forming a new religion.  That they took El Elyon from the gods of the Canaanite regions, so from that standpoint the Canaanites knew of God.  Yet from a theological understanding, Abraham met a person called Melchizedek, and it appeared this person worshipped God and was from this region.  So God was known in this region.  Concerning the homosexual part, I don't follow the same reasoning as most who say it's wrong concerning they can't reproduce.  I would agree with everyone that the purposes for sex isn't just for reproduction.  Of course this subject is a touchy one because of the hate that comes from those who oppose it.  The truth is the Bible condemns our whole nature, and this is rarely talked about by those who oppose homosexuality. 

 

 

4.  The fire and the torture are the punishments for crime against God.  On the one hand you have the sin nature, which seperates you from God.  Then on the other hand you have the tresspasses committed against God. (For instance, someone murdering another person)  Those punishments will be judged, and that's the purpose of the fire and so forth.  Yet I would imagine, even if there was no fire and so forth, you will still be tormented.  Even though we have free will, we were created for with a purpose.  Hell was created for those who want nothing to do with God, but no one was created for Hell.  We were created to be with God.  The best way I could put it, there are people who choose to be anti-social, or choose not to have many or no friends.  Yet science shows us it's beneficial for us to be together, to interact with one another.  That we evolved in this way.  Evolving to behave a certain way, is kind of like God creating us to operate a certain way.  That no one is happy who go against it.  So even if we chose against the beneficial way, it still affects us in a negative way.

 

 

5.  The miracles are the ultimate evidence.  For the non believer and for everyone, if they saw miracles on the heels of the message being taught, then there's no mistake God is confirming that word.  So again I'm going to look into this thing here.

 

 

6.  I won't pretend to know the symptoms of OCD and how Christianity effects the condition.  I do know the teachings of Christianity have been muddled, as well as the teachings of the whole Bible.  Certainly God can heal OCD and every condition, and the Bible tells us He wants to.  So the question is why doesn't He?  Right now I believe it's the teaching.  We are taught not to be hearers only, but also to be careful how we hear.

 

 

7.  I'll discuss it in my next post.  I should have it up by tomorrow.  There's no preaching in it, but I wouldn't blame anyone if they saw my reasoning as just mine.  Yet it helps to answer the whole deal concerning Satan in that passage.

 

 

8.  I'm sorry, I must have misread your response there.

 

 

9.  I see where you're coming from.  Let me ask this question out of curiosity.  Would you say a guy like Hitler deserve an eternity in a place like Hell?

 

 

10.  God did command the animals certain things, in similar fashion that He commanded Adam and Eve.  For instance He gave the animals the vegetarian diet.  So I imagine the animals first went against this way of life, and began eating each other as a way of corrupting themselves.

 

 

11.   I see where you're coming from.  Thanks for your responses.  I don't see your responses as hostile, and they have been respectful.  I can understand your attitude toward Christian beliefs and beliefs of gods in general.  The main thing I want you to know of me, is that I don't want anyone to believe in anything without reason and evidence.  As for my beliefs, I lack evidence per say, but I still have great reason to research this thing.

[mymistake]

 

 

It could be nonsense, most say it is.  Yet I have reason to search it out. 

 

Your reason is that you are not ready to admit that your religion is made up.

 

 

The oldest text concerning Genesis is the Adam and Eve story.  Scholars would say it dates around 900 BC/BCE. 

 

You are denying science for your religion.  Would you also say that the world is flat or that Earth has corners or rests on pillars - just like the Bible says?  It is a known fact that many of the Torah stories were stolen from Babylonian religion.  They were not present in any Jewish tradition before the Babylonian captivity but in Persia the stories date back to the earliest civilization, thousands of years older than the Bible. 

 

 

You said the version we have today is the edited version, and Ezekiel refers to an older version.  Who's to say Ezekiel wasn't simply adding in new information concerning other things that went on in the Garden revealed by God?

 

Textual criticisism.  It's a scientific method to reconstruct the documents based on the known evidence and the documents themselves.  And I don't mean the watered down version you get from the publishing house.  I mean the fragments that were copied by hand so that no two are alike.

 

 

 

(Or basically just made things up)  Yet the Adam and Eve tradition was around before Ezekiel's statements, which are purely figurative.

 

Because you really really believe it?  Because you wouldn't want to live in a world where it wasn't?  Because your faith is evidence of things not seen?  If you want to assume you are right knock yourself out but the rest of us need a reason to believe that Genesis is older than Ezekiel.

 

 

Again that king of Tyrus in the piece, the one the letter is addressing, was around the day Ezekiel is writing, and the Garden of Eden is long gone. 

 

Repeating it won't make it true.  The Garden of Eden started out as a real place that belonged to the King of Tyrus.  Bronze age kings had gardens.  We have evidence of this from archeology.  You are not ready to face the truth.

 

 

 

As to the other things you mentioned, there's more to understand about life back then than we know.  Yet we all have common ancestry, we descend from a family of people.

 

Yes some 150,000 to 300,000 years ago there was one woman who was the mother of all the females who would survive.  Our species must have come very close to going extinct.  But we didn't learn this from the Bible.  We learned it from science.  Any similarity with the Genesis fable is purely a coincidence.  For a time humans might have had an inbreeding problem.  However there might have been enough males from different blood lines to keep us viable.  I suspect this one woman had a tribe of her daughters and grand-daughters similar to the way lions organize.

 

 

 

  If I married someone who lived in a far country, I would essentially be marrying a cousin. 

 

Genetically speaking, marring your 428th cousin is a far cry from marring your 1st cousin.  And marring your first cousin when you both have only two genetic great-grand parents while they are the exact same people is just insane.  In the real life example over 150k years ago there might have been many surviving males who were not close cousins of the surviving female tribe.  With lions the males get ejected from the pride so they wander around and look for new prides to take over.  Let's say a volcano erupts and kills out every human tribe but one.  That would be consistent with the genetic evidence.  But the males might have come from those other tribes that died out.

 

 

Things were simply different back then.  By the way, if you take into account Adam and Eve were able to have children from the moment they were created, and take in how long Adam lived, they could have had a thousand plus children not counting twins/tripletts.  By the time Cain was banished, the world could have easily been populated into the thousands.

 

True, in the magic fable where pregnancy just happens without any biochemical exchange between the mother and fetus Eve could have squeezed out thousands of babies.  A real mother makes a baby through sacrificing her own material and it takes a toll on her.

 

 

What marriage law was broken concerning Mary being pregnant while betrothed?

 

Adultery.  Both Mary and God should have been executed according to God's law.

 

[midniterider]

 

Biblegod is a flip flopper and the Christian Right loves it! WTF?

 

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."  Romans 6:23

 

Make up your mind, flip flopper! Is it death or eternal life? So one day you're in heaven and he decides it's "death" again. "Off to hell with you all!"  :-) lol.

 

How can we trust his word when he keeps changing it? haha.This would be a great political campaign commercial.

 

How is it changing here?  How are the wages of sin the same as the gift of God?

 

They aren't the same. That's what I'm saying.

 

I cannot be both dead and have eternal life at the same time. It is a contradiction.

 

And if my paying for sin is death but that death is not permanent then it isn't really death is it? Death has no meaning in this case. Death is irrelevant.

 

A Christian will say Jesus died for our sins. What a great sacrifice. But if he only died for a day and a half and then rose into heaven, where is the sacrifice? It means nothing. His death was irrelevant since according to the bible he resurrected a couple days later. There was no 'death', just a temporary transition.

 

If I told you that I would give you a million dollars but you had to pay me $20 as a sacrifice to get that million would that $20 really be a sacrifice (loss)? The same applies to Jesus. He gave up a physical life for eternal life? No sacrifice there. No loss. :-) More like a promotion. 

[midniterider]

Things were simply different back then.  By the way, if you take into account Adam and Eve were able to have children from the moment they were created, and take in how long Adam lived, they could have had a thousand plus children not counting twins/tripletts.  By the time Cain was banished, the world could have easily been populated into the thousands.

 

True, in the magic fable where pregnancy just happens without any biochemical exchange between the mother and fetus Eve could have squeezed out thousands of babies.  A real mother makes a baby through sacrificing her own material and it takes a toll on her.

 

 

What marriage law was broken concerning Mary being pregnant while betrothed?

 

Adultery.  Both Mary and God should have been executed according to God's law.

 

 

 

If the world could have been populated into the thousands why wouldn't any of this considerably noteworthy information be in the book of Genesis? The bible loves wasting space with genealogies. Why not here in Genesis?

 

But, why would we even assume something like this to have occurred if the bible doesn't mention it? It sounds like you're MAKING STUFF UP, which I know you said you would rather not do. I would hate to manufacture filler in order to make the holy spirit inspired bible make sense. If the bible does not make sense without our having to fill in the blanks then what does this say about the bible?

 

But really Christian culture is all about making stuff up. With enough creative thought, pretty soon the meaning of your bible isn't really what it says on paper but is a conglomeration of what you think would make sense, whether it really occurred or not. The bible is no longer the bible. The bible is your own personal creative work.

 

This Eve having thousands of babies reminds me of another apologist I read on Ex-c who was asked where the people from the Land of Nod came from, one of which became Cain's wife. The response was something like, "Just because the bible doesn't talk about God (concurrently) creating other people besides Adam and Eve doesn't mean he didn't."

 

Using this type of creative license attitude (aka making stuff up) I might assert that God gave Adam and Eve each a smart phone from which they texted each other constantly as they wandered around the Garden. This could have happened and you have no reason to argue against it. The bible never says they didn't have a smart phone. They just weren't noteworthy enough to put in the bible.  As Adam and Eve died these phones disappeared and were erased from everyone's memory.

 

:-)

[Ralet]

I am reading the OT again and writting some comments in my blog.Even if you believe that Adam and Eve got a lot more children:

 

"It gets even more confusing:And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.(Gen 4:15)
What is sevenfold death? Does it mean that six of the killers family members will die, too? Well, the killers family has to be Cains,too. What a comfort to know that if your nephew (which is probably also your brother-in-law) kills you, six other of your incest family die with him."

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

1. When I was still a believer, your entire response to #1, I would have agreed with it 100% When I first had doubts of my own and deconverted, my entire view changed because the way that it looked to me, it looked as though the god of the Bible set humans up to fail from the very beginning.

 

2. The flood was meant to get rid of all of the evil in the world, but when evil remained and people became evil all over again, then the flood was probably pretty pointless, which to me, seems like a failure.

 

3. You're right, I do see it as murder when Yahweh kills children and infants for the choices their parents made. Do you think those dead children got that opportunity the moment they were brought up into Heaven? Basically, choose "Yes", they get to stay, choose "No" they get thrown into a lake of fire? Regardless, having them killed by sword was a little barbaric, don't you think? Wouldn't a benevolent god have had the children and infants all die peacefully in their sleep, as well as any people living in Canaan that were innocent, before the Isrealites went in to kill the guilty, unrepentant sinners? Also, how could we even be certain that the people of Canaan even knew what was a sin and what was not or who the right god was? Did Yahweh go and tell them or did he just expect them to know?

 

I sort of understand this idea that homosexual behavior is evil, simply because, if the Bible is true, humans were not designed to do that and the reproductive organs would have been meant for reproduction and the existence of homosexuality would have been the result of human's fallen nature. I do have one objection about that. It doesn't matter if the action does not result in reproduction, it does not and never has caused harm to anyone. The people who are homosexual discover their sexual orientation at a certain time in their life, but it's not like homosexuality or bisexuality is a desire to rape people. These people can't just change who they are, so why should they not just accept it and enjoy life as much as they can, just as long as they don't hurt anyone? Also, if you consider the overpopulation in the world today, shouldn't homosexuality be considered a good thing? I do not understand why the fact that it does not lead to reproduction is a justification for it being considered equally as wrong as murder and deserving of death by stoning.

 

4. I really am not sure how to reply to #4, so maybe someone else could provide a better response, since I'm not a major Bible scholar and wouldn't know where you get the idea from that the people of ancient Israel knew that Sheol was Hell, even if they didn't know every single detail about it.

 

So if Hell is just a place where Yahweh is not, then what is the point for there being fire, torture, and lots of screaming and wailing? If people want nothing to do with him, well, he could just remove them from existence. Punishing them is only going to make people hate him more, especially if it as sadistic of a punishment as burning someone in flames. They are not going to learn anything by being put into Hell, so that is basically all that torture in Hell is, never ending punishment, with no real purpose other than mercilessly torturing whoever is there.

 

5. If Yahweh corrected the teachings by becoming Jesus, then why doesn't he keep doing it? Sure, you might say, "Oh, those other Christian teachers have altered God's message", but there are denominations that could and probably would say the same as you. To the nonbelievers, they have no idea who is teaching the correct stuff. To us, Christianity as a whole just looks like a big mess. A religion with as many denominations as Christianity could most certainly be described as a mess.

 

6. If faith just means "trust" then it appears that lots of Christians have misplaced that trust. The Christians who suffered and died had faith that your god would ease their suffering, but they waited... and waited... and waited... then finally died, after a long amount of time of suffering. Christians and former Christians who have OCD, as I said before, have had Christianity completely screw them up. If your god was a benevolent god and knew that Christianity could royally screw up a person with this condition, then why did he not simply cure OCD? Was he just "testing" them? Was it some kind of test to see how well Christians with OCD held on to their faith, despite all of the misery that their condition caused them? If that is the case, then I can honestly say that any Christian who has OCD and is suffering because of Christianity, has definitely misplaced their trust.

 

7. I would like to see your full Christian response. You might need to move the response to the Lion's Den, if it involves preaching, because there are some strict rules about that sort of thing. I am not really an expert of the entire book of Job, since I have never really studied it thoroughly, but I plan to. This discussion probably can't go much further if I don't.

 

8. Well, I actually didn't have an objection to this.

 

9. But a lot of believers go to Christianity out of fear of being tortured after they die. I can't imagine why a god that would torture people in flames after they die should not be feared. The doctrine of Hell is the very thing that led to my deconversion and rationally, I could not understand how eternal torture in flames could ever be justified. You can't really rationalize that without making up a bunch of excuses to make it sound not as bad as it really is.

 

10. Yeah, the idea of a dog walking a man on a leash is funny. I didn't really ever have a memory of there being a section in the Bible indicating that animals corrupted themselves, just like the humans did. Any idea how they did that?

 

11. If it turned out that the Bible was 100% true, I think I still would have reached the conclusions that I did as a believer and would still have come to the conclusion that the god of the Bible was a monster. The things you have said to me in your most recent post certainly did get me thinking more than I had been before and even changed my views slightly, on some things, though I don't yet think I could see your god as a good one or reconvert.

 

I apologize if any of my previous responses to you were ever hostile. I tried to keep hostility and sarcasm out as much as possible, but it was really difficult. It really did not help the discussion when I saw you as another salesman coming to sell a product that I had already rejected. Unfortunately, that's how I see most Christians, from the meanest fundamentalists to the friendliest, so trusting most believers is quite difficult.

 

 

 

1.  Yeah, I can understand why it looks that way.

 

 

2.  My Christian answer would be the flood was actually a form of protecting Noah, the last one who had God's favor on the earth.  That had that generation continue to live on, once Noah died, everyone on earth would be corrupt, and I believe Ralet mentioned about the giants and the tainting of the human line.

 

3.  I believe these children will make their choice later.  Yet I don't have much to add about God's methods here other than this was apart of His judgment on the people.  Most will say I'm defending God's actions, but right now all I'm doing is researching the facts of the Bible.  In those videos on page 8, it concludes the Israelites true origin being a group of people from the Canaanite regions coming together and forming a new religion.  That they took El Elyon from the gods of the Canaanite regions, so from that standpoint the Canaanites knew of God.  Yet from a theological understanding, Abraham met a person called Melchizedek, and it appeared this person worshipped God and was from this region.  So God was known in this region.  Concerning the homosexual part, I don't follow the same reasoning as most who say it's wrong concerning they can't reproduce.  I would agree with everyone that the purposes for sex isn't just for reproduction.  Of course this subject is a touchy one because of the hate that comes from those who oppose it.  The truth is the Bible condemns our whole nature, and this is rarely talked about by those who oppose homosexuality. 

 

 

4.  The fire and the torture are the punishments for crime against God.  On the one hand you have the sin nature, which seperates you from God.  Then on the other hand you have the tresspasses committed against God. (For instance, someone murdering another person)  Those punishments will be judged, and that's the purpose of the fire and so forth.  Yet I would imagine, even if there was no fire and so forth, you will still be tormented.  Even though we have free will, we were created for with a purpose.  Hell was created for those who want nothing to do with God, but no one was created for Hell.  We were created to be with God.  The best way I could put it, there are people who choose to be anti-social, or choose not to have many or no friends.  Yet science shows us it's beneficial for us to be together, to interact with one another.  That we evolved in this way.  Evolving to behave a certain way, is kind of like God creating us to operate a certain way.  That no one is happy who go against it.  So even if we chose against the beneficial way, it still affects us in a negative way.

 

 

5.  The miracles are the ultimate evidence.  For the non believer and for everyone, if they saw miracles on the heels of the message being taught, then there's no mistake God is confirming that word.  So again I'm going to look into this thing here.

 

 

6.  I won't pretend to know the symptoms of OCD and how Christianity effects the condition.  I do know the teachings of Christianity have been muddled, as well as the teachings of the whole Bible.  Certainly God can heal OCD and every condition, and the Bible tells us He wants to.  So the question is why doesn't He?  Right now I believe it's the teaching.  We are taught not to be hearers only, but also to be careful how we hear.

 

 

7.  I'll discuss it in my next post.  I should have it up by tomorrow.  There's no preaching in it, but I wouldn't blame anyone if they saw my reasoning as just mine.  Yet it helps to answer the whole deal concerning Satan in that passage.

 

 

8.  I'm sorry, I must have misread your response there.

 

 

9.  I see where you're coming from.  Let me ask this question out of curiosity.  Would you say a guy like Hitler deserve an eternity in a place like Hell?

 

 

10.  God did command the animals certain things, in similar fashion that He commanded Adam and Eve.  For instance He gave the animals the vegetarian diet.  So I imagine the animals first went against this way of life, and began eating each other as a way of corrupting themselves.

 

 

11.   I see where you're coming from.  Thanks for your responses.  I don't see your responses as hostile, and they have been respectful.  I can understand your attitude toward Christian beliefs and beliefs of gods in general.  The main thing I want you to know of me, is that I don't want anyone to believe in anything without reason and evidence.  As for my beliefs, I lack evidence per say, but I still have great reason to research this thing.

 

 

1. Not much more to say about this. This point has had the life squeezed out of it already, so we probably don't need to discuss it anymore.

 

2. I suppose that makes sense. But, couldn't someone have tried to kill Noah and his family while he was still on the ark? I suppose, if the Bible was true, anyone who tried might have been struck by lightning probably, I don't know.

 

3. Regardless of whether or not the children and infants will get the chance to make their choice later, why is it justified to judge and kill them because of actions they did not do. The youngest ones wouldn't know what was going on. I get that since the Canaanites would have already believed in El Elyon that they would have known about God, so that probably makes sense. I was thinking about what you said about homosexuality. Could it be that the action or behavior of engaging in homosexuality is condemned by Yahweh, simply because it is a part of human nature?

 

4. I still fail to understand how Hell could be justified. If it was temporary, then maybe it could be justified, only if it was a place for the worst of the worst. A person who tries their best to live a good life and to treat others respectfully, but either believes in the wrong god, no god, or has been convinced that your god is a monster, hardly could be considered someone who belongs in Hell, being tortured in fire for any length of time, much less forever. \

 

5. The miracles are only evidence that some being has a lot of power, assuming miracles can actually be proven to happen and/or to come from the source you think they do. How could you possibly know that your god isn't or hasn't been a demon all along, posing as a god, forbidding the things we already know are wrong, and telling us it wants us to do good things that most people already want to do, but then forbidding things that don't harm anyone, just because it can, and saying things are good or acceptable that certainly are not?

 

6. If your god wants to cure OCD in Christians who have it and have had their lives turned into misery by Christianity, regardless of whether or not the teachings were muddled, then he should cure it so they aren't having panic attacks all day long, every day, afraid they aren't devout enough. Then once that happens, if the teachings they were following were muddled, then he could say to them, "Yeah, the teachings you were following were muddled." It's pretty simple.

 

7. Not much for me to say about this, at least not yet.

 

8. Did you misread my post and say something, but then changed it later? If that is what happened, I'm curious to know what you thought I said or what you said before hitting backspace.

 

9. My answer: I don't think that even Hitler belongs in Hell, burning forever. There is no doubt that he did a whole lot of crappy things to people because of his own hatred. The way I see it, for a person to inflict suffering upon other people and to suffer beyond the amount of suffering they have caused, then their punishment is no longer just. At some point, it only makes sense to say, "Alright, he's had enough."

 

10. So if the animals corrupted themselves by beginning to eat each other, then why is it justified for all of the animals in the future to be forced to live corrupt because of that? It's like, "Well, these animals here had free will and began to eat each other, so from now on, none of the animals will ever have free will, ever again. The carnivores will be born as carnivores, needing meat to survive, and their prey gets to suffer for it." Sounds a bit barbaric. You will probably say, once again, that the corruption is "in the genes", but it still makes no sense.

 

11. When I actually get my distrust of Christians in general out of the way, it makes things a lot better.

[mwc]

The thing with Abraham, God didn't say He was going to destroy the city outright.  It is said only that He was going to see if their actions were as wicked as the outcry states it is.  So this wouldn't be an example of bargaining over God's word.

     I see.  So really I need to be looking for technicalities, loopholes, on which to base my argument.  Seems to be what I'm dealing with here.  "God" didn't actually *say* it so we can fudge things.  I noticed that "god" didn't actually make a sacrifice earlier in Genesis with those animal skins but that hasn't stopped you from making "god" make that sacrifice.  On the other hand the story actually has this "god" mentally debating whether or not to tell Abraham its plans, an actual negotiation dealing with destruction and how to avoid such a thing (ie. call off the destruction if so many good people are found as opposed to not proceed with the destruction if so many evil people are discovered), and the actual destruction itself.  All these things adding up to mean that destruction being the default choice at this time and the investigation was to see if it should be called off if justification could be found not the other way around.

 

Utlimately what I'm referring to in that God is bound by His word, is He's not going to overlook crime committed against Him.  The crime must be punished, or else God breaks His word.  The sacrificial system allows God to punish the crimes and at the same time give the offender grace.  You do see a little bit of both throughout the OT, and neither system causes God to break His word.  Yet He much rather give someone grace.

     I don't know where you're getting any of this.  You're clearly making it up.  No "word" of any sort was given in the early pages of Genesis. 

 

 

Abraham could have sacrificed his son, but God would have raised him up again. (Because God already said Isaac was the promise seed)  So instead of doing that, God stopped Abraham, and provided a ram in Isaac's place.  The whole point was to see if Abraham would follow Him wholeheartedly, and God told him to offer Isaac.  For all intents and purposes, Abraham did that pretty much, he had the knife in his hand ready to carry out the deed.  So God says of him that he didn't withold Isaac from Him.  So this is what I mean concerning God being bound by His word. (Excuse me for all the capitalizations of every reference to God.)

     Actually, it was less about whether or not "god" could have magically raised Isaac from the dead or anything like that.  Although, based on your answer this would mean that Abraham was never really "tested" or "tempted."  He would have known that there was zero risk at the end of their journey.  Isaac was "untouchable."  He could have tossed him off a cliff.  Into a volcano.  Rolled boulders over him.  Time and time again.  And each time Isaac would simply some back to life.  Just like Kenny in South Park.  Just because "god" said some things in a certain order.  Talk about a worry-free bit of parenting.  Isaac could do whatever he wanted and, if he got into a bind, just get killed, and back he'd come.  Good as new.  What a treat.  So when "god" came to "tempt" Abraham with this sacrifice it was probably all "god" could do to keep Abraham from killing Isaac a few dozen times along the way, right?  That was the real test.

 

     Or, are you saying that Abraham *couldn't* have known all these things you're saying and that when asked to sacrifice, to murder, his special son that he may well have taken very seriously and that no expectations of coming back to life or any of the nonsense you're spewing would have been there?  Is that what you're saying?  Are you saying that Abraham expected Isaac to come back to life?  Or are you saying that Abraham would have expected Isaac to die and remain dead for all eternity?  Which of these things are you saying?

 

 

We are told that on the seventh day, God rested from His work.  So He ceased from creating things.  Yet it's interesting it said the tunics were made of skin.  For one, Adam and Eve were already clothed with fig leaves.  Why make clothes at all?  So I think there's strong indication from the writer here that this is meant to be a picture.  First being that it's God who covers you up, and not your own doing.  Second, since the people were under the system of sacrifices, it wouldn't be too far fetched to think the writer is making the point this should be seen as a picture of the sacrificial system.

 

As for God coming by the skills, God knew what sin and death was.  I personally believe this is why He doesn't regret creating man the day Adam sinned.  He already knew the plan to bring Adam back.  You later have the first mentioning of an offering with Cain and Abel.  Where did this thing come from all of a sudden?  How did they know to offer God anything?  Adam and Eve never offered anything to God?  The only possible answer is going back to that mention of God making tunics of skin to clothed Adam and Eve. (Which actually relates very closely to Cain and Abel's offerings.  Adam and Eve had vegetation for clothing, yet God clothe them with animal skin.  Later God rejects Cain's offering of vegetation, and accepts Abel's offering of the animal)  So there's implications there.

     Yes, on the seventh day "god" rested.  And he never did anything ever again?  Is that how it works?  Or is this just another one of those "just for god" deals?  Or maybe "god" works but just not creating things.  That's so week one.  According to what you're saying he rested from "his work" and that "work" is "creating."  So he never worked again?  He changed jobs?  He what?  Used his knowledge of DNA to go into hunter-gathering to kill animals so their deaths could temporarily correct for corruption in humans?  Which I take to mean "god" uses a lot of meth?  Other than the "meth" explanation (which is quite strong) go ahead and explain the "implications" (as you mention these implications over and over and over but never quite get to them as such...there just are "implications").  Details are always good.  Implications not so much.  I don't wish to infer (read: guess or "read your mind").  Spell it out.

 

     Tell me about "god's" experience with "sin" and "death" prior to creation.  How did an eternal, apparently all-good, "god" that lived all alone come by this information?

 

          mwc

[mwc]

I am reading the OT again and writting some comments in my blog.Even if you believe that Adam and Eve got a lot more children:

 

"It gets even more confusing:And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.(Gen 4:15)

What is sevenfold death? Does it mean that six of the killers family members will die, too? Well, the killers family has to be Cains,too. What a comfort to know that if your nephew (which is probably also your brother-in-law) kills you, six other of your incest family die with him."

     It means that "god" kills you seven times.  But since "god" is supernatural you first get killed in real life, then supernatural (making you alive again), real, supernatural, real, supernatural and finally real.  Now you're good and dead.  Sevenfold dead.

 

          mwc

[JosiahTheAxeman]

I'm pretty late to this discussion and also new to the forum, but the story of Adam and Eve is one of the first things that got me questioning Christianity. I began to think about it logically and realized how fucked up biblegod is.

 

1. God creates the universe and everything, including man.

2. Man is innocent, having not yet eaten the forbidden fruit.

 

Wait. If (1) God created everything and (2) man is oblivious to the existence of a thing called evil, the only being aware of evil is God. And if God is the alpha and omega, beginning and end of all things, that means evil could not have existed outside of his universal presence and will. Which leads us to believe that God could have been the only one that allowed or, rather, created "evil."

 

Which makes him a total douche for punishing us for something that he is responsible for creating.  

[Fernweh]

 

I'm pretty late to this discussion and also new to the forum, but the story of Adam and Eve is one of the first things that got me questioning Christianity. I began to think about it logically and realized how fucked up biblegod is.

 

1. God creates the universe and everything, including man.

2. Man is innocent, having not yet eaten the forbidden fruit.

 

Wait. If (1) God created everything and (2) man is oblivious to the existence of a thing called evil, the only being aware of evil is God. And if God is the alpha and omega, beginning and end of all things, that means evil could not have existed outside of his universal presence and will. Which leads us to believe that God could have been the only one that allowed or, rather, created "evil."

 

Which makes him a total douche for punishing us for something that he is responsible for creating.  

 

This sums it up very well. The story says what it says quite clearly but an apologist can stretch out the thread for 10 pages to try and prove gods love in this twisted fable.

[mymistake]

I think we have chewed this topic to death.  The point of the original post has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.  Apologists can always assert unfounded claims and read into the text things which are not there.  The motivation is clearly to uphold the religion at all cost.

 

As the late Hitchens pointed out: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

[Heavenese]

 

 

 

It could be nonsense, most say it is.  Yet I have reason to search it out. 

 

Your reason is that you are not ready to admit that your religion is made up.

 

 

The oldest text concerning Genesis is the Adam and Eve story.  Scholars would say it dates around 900 BC/BCE. 

 

You are denying science for your religion.  Would you also say that the world is flat or that Earth has corners or rests on pillars - just like the Bible says?  It is a known fact that many of the Torah stories were stolen from Babylonian religion.  They were not present in any Jewish tradition before the Babylonian captivity but in Persia the stories date back to the earliest civilization, thousands of years older than the Bible. 

 

 

You said the version we have today is the edited version, and Ezekiel refers to an older version.  Who's to say Ezekiel wasn't simply adding in new information concerning other things that went on in the Garden revealed by God?

 

Textual criticisism.  It's a scientific method to reconstruct the documents based on the known evidence and the documents themselves.  And I don't mean the watered down version you get from the publishing house.  I mean the fragments that were copied by hand so that no two are alike.

 

 

 

(Or basically just made things up)  Yet the Adam and Eve tradition was around before Ezekiel's statements, which are purely figurative.

 

Because you really really believe it?  Because you wouldn't want to live in a world where it wasn't?  Because your faith is evidence of things not seen?  If you want to assume you are right knock yourself out but the rest of us need a reason to believe that Genesis is older than Ezekiel.

 

 

Again that king of Tyrus in the piece, the one the letter is addressing, was around the day Ezekiel is writing, and the Garden of Eden is long gone. 

 

Repeating it won't make it true.  The Garden of Eden started out as a real place that belonged to the King of Tyrus.  Bronze age kings had gardens.  We have evidence of this from archeology.  You are not ready to face the truth.

 

 

 

As to the other things you mentioned, there's more to understand about life back then than we know.  Yet we all have common ancestry, we descend from a family of people.

 

Yes some 150,000 to 300,000 years ago there was one woman who was the mother of all the females who would survive.  Our species must have come very close to going extinct.  But we didn't learn this from the Bible.  We learned it from science.  Any similarity with the Genesis fable is purely a coincidence.  For a time humans might have had an inbreeding problem.  However there might have been enough males from different blood lines to keep us viable.  I suspect this one woman had a tribe of her daughters and grand-daughters similar to the way lions organize.

 

 

 

  If I married someone who lived in a far country, I would essentially be marrying a cousin. 

 

Genetically speaking, marring your 428th cousin is a far cry from marring your 1st cousin.  And marring your first cousin when you both have only two genetic great-grand parents while they are the exact same people is just insane.  In the real life example over 150k years ago there might have been many surviving males who were not close cousins of the surviving female tribe.  With lions the males get ejected from the pride so they wander around and look for new prides to take over.  Let's say a volcano erupts and kills out every human tribe but one.  That would be consistent with the genetic evidence.  But the males might have come from those other tribes that died out.

 

 

Things were simply different back then.  By the way, if you take into account Adam and Eve were able to have children from the moment they were created, and take in how long Adam lived, they could have had a thousand plus children not counting twins/tripletts.  By the time Cain was banished, the world could have easily been populated into the thousands.

 

True, in the magic fable where pregnancy just happens without any biochemical exchange between the mother and fetus Eve could have squeezed out thousands of babies.  A real mother makes a baby through sacrificing her own material and it takes a toll on her.

 

 

What marriage law was broken concerning Mary being pregnant while betrothed?

 

Adultery.  Both Mary and God should have been executed according to God's law.

 

 

 

 

I'll try to answer all your questions in one response.  Firstly my reasons for studying this thing out is a few.  One, when I look at Israel, I find it similar in how the prophecies speak concerning it.  The fact they exist in the land today is interesting to me.  There's no real reason why they should have come back into the land and occupy it.  It would be like a persecuted people group in the US, going somewhere and making their own country on occupied land.  Something like that wouldn't happen in today's world without a war in the least.  Another reason deals with certain scientific hypotheses and theories concerning string theory.  It's believed concerning how these cosmic strings vibrate, that dictates everything around us and it's properties.  The vibration part always catch my ear because documentaries are always comparing this vibration to that of strings on a musical instrument.  I'm not necessarily saying the strings of string theory makes sound, but sense it's visualized in that context, the Bible states God brought creation in by speaking it into existence.  Certainly a voice makes sound, or sound waves travel.  I consider stuff like this to be circumstantial, and worthy to look into.  In Daniel, it's prophecied that knowledge would increase as the time of the end drew near, and I believe that is general knowledge. (And interesting enough, the "word" science means knowledge)  So those are a couple of my reasons.

 

 

To your second response, certainly Solomon's temple existed prior to the Babylonian captivity. (Scholars possibly argue that)  If the temple existed, it's not a stretch to say all the instruments and items such as the ark existed prior to the captivity as well.  Those things would go back to Moses, or the traditions of Moses and the giving of the Law.  I also believe the accounts that make up Genesis would also have an existence prior to the captivity.  I consider all that information to be closely related.  So if there was a temple, there was an ark.  If there was an ark, there were the tablets that contained the Ten Commandments.  All all traditions, including that of Genesis, are related to that time period of the giving of the Law.

 

 

Concerning Ezekiel's passage being about the king of Tyrus and his garden, I think what you're saying is this king had an actual garden, and this is what Ezekiel is talking about?  I definitely wouldn't deny this king having a garden.  Of course we know Babylon had the Hanging Gardens, so I don't deny this king had a garden.  If that is the case, do you think Ezekiel was using this as a basis for his message?  In any case, in light of what said about Solomon's temple existing prior to the captivity (and the Moses traditions closely relating to that temple), I'd still say the Adam and Eve tradition is older.

 

 

Concerning the genetics, I don't have clear cut presentation concerning Adam and Eve's children other than what's written in the text.  I believe from the text, information can be gathered.  Once I test all that out, I'll see if it ultimately lines up with what we see today.  The kind of research I want to do, is going to take time and resources.  Of course now I'm hear discussing.  Yet I'll definitely rap up my discussion soon, and dive in to my studies.

 

 

To you last reference, if we want to get technical, no adultery was committed.  This was like artificial insemination

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't the same. That's what I'm saying.

 

I cannot be both dead and have eternal life at the same time. It is a contradiction.

 

And if my paying for sin is death but that death is not permanent then it isn't really death is it? Death has no meaning in this case. Death is irrelevant.

 

A Christian will say Jesus died for our sins. What a great sacrifice. But if he only died for a day and a half and then rose into heaven, where is the sacrifice? It means nothing. His death was irrelevant since according to the bible he resurrected a couple days later. There was no 'death', just a temporary transition.

 

If I told you that I would give you a million dollars but you had to pay me $20 as a sacrifice to get that million would that $20 really be a sacrifice (loss)? The same applies to Jesus. He gave up a physical life for eternal life? No sacrifice there. No loss. :-) More like a promotion. 

 

 

 

As for the verse, I don't see a contradiction.  The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.  We basically earn death, but if we receive God's gift, we can have eternal life.  In that case upon receiving the gift, we have eternal life.  So it's not a matter of being both dead and having eternal life, it's an either/or.  If you want what you earn, you will get death.  If you want the gift of God, you will receive life.

 

 

As for should we see what Jesus did really being a sacrifice, from my reading Jesus could have failed His mission.  He could have gave over into temptation like Adam did, and become corrupt.  So that was a risk.  Another thing is Jesus didn't have to do what He did.  He could have let man earn what he got. (And if God decided to go that route, then Adam and Eve would have been judged right there, and we wouldn't have existed)  So it was a sacrifice from that perspective.  Yeah, God was well able to pay for our way, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a sacrifice.  If a soldier goes in to save his comrade, and ultimately both survive, does that mean the heroic soldier didn't sacrifice his life for another?  If you say the soldier risked his/her life, Jesus also risked Himself as well, because He could have gave in to temptation and fell like Adam.

 

 

 

 

If the world could have been populated into the thousands why wouldn't any of this considerably noteworthy information be in the book of Genesis? The bible loves wasting space with genealogies. Why not here in Genesis?

 

But, why would we even assume something like this to have occurred if the bible doesn't mention it? It sounds like you're MAKING STUFF UP, which I know you said you would rather not do. I would hate to manufacture filler in order to make the holy spirit inspired bible make sense. If the bible does not make sense without our having to fill in the blanks then what does this say about the bible?

 

But really Christian culture is all about making stuff up. With enough creative thought, pretty soon the meaning of your bible isn't really what it says on paper but is a conglomeration of what you think would make sense, whether it really occurred or not. The bible is no longer the bible. The bible is your own personal creative work.

 

This Eve having thousands of babies reminds me of another apologist I read on Ex-c who was asked where the people from the Land of Nod came from, one of which became Cain's wife. The response was something like, "Just because the bible doesn't talk about God (concurrently) creating other people besides Adam and Eve doesn't mean he didn't."

 

Using this type of creative license attitude (aka making stuff up) I might assert that God gave Adam and Eve each a smart phone from which they texted each other constantly as they wandered around the Garden. This could have happened and you have no reason to argue against it. The bible never says they didn't have a smart phone. They just weren't noteworthy enough to put in the bible.  As Adam and Eve died these phones disappeared and were erased from everyone's memory.

 

:-)

 

 

 

The Bible does say Adam and sons and daughters throughout his lifetime.  We also know that between Cain and Abel's birth, and the moment of their sacrifices, the Bible tells us there was a passage of time.  We don't officially know the time that passed here, but it could have been 20 years-100+ years.  All the way from the year Seth is born, which is a 130 years.  So Adam could have many sons and daughters in that time.

 

 

 

I am reading the OT again and writting some comments in my blog.Even if you believe that Adam and Eve got a lot more children:

 

"It gets even more confusing:And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.(Gen 4:15)

What is sevenfold death? Does it mean that six of the killers family members will die, too? Well, the killers family has to be Cains,too. What a comfort to know that if your nephew (which is probably also your brother-in-law) kills you, six other of your incest family die with him."

 

 

Possibly.  I'm thinking once Adam's children left home on their own, they became their own unique family for all intents and purposes.  So for anyone who killed Cain, their children would be affected.

[Heavenese]

 

1. Not much more to say about this. This point has had the life squeezed out of it already, so we probably don't need to discuss it anymore.

 

2. I suppose that makes sense. But, couldn't someone have tried to kill Noah and his family while he was still on the ark? I suppose, if the Bible was true, anyone who tried might have been struck by lightning probably, I don't know.

 

3. Regardless of whether or not the children and infants will get the chance to make their choice later, why is it justified to judge and kill them because of actions they did not do. The youngest ones wouldn't know what was going on. I get that since the Canaanites would have already believed in El Elyon that they would have known about God, so that probably makes sense. I was thinking about what you said about homosexuality. Could it be that the action or behavior of engaging in homosexuality is condemned by Yahweh, simply because it is a part of human nature?

 

4. I still fail to understand how Hell could be justified. If it was temporary, then maybe it could be justified, only if it was a place for the worst of the worst. A person who tries their best to live a good life and to treat others respectfully, but either believes in the wrong god, no god, or has been convinced that your god is a monster, hardly could be considered someone who belongs in Hell, being tortured in fire for any length of time, much less forever. \

 

5. The miracles are only evidence that some being has a lot of power, assuming miracles can actually be proven to happen and/or to come from the source you think they do. How could you possibly know that your god isn't or hasn't been a demon all along, posing as a god, forbidding the things we already know are wrong, and telling us it wants us to do good things that most people already want to do, but then forbidding things that don't harm anyone, just because it can, and saying things are good or acceptable that certainly are not?

 

6. If your god wants to cure OCD in Christians who have it and have had their lives turned into misery by Christianity, regardless of whether or not the teachings were muddled, then he should cure it so they aren't having panic attacks all day long, every day, afraid they aren't devout enough. Then once that happens, if the teachings they were following were muddled, then he could say to them, "Yeah, the teachings you were following were muddled." It's pretty simple.

 

7. Not much for me to say about this, at least not yet.

 

8. Did you misread my post and say something, but then changed it later? If that is what happened, I'm curious to know what you thought I said or what you said before hitting backspace.

 

9. My answer: I don't think that even Hitler belongs in Hell, burning forever. There is no doubt that he did a whole lot of crappy things to people because of his own hatred. The way I see it, for a person to inflict suffering upon other people and to suffer beyond the amount of suffering they have caused, then their punishment is no longer just. At some point, it only makes sense to say, "Alright, he's had enough."

 

10. So if the animals corrupted themselves by beginning to eat each other, then why is it justified for all of the animals in the future to be forced to live corrupt because of that? It's like, "Well, these animals here had free will and began to eat each other, so from now on, none of the animals will ever have free will, ever again. The carnivores will be born as carnivores, needing meat to survive, and their prey gets to suffer for it." Sounds a bit barbaric. You will probably say, once again, that the corruption is "in the genes", but it still makes no sense.

 

11. When I actually get my distrust of Christians in general out of the way, it makes things a lot better.

 

 

 

2.  Scripture tells us that God shut the door behind Noah, probably meaning no one could open it if they wanted to. Maybe not even Noah.

 

 

3.  It's definitely harsh, but overall it was part of the judgment.  What it is, is its legalistic.  If for instance we are to assume the parents of that nation killed other nations' children and just did evil to the innocent, the judgment is their children will suffer in the same way.  We wouldn't agree to it, but it comes down to legalism, the letter of the law.  I believe this is how it's to be viewed, but mostly for me I'm more interested in producing proof for the historicity of all the points in the Bible.  Yeah I would say homosexuality is condemned because it's part of human nature.  Human nature not being what it once was.

 

I think you (or someone else) asked why does God have problems with things that doesn't necessarily cause anyone harm.  There are sins in the Bible that we all agree whether we are Christian/athiest/or have any other view, causes harm and are seen as wrong.  Then there are sins such as homosexuality, that we wonder about.  The answer deals with God's perfection.  That anything below flawless, cannot be in God's presence.  Moses could be seen by observant Jews today as the most righteous man in Israel's history.  God told him if he saw His face, he would die. (on a side note, I developed a hyothesis concerning this, and why God doesn't physically show Himself to us if He is real).  So this tells us if Moses wasn't worthy enough to literally be in God's presence, then no one is.  You must be perfect in order to do so, and no one is.  It's in that category that some of the sins in the Bible fall into.  It's not that some of the things we do causes others harm, but that we are not perfect.

 

 

4.  I believe there's something more to know concerning Hell.  Here's what I can tell you, is that no one is going there because of circumstances.  It's more a matter of the heart.  Just like children who die without reaching an age of understanding, there are many adults who don't have reason to make a decision about God's grace either way.  Ultimately God will judge people based on their knowledge.  Would it makes sense for those who suffered so much in this life, only to suffer for an eterinity afterwards?  Not to Jesus.  His words are blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.  It all depends on the heart, and theoretically the open heart will receive Jesus if they have the evidence.

 

 

5.  At the moment I would say the research would conclude if this being is God, something else, or just man.

 

 

6.  I think the teaching links the results.  Going back for a sec, you said Christianity might have made OCD worse for those who had the condition.  I think it's a common feeling among Christians that one has to do something in order to be devout or righteous in God's eyes.  So if we feel like we aren't doing enough in God's eyes, we are condemned.  That feeling will definitely be worse by a condition like OCD.  Yet I would say this is a wrong teaching concerning Christianity.  It actually is getting back to the point of the Law, that we have to do in order to be righteous.  It's the other way around with Christianity.  That we do, because we're already righteous in Christ.  Even if we feel like we are not, we are.  So knowing that, we take comfort.

 

With OCD, there's probably some techniques a person does that helps them with their symptons.  From a natural standpoint, just from the correct teaching of grace, it should give a person comfort with their OCD.  Because even those without the condition, feels condemned concerning Christianity with the muddled teaching.  But ultimately the miracles are linked with the teaching.  Of course that may sound trivial, but if the miracles confirm the teaching.  If God healed first when someone doesn't have the right teaching, the person will think he has the right teaching as evidenced by the miracle.  Even if God told the teaching is wrong to the individual afterward, it just sets up confusion.  We could igore God's words after receiving the miracle, and favor the natural feeling of earning things.

 

 

7.  Okay my answer concerning Satan in Job, and Satan's case against God concerning Job.  When Satan showed up, God's question to him seemed like he wasn't expected to be there.  God asks him where did he come from.  From this question, it seems like Satan wasn't supposed to be there.  We are told the sons of God came to present themselves before Him, and Satan came among them.  If Satan was a son of God, why does the Bible add in that Satan "also" came among them?  The only reason I can think of, is that he wasn't expected to be there because he wasn't a son of God.  Yet in any case, he was there in this meeting of the sons of God.  So my Christian answer, based on things Satan mentions to Jesus and what the geneaologies of the NT state about Adam, Satan stole Adam's authority.  That originally authority God gave Adam to have dominion over the world.

 

 

I'm of the belief that the different religions of the world came about from distortions of our history with God.  Let's say Genesis is the complete history of the world.  Originally, Adam of course knew God personally in the beginning, and that relationship became muddled because of the fall but he still knew God.  Over time, as Adam's family moved out into the world a began populating it, his children began to move away from direct relationship with God, and the truth of who God is began to change through oral traditions.  I believe Satan took that opportunity to come in, and further deceive the world, and had a hand in people further moving away from God. (Christianity as you know teaches Satan played a part in the deception of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, that he was behind it all)  So through the lies, Satan got the world to give their authority over to him.  So this brings us to Satan's answer to God when asked where he came from.  He states from roaming about on the earth, and walking around it.  I take this to mean Satan is using Adam's authority of dominion over the earth.  Adam was a son of God according to the geneaologies in the NT.  So it could be in this meeting of the sons of God, Satan took Adam's place here, coming in his authority.

 

 

With all that said, I believe Satan was making his case against Job from Adam's authority.  So God was obligated from that standpoint, to let Satan attack Job.  Satan's answer concerning the earth I think concerns the people on the earth, that they were in a way following Satan's way over God's.  That's why God presented Job, that he remained faithful to Him.  So Satan argues that Job really isn't faithful to Him out of his own heart, but because of the stuff God gives him and the protection.  All of it was legal talk, and Satan was arguing his case from Adam's authority.

 

 

8.  I guess I originally read your post in that Adam and Eve would know everything concerning the results from eating from the tree (including their children suffering from their choice and so on), but they still didn't know if the snake was lying.  My original response was then along the lines of it wouldn't matter what they knew if they believed the lie of the snake that they wouldn't die.  Yet I agree they wouldn't have eaten from the tree if they knew the snake was lying amongst all the other things.

 

 

9.  I can see what you're saying.  Yet let me ask you what if Hitler from his heart just hates people without reason, but he himself will exist forever?  Wouldn't a place be needed for him to seperate those who wish to live in peace?  I imagine if we all had eternal life right now on this earth, people who wished to break the law would stay in prison forever. (We have life sentences, but I suppose if no one died, that sentence would be forever)  Now I don't think US prisons have very harsh conditions in their prisons, though I'm sure it's not a rose garden either.  However, there are prisons around the world where the prisoners are beaten or what have you.  I suppose that would come down to a matter of opinion concerning the conditions inside a prison, but Hell and the Lake of Fire are to be considered God's prison.

 

 

10.  I'll continue to research this matter, but yeah my answer is partly it's in the genes.   I do believe in evolution by the way, but not yet common descent of all life on earth.

 

 

11.  Thanks.  I consider myself to be something of a unique Christian, but not in a prideful way.

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with Abraham, God didn't say He was going to destroy the city outright.  It is said only that He was going to see if their actions were as wicked as the outcry states it is.  So this wouldn't be an example of bargaining over God's word.

     I see.  So really I need to be looking for technicalities, loopholes, on which to base my argument.  Seems to be what I'm dealing with here.  "God" didn't actually *say* it so we can fudge things.  I noticed that "god" didn't actually make a sacrifice earlier in Genesis with those animal skins but that hasn't stopped you from making "god" make that sacrifice.  On the other hand the story actually has this "god" mentally debating whether or not to tell Abraham its plans, an actual negotiation dealing with destruction and how to avoid such a thing (ie. call off the destruction if so many good people are found as opposed to not proceed with the destruction if so many evil people are discovered), and the actual destruction itself.  All these things adding up to mean that destruction being the default choice at this time and the investigation was to see if it should be called off if justification could be found not the other way around.

 

 

 

Of course in my initial response I didn't say anything specific concerning Abraham lowering the number.  All God was going to do is see if the outcry was true. (Of course you might say why couldn't God see from Heaven, or why doesn't He already know what's going on in that city)  If it was true, God was going to unleash His judgment.  Abraham could do that math.  So Abraham simply appealed to God's righteousness, because he knew his nephew lived in the city.  So overall, this was a geniune appeal of God's grace.  I mentioned whether He deals by the letter of the law or by His grace, He is not breaking His word.

 

 

 

     I don't know where you're getting any of this.  You're clearly making it up.  No "word" of any sort was given in the early pages of Genesis. 

 

 

This is the overall picture of God throughout the Bible.  We see it particularly with the giving of the Law.  (Exodus 34 verses 6-7)  That God has mercy for thousands, but by no means clearing the guilty.  We are also told that God doesn't lie, and that His word is as good as His name or better.  So I connect all those things together.

 

 

     Actually, it was less about whether or not "god" could have magically raised Isaac from the dead or anything like that.  Although, based on your answer this would mean that Abraham was never really "tested" or "tempted."  He would have known that there was zero risk at the end of their journey.  Isaac was "untouchable."  He could have tossed him off a cliff.  Into a volcano.  Rolled boulders over him.  Time and time again.  And each time Isaac would simply some back to life.  Just like Kenny in South Park.  Just because "god" said some things in a certain order.  Talk about a worry-free bit of parenting.  Isaac could do whatever he wanted and, if he got into a bind, just get killed, and back he'd come.  Good as new.  What a treat.  So when "god" came to "tempt" Abraham with this sacrifice it was probably all "god" could do to keep Abraham from killing Isaac a few dozen times along the way, right?  That was the real test.

 

     Or, are you saying that Abraham *couldn't* have known all these things you're saying and that when asked to sacrifice, to murder, his special son that he may well have taken very seriously and that no expectations of coming back to life or any of the nonsense you're spewing would have been there?  Is that what you're saying?  Are you saying that Abraham expected Isaac to come back to life?  Or are you saying that Abraham would have expected Isaac to die and remain dead for all eternity?  Which of these things are you saying?

 

 

 

 

I would say Abraham came to realize Isaac would be raised up again, but not necessarily from the moment of the command.  God's command seemed contradictory to Isaac being the child to carry out the promise.  If Isaac is dead, he can't produce any children of his own and thus eliminating the promise.  However, Abraham trusted God thus far, and he had all reason in the world to continue to trust Him.  So I believe the only reason Abraham did what God told him to do, was because he realized God was able to raise him up again.  Of course Christians take this event as a picture of Jesus being sacrificed.  That God was showing Abraham what was to come later.  Abraham called the mountain after this event "The Lord will see" or "It will be seen".  Some translate it as "The Lord will provide".

 

 

So Abraham's trust was tested, and he came to realize that Isaac would ultimately come back down the mountain with him.

 

 

     Yes, on the seventh day "god" rested.  And he never did anything ever again?  Is that how it works?  Or is this just another one of those "just for god" deals?  Or maybe "god" works but just not creating things.  That's so week one.  According to what you're saying he rested from "his work" and that "work" is "creating."  So he never worked again?  He changed jobs?  He what?  Used his knowledge of DNA to go into hunter-gathering to kill animals so their deaths could temporarily correct for corruption in humans?  Which I take to mean "god" uses a lot of meth?  Other than the "meth" explanation (which is quite strong) go ahead and explain the "implications" (as you mention these implications over and over and over but never quite get to them as such...there just are "implications").  Details are always good.  Implications not so much.  I don't wish to infer (read: guess or "read your mind").  Spell it out.

 

     Tell me about "god's" experience with "sin" and "death" prior to creation.  How did an eternal, apparently all-good, "god" that lived all alone come by this information?

 

          mwc

 

 

 

We already know God knows good and evil.  This let's us know there's an ultimate standard of what is good and evil.  Logically because God is the creator, anything contrary to Him, is evil.  Sin simply means off the mark or missing the mark.  In this case, God is the mark.  So it doesn't take experience to know anything contrary to what you are, if your the mark, is considered evil.  So God created a system before He created man, that should we fall, a way could be paved for us back to the mark, or back to having relationship with Him.

 

 

As for resting from His work on the seventh day, it's stated that God finished creation.  Now I don't want to say for sure God couldn't have created clothes from nothing, but the picture is there.  Again, why does it say the clothes were out of skin?  By this time, someone correct me if I'm wrong, clothes were being made out of linen and different fabric.  So the writer could have simply said "and God made them clothes".  Yet the skin is mentioned, and I believe that implies the death of an animal occured.  I guess what I'm saying is, the death of an animal and using it's skin for clothing would have been something the people reading the story would have understood.  Clothing made out of skin is a no brainer for those who are reading the Genesis story, in that an animal died here.  That would have most likely been their perspective.  That's why I said if this story is completely mythical, reading this as the first sacrifice would be even more evident.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

@Heavnese.

 

Lol, I meant to say for 2. that someone could have tried to kill Noah and his family before they got on the ark. I did not realize that I had said "while on the ark".

 

3. So maybe, if everything in the Bible is true, when a person engages in homosexuality, it's not necessarily the act itself that your god hates, just the fact that it symbolizes the fact that human nature is imperfect, does that sound about right to you?

 

Honestly, legalism does not sound right to me. A perfect god would have created a system in which only the guilty would have been punished, but the innocent would not. The fact that your god does not do this, but instead commands the innocent to be punished for the sins of the guilty, leads me to believe he must be corrupt, if he is even real.

 

About those sins that don't cause any harm, you say the reason for them being sins is because imperfection can't be in your god's presence, but does that mean that "imperfection" is purely subjective, basically, whatever he wants it to be? Does he see human need for sex as imperfect, so the action needs to be heavily restricted in order for him to not hate it? He can change the rules any time he wants, as to what is perfect and what is not, so anything that is "imperfect" is only so, not because it actually is imperfect, but because he says that it is. As far as I can see, it looks like he's just making up the rules as he goes along. If our imperfection is a justification for why some of our actions are sins, including the ones that don't cause harm, then basically he could make anything a sin that he wants to. He could make yelling too loud to be a sin.

 

4. So what you're saying is, people who know or believe that your god exists without a doubt, but reject him anyway, are going to Hell, while everyone else who has not seen the evidence and are not convinced go to either Heaven or Hell based on how well they try to live a moral life, right?

 

5. I agree that research will conclude whether or not your god is a god, something else (probably being something evil), or a human concept. The research I have done leads me to believe that he is either something else or a human concept, possibly a combination of those two things. At the moment, I'm not convinced that your god is actually "God" or a god among many.

 

6. Well, if the teachings are muddled, then it appears your god didn't do a good job of presenting his message straight-forward enough that it couldn't be muddled. He should have written the whole thing himself, instead of relying on fallible and sometimes dishonest humans. There should be one copy for everyone and whoever picks up a Bible should see the words magically translate into their language, in a 100% perfect translation, so they could understand it. With contradictions and language barriers in the way, it is extremely easy for the information in the Bible to be misinterpreted or misrepresented. As a result, it is next to impossible to know for sure who understands it correctly and who does not.

 

7. I guess I hadn't seen the part of the book of Job about Satan joining the meeting in that light before, as if he was not meant to be there. Maybe if he wasn't meant to be there, maybe he isn't a "son of God".

 

8. I didn't realize that you misread what I said in #8. I thought you read it correctly and that your answer made sense.

 

9. If Hitler must exist forever and just hates people without reason, then maybe separating him from everyone for eternity would be a good idea, but I fail to understand why he must be tortured with fire that whole time, just to do it. If he does not need to exist forever, why not just terminate him after he's suffered all he could suffer without it being unjust, if he is unwilling to play nice with everyone else? If eternal torture in flames is your god's idea of a prison, then I still am of the position that your god is probably a sadist, if he exists.

 

10. All I know is, if suffering and death is part of the genes, because the first humans and first animals corrupted themselves, I do still see it as unjust, because all humans and animals are being punished for things they didn't do, the animals especially, because they are very likely being punished for reasons they can't know or comprehend because their minds don't function like ours do.

 

 

 

Lol, it is funny how when we type in "11." afterwards, we aren't even discussing point #11 anymore, just saying random things. I don't know what else could be said about "11", so we are probably done with that one. Also, this, "I apologize if any of my previous responses to you were ever hostile. I tried to keep hostility and sarcasm out as much as possible, but it was really difficult. It really did not help the discussion when I saw you as another salesman coming to sell a product that I had already rejected. Unfortunately, that's how I see most Christians, from the meanest fundamentalists to the friendliest, so trusting most believers is quite difficult." was never meant to be part of #11, I just didn't indicate that it wasn't meant to be.

 

Anyway, I would agree that in some ways, you probably would be considered a heretic among Christians, while in other ways, the vast majority would agree with you.

[mwc]

Of course in my initial response I didn't say anything specific concerning Abraham lowering the number.  All God was going to do is see if the outcry was true. (Of course you might say why couldn't God see from Heaven, or why doesn't He already know what's going on in that city)  If it was true, God was going to unleash His judgment.  Abraham could do that math.  So Abraham simply appealed to God's righteousness, because he knew his nephew lived in the city.  So overall, this was a geniune appeal of God's grace.  I mentioned whether He deals by the letter of the law or by His grace, He is not breaking His word.

If you wish to address why "god" couldn't do the things you apparently think he should be able to do then go right ahead. I'm not going to complete your half-finished work.

 

Abraham didn't appeal to anything. Abraham told "god" how to do his job. I quoted the text. If Abraham had concern for Lot it's a simple matter to make that known. Just because we, the reader, know of Lot doesn't mean it's an issue for those in the story. But I agree. He should be concerned for family and he should have made it an issue instead of simply bargaining for some generic men and hoping for the best.

 

This is the overall picture of God throughout the Bible.  We see it particularly with the giving of the Law.  (Exodus 34 verses 6-7)  That God has mercy for thousands, but by no means clearing the guilty.  We are also told that God doesn't lie, and that His word is as good as His name or better.  So I connect all those things together.

Really?

 

Exodus 34:7 Having mercy on thousands, overlooking evil and wrongdoing and sin; he will not let wrongdoers go free, but will send punishment on children for the sins of their fathers, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generation.

 

Exodus 20:5 You may not go down on your faces before them or give them worship: for I, the Lord your God, am a God who will not give his honour to another; and I will send punishment on the children for the wrongdoing of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation of my haters;

 

Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers are not to be put to death for their children or children for their fathers: every man is to be put to death for the sin which he himself has done.

     Oh, if only "god" had spoken these in a different order then everyone would be responsible for their own sins but as it is the children are responsible until the third and fourth generations.  Or are they?  We're all still suffering for Adam and Eve.  The "unwritten" punishment.  So it's forever.  Then third and fourth generations.  Then to each their own.  But somehow overlooking evil and wrongdoing and sin at the very same time which is impossible but still possible.

 

I would say Abraham came to realize Isaac would be raised up again, but not necessarily from the moment of the command.  God's command seemed contradictory to Isaac being the child to carry out the promise.  If Isaac is dead, he can't produce any children of his own and thus eliminating the promise.  However, Abraham trusted God thus far, and he had all reason in the world to continue to trust Him.  So I believe the only reason Abraham did what God told him to do, was because he realized God was able to raise him up again.  Of course Christians take this event as a picture of Jesus being sacrificed.  That God was showing Abraham what was to come later.  Abraham called the mountain after this event "The Lord will see" or "It will be seen".  Some translate it as "The Lord will provide".

 

 

So Abraham's trust was tested, and he came to realize that Isaac would ultimately come back down the mountain with him.

     Good.  If the "command seemed contradictory" thanks to your time-traveling mind-reading abilities then that's good enough for me.  That demonstrates the problem.  At *THE TIME* the command was given Abraham thought that Isaac would DIE.  He may have came to believe it but that's of no consequence.  Whatever your explanation is doesn't change your now admitted fact that Abraham was going to kill his son by the command of "god" and my previous point stands. 

 

     It's now your turn to go ahead and rewrite all of this so that Abraham realizes that Isaac won't die just a split-second sooner so the command is understood differently.  Have fun with that.

 

We already know God knows good and evil.  This let's us know there's an ultimate standard of what is good and evil.  Logically because God is the creator, anything contrary to Him, is evil.  Sin simply means off the mark or missing the mark.  In this case, God is the mark.  So it doesn't take experience to know anything contrary to what you are, if your the mark, is considered evil.  So God created a system before He created man, that should we fall, a way could be paved for us back to the mark, or back to having relationship with Him.

      Actually, I don't know what "god" supposedly knows.  You've been telling me lots of things on what "god" knows, what he has to do, what he can't do, what he feels like doing, what he doesn't really want to do, and on and on and on.  You're the one that knows ever so much about "god."  Things that aren't ever actually mentioned anywhere...you know them.  This is why I keep asking you questions.

 

     So "god" knows good and evil.  How does he know this?  What does it mean to be "contrary" to him?  In what way "contrary?"  Like if he really likes blue and I like orange am I being contrary?  "God" might like all colors but perhaps blue is just the best of the best.  And not just blue but a particular frequency of blue.  Maybe one I can't see too well.  So I say orange is better.  Now I'm evil?  Because I am "contrary?"  I should "go along to get along" as the saying goes?  Wouldn't this just be a lie?  And lying is bad.  Wouldn't this also be evil?  But telling the truth and liking orange better than blue seems problematic.  And lying is too.  I'm in quite a pickle.

 

     So we're using Greek to talk about "sin" and "god" now?  Why is that?  I've posted the actual languages before and that seemed too much for you.  I'm lazy now so I'll just post Wikipedia:

 

Hebrew has several other words for sin beyond khata, each with its own specific meaning. The word pesha, or "trespass", means a sin done out of rebelliousness. The word aveira means "transgression". And the word avone, or "iniquity", means a sin done out of moral failing. The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", khata, literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path.

     Put two and two together and maybe you'll get the story of Cain.  He "sinned" which is "he went astray" and in the story he actually is sent "wandering."  What a coincidence.  It's like in the story he did what it said he was going to do.

 

     But on your insistence here's your "sin:"

 

Hamartia (Ancient Greek: ἁμαρτία) is a word most famously used in Aristotle's Poetics,^[1] where it is usually translated as a mistake or error in judgment. In modern discussions of tragedy, hamartia has often been described as a hero's "tragic flaw."^[2] The word hamartia is rooted in the notion of missing the mark (hamartanein) and covers a broad spectrum that includes ignorant, mistaken, or accidental wrongdoing,^[3] as well as deliberate iniquity, error, or sin.^[4]

 

This form of drawing emotion from the audience is a staple of the Greek tragedies. In Greek tragedy, stories that contain a character with a hamartia often follow a similar blueprint. The hamartia, as stated, is seen as an error in judgment or unwitting mistake is applied to the actions of the hero. For example, the hero might attempt to achieve a certain objective X; by making an error in judgment, however, the hero instead achieves the opposite of X, with disastrous consequences.

 

However, hamartia cannot be sharply defined or have an exact meaning assigned to it. Consequently, a number of alternate interpretations have been associated with it, such as in the New Testament where hamartia is the Greek word translated "sin".^[5] Bible translators may reach this conclusion, according to T. C. W. Stinton, because another common interpretation of hamartia can be seen as a “moral deficit” or a “moral error” (Stinton 221). R. D. Dawe disagrees with Stinton’s view when he points out in some cases hamartia can even mean to not sin (Dawe 91). It can be seen in this opposing context if the main character does not carry out an action because it is a sin. This failure to act, in turn, must lead to a poor change in fortune for the main character in order for it to truly be a hamartia.

 

     Fortunately for me I now know that "god" apparently created his system off the Greek and it's not too exacting.

 

As for resting from His work on the seventh day, it's stated that God finished creation.  Now I don't want to say for sure God couldn't have created clothes from nothing, but the picture is there.  Again, why does it say the clothes were out of skin?  By this time, someone correct me if I'm wrong, clothes were being made out of linen and different fabric.  So the writer could have simply said "and God made them clothes".  Yet the skin is mentioned, and I believe that implies the death of an animal occured.  I guess what I'm saying is, the death of an animal and using it's skin for clothing would have been something the people reading the story would have understood.  Clothing made out of skin is a no brainer for those who are reading the Genesis story, in that an animal died here.  That would have most likely been their perspective.  That's why I said if this story is completely mythical, reading this as the first sacrifice would be even more evident.

     So is the story literal or is it myth?  What's this story?

 

          mwc

[JamesG]

Man Heavenese does your brain hurt after all that mental gymnastics?

 

This is the overall picture of God throughout the Bible.  We see it particularly with the giving of the Law.  (Exodus 34 verses 6-7)  That God has mercy for thousands, but by no means clearing the guilty.  We are also told that God doesn't lie, and that His word is as good as His name or better.  So I connect all those things together.

 

 

 

God lies

Genesis 6:2

 

² the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose

 

John 3:16

 

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

Spoiler alert there are more lies.

[mymistake]

 

 One, when I look at Israel, I find it similar in how the prophecies speak concerning it.  The fact they exist in the land today is interesting to me.  There's no real reason why they should have come back into the land and occupy it.  It would be like a persecuted people group in the US, going somewhere and making their own country on occupied land.  Something like that wouldn't happen in today's world without a war in the least.  Another reason deals with certain scientific hypotheses and theories concerning string theory.  It's believed concerning how these cosmic strings vibrate, that dictates everything around us and it's properties.  The vibration part always catch my ear because documentaries are always comparing this vibration to that of strings on a musical instrument.  I'm not necessarily saying the strings of string theory makes sound, but sense it's visualized in that context, the Bible states God brought creation in by speaking it into existence.  Certainly a voice makes sound, or sound waves travel.  I consider stuff like this to be circumstantial, and worthy to look into.  In Daniel, it's prophecied that knowledge would increase as the time of the end drew near, and I believe that is general knowledge. (And interesting enough, the "word" science means knowledge)  So those are a couple of my reasons.

 

 

To your second response, certainly Solomon's temple existed prior to the Babylonian captivity. (Scholars possibly argue that)  If the temple existed, it's not a stretch to say all the instruments and items such as the ark existed prior to the captivity as well.  Those things would go back to Moses, or the traditions of Moses and the giving of the Law.  I also believe the accounts that make up Genesis would also have an existence prior to the captivity.  I consider all that information to be closely related.  So if there was a temple, there was an ark.  If there was an ark, there were the tablets that contained the Ten Commandments.  All all traditions, including that of Genesis, are related to that time period of the giving of the Law.

 

 

{snip}

 

To you last reference, if we want to get technical, no adultery was committed.  This was like artificial insemination

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to cut out all the issues where we are not making progress.  It's been established that you will just repeat theology so no headway can be made there.

 

Modern Israel has nothing to do with ancient Israel.  The similarity in name is only a coincidence.  The closest you can get to ancient Israel are the Palestinians who's ancestors survived the Roman purge only to be over run by the Muslim Jihad.  Those who survived converted to Islam.  Modern Israel did come about as the result of a war.  World War II was quite a big one.  Afterwards the United Kingdom decided to draw the maps differently and disposed of their extra land as they saw fit.  There is nothing prophetic about it.  Modern Israel is a European culture.  It's a democracy rather than a monarchy or theocracy.  You could not be more wrong about this.

 

String theory therefore the voice of God?  That is ridiculous.  You reject science except to give you buzz words that you use to fit your own needs without regard to their real meaning.

 

Daniel really went out on a limb "prophesying" that knowledge increases over time.  That is almost as good as prophesying that water is wet.  Have you not noticed that human knowledge increases over time?  Hasn't everybody?  I'm going to prophesy that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.  I'm a prophet of God.  However no matter how many thousands of years go by the end never draws near.  It's never the last days.  

 

The fact that there was a temple doesn't mean it had an ark or that the ark was authentic nor that the Patriarchs such as Moses had ever lived.

 

Artificial insemination was invented thousands of years later.  It didn't exist back then.  People living back then could not have seen the events using a concept invented in modern times.  However they did understand young ladies getting pregnant when the law said they shouldn't and hearing all kinds of weak excuses.  According to "God's law" Mary was the property of Joseph and God violated that.  Mary was suppose to be stoned to death for "playing the harlot" or drink biohazard from the tabernacle floor as required by the torah.    If we found some roadkill that had been out in the sun for a while and scooped up the dust underneath it and you drank that maybe you too would earn "God's jealousy curse" with no grain offering or prayer from any priest required.  It isn't magic and it isn't divine power.  Drink something so very yuck and you will get sick.

 

You suspend disbelief when your religion is silly.  I'm sure you can explain all of this away with some good hand waving.

[midniterider]

As for the verse, I don't see a contradiction.  The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.  We basically earn death, but if we receive God's gift, we can have eternal life.  In that case upon receiving the gift, we have eternal life.  So it's not a matter of being both dead and having eternal life, it's an either/or.  If you want what you earn, you will get death.  If you want the gift of God, you will receive life.

 

 

As for should we see what Jesus did really being a sacrifice, from my reading Jesus could have failed His mission.  He could have gave over into temptation like Adam did, and become corrupt.  So that was a risk.  Another thing is Jesus didn't have to do what He did.  He could have let man earn what he got. (And if God decided to go that route, then Adam and Eve would have been judged right there, and we wouldn't have existed)  So it was a sacrifice from that perspective.  Yeah, God was well able to pay for our way, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a sacrifice.  If a soldier goes in to save his comrade, and ultimately both survive, does that mean the heroic soldier didn't sacrifice his life for another?  If you say the soldier risked his/her life, Jesus also risked Himself as well, because He could have gave in to temptation and fell like Adam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the wages of sin is death .... The very act of being born.... You are condemned to original sin. Sorry, I've committed no crime. I'd rather not worship something that condemns me upon birth for something my great great great....grandfather did. That's like me going to jail because my Dad stole a car. Makes no sense and you wouldn't see this scenario in a courtroom either.

 

If God is angry because it is in our DNA to sin, then change our DNA.

 

And then after condemning us to death via original sin God says we can  be saved thru Jesus. Why not just repeal the original sin thing? Is God off his meds? Why would you want to live eternity in heaven knowing he would probably blow his stack again at some point? I'll take death.

 

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

 

Let's see, the father, the son, the holy spirit. The triune god. The three-in-one god. The trinity. How could Jesus have his own will separate from God if he was one and the same as God? If Jesus had decided, "I know I created myself here on Earth to hang myself on the cross, but now I don't wanna and so I refuse." He would be defying his own self since he is the trinity of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Or does god just have multiple personality disorder (father, son, holy ghost)? To say that he could have gone against his own will is absurd.

 

The comparison of Jesus to a human soldier does not apply. Jesus is supposed to be immortal, being God and all. Why would Jesus fear suffering on the cross a few hours? He was supposed to die, resurrect, and then live eternal life after that in heaven. A soldier on the other hand knows life could just end by putting himself in harms way. In no way would Jesus ever suffer a loss because he is immortal right? A soldier isn't.

 

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

 

The more we talk about how God comes up with convoluted solutions to simple problems the more I am convinced that someone on an acid trip wrote the bible.

[Heavenese]

So we've discuss these things for a while now, and I've laid my plan out to research this thing further.  I believe this will be my last post discussing these things for a while, until I've done a great deal of research.  I will be back to read any last responses to my post here, so definitely respond to them.  I know it may not seem like I'm not taking in what everyone has been saying, but I have.  You'll just have to take my word on it.

 

 

 

@Heavnese.

 

Lol, I meant to say for 2. that someone could have tried to kill Noah and his family before they got on the ark. I did not realize that I had said "while on the ark".

 

3. So maybe, if everything in the Bible is true, when a person engages in homosexuality, it's not necessarily the act itself that your god hates, just the fact that it symbolizes the fact that human nature is imperfect, does that sound about right to you?

 

Honestly, legalism does not sound right to me. A perfect god would have created a system in which only the guilty would have been punished, but the innocent would not. The fact that your god does not do this, but instead commands the innocent to be punished for the sins of the guilty, leads me to believe he must be corrupt, if he is even real.

 

About those sins that don't cause any harm, you say the reason for them being sins is because imperfection can't be in your god's presence, but does that mean that "imperfection" is purely subjective, basically, whatever he wants it to be? Does he see human need for sex as imperfect, so the action needs to be heavily restricted in order for him to not hate it? He can change the rules any time he wants, as to what is perfect and what is not, so anything that is "imperfect" is only so, not because it actually is imperfect, but because he says that it is. As far as I can see, it looks like he's just making up the rules as he goes along. If our imperfection is a justification for why some of our actions are sins, including the ones that don't cause harm, then basically he could make anything a sin that he wants to. He could make yelling too loud to be a sin.

 

4. So what you're saying is, people who know or believe that your god exists without a doubt, but reject him anyway, are going to Hell, while everyone else who has not seen the evidence and are not convinced go to either Heaven or Hell based on how well they try to live a moral life, right?

 

5. I agree that research will conclude whether or not your god is a god, something else (probably being something evil), or a human concept. The research I have done leads me to believe that he is either something else or a human concept, possibly a combination of those two things. At the moment, I'm not convinced that your god is actually "God" or a god among many.

 

6. Well, if the teachings are muddled, then it appears your god didn't do a good job of presenting his message straight-forward enough that it couldn't be muddled. He should have written the whole thing himself, instead of relying on fallible and sometimes dishonest humans. There should be one copy for everyone and whoever picks up a Bible should see the words magically translate into their language, in a 100% perfect translation, so they could understand it. With contradictions and language barriers in the way, it is extremely easy for the information in the Bible to be misinterpreted or misrepresented. As a result, it is next to impossible to know for sure who understands it correctly and who does not.

 

7. I guess I hadn't seen the part of the book of Job about Satan joining the meeting in that light before, as if he was not meant to be there. Maybe if he wasn't meant to be there, maybe he isn't a "son of God".

 

8. I didn't realize that you misread what I said in #8. I thought you read it correctly and that your answer made sense.

 

9. If Hitler must exist forever and just hates people without reason, then maybe separating him from everyone for eternity would be a good idea, but I fail to understand why he must be tortured with fire that whole time, just to do it. If he does not need to exist forever, why not just terminate him after he's suffered all he could suffer without it being unjust, if he is unwilling to play nice with everyone else? If eternal torture in flames is your god's idea of a prison, then I still am of the position that your god is probably a sadist, if he exists.

 

10. All I know is, if suffering and death is part of the genes, because the first humans and first animals corrupted themselves, I do still see it as unjust, because all humans and animals are being punished for things they didn't do, the animals especially, because they are very likely being punished for reasons they can't know or comprehend because their minds don't function like ours do.

 

 

 

Lol, it is funny how when we type in "11." afterwards, we aren't even discussing point #11 anymore, just saying random things. I don't know what else could be said about "11", so we are probably done with that one. Also, this, "I apologize if any of my previous responses to you were ever hostile. I tried to keep hostility and sarcasm out as much as possible, but it was really difficult. It really did not help the discussion when I saw you as another salesman coming to sell a product that I had already rejected. Unfortunately, that's how I see most Christians, from the meanest fundamentalists to the friendliest, so trusting most believers is quite difficult." was never meant to be part of #11, I just didn't indicate that it wasn't meant to be.

 

Anyway, I would agree that in some ways, you probably would be considered a heretic among Christians, while in other ways, the vast majority would agree with you.

 

 

 

2.  I imagine there would have been some who tried.  I think the common picture most people imagine concerning Noah and the days leading up to the flood, was that everyone considered him to be crazy and laughed at him.  Not really paying him much attention.

 

 

3.  I would say the whole thing, the actions and what it represents.  Yet the main thing is, homosexuality isn't some unforgivable sin type thing.  Christians condemn homosexuality, but lying is on the same level of homosexuality as far as the things God hates.  Rebellion is even worse, and everyone falls into that category.  My brother once made a comment, that if you're going to hate, hate everyone equally.  Either love everyone equally, or hate everyone equally.  The one thing my brother could respect from someone who hates, if anything, is if he/she does it with everyone.  Hehe, my brother is a character and likes things to be simple, but there's some truth to his words.  So with God, the main thing is anything that deviates from His nature, is a sin.

 

 

I think what it comes down to is what would have been the best system for creation.  The system God set up was the first man and woman would set up the conditions of the world for their children.  It's not that the innocent are punished per say, but they are affected by their parent's punishments.  Our feeling is if we were creating a world and beings to live in it, we would have set up a system where everyone earns what they get.  So if Adam and Eve went astray, their children would pretty much have to be seperated from them, and they come up in paradise until they can make their own decisions. (Of course if we were to ponder what system would be best, I suppose many answers would be given)

 

 

I would imagine God's perfection is a set, and doesn't change.  So with God's nature being the mark, I would say it's objective.  The reason being because if God went against His nature, then it could be He would fall in a way.  Yet you might say how can someone go against their nature?  I put God's nature and word as kind of the same thing.  So His word doesn't change, and it's possible for someone go against their own word.  The commandments God gave Moses lists out a lot of things to be sin, but as learn from NT teachings, the purpose of the Law was to show our corrupt nature.  To bring it out fully.  So the main thing is our nature deviated from God's set nature, if we consider that God is the same yesterday/today/forever.

 

 

4.  Based on Scripture, no one goes to Heaven because they lived a moral life, or better yet earn eternal life because of what they did.  It's all about mercy and grace.  For those who don't have the evidence and never heard the full Gospel, if they showed others mercy, God will be merciful to them.  For those who have the evidence, it's a matter of wanting to be made righteous.  God doesn't hold our nature against us, no one is responsible for the sin nature.  Yet if we have the evidence, and we seen undeniable miracles at the teachings of Christ, to reject the offer of complete righteousness is to almost say I enjoy being evil.  So to reject righteousness then, is to embrace evil.  That choice will be judged.  But yeah, it's about having mercy.  I think we can all say we are not perfect.  So if we have mercy on others, God will be merciful to us. (Of course I already inticipate a smart person coming in and respond that having mercy on another person would be the same as earning Heaven.  No, because make no mistake that everyone who will have eternal life, receives God's mercy and grace in Jesus.  God will give them that opportunity, those who haven't had the evidence and made the choice this life)

 

 

5.  I understand your points there.

 

 

6.  It's an easy message, but it goes against human nature.  Even if God wrote it all out as you said, it's not something that can easily be accepted.  For instance let's substitute all the things I've been saying, as "the" message from God.  Many here disagree with the system that was set up concerning Adam and Eve, and many don't see the point in this sacrficial system for sins.  There's a lot of statements here asking why God couldn't just forgive the whole thing, instead of having animals die and finally, Jesus die on the cross.  Of course we would then have a lot of questions concerning what science state about the history of the world.  It's an easy message, but not easily understood.

 

 

7.  Yeah.  Of course some might dispute my answer concerning all that, it does come from a Christian point of view.

 

 

8.  Oh.  In that case, it might have been your response to my first answer that I misread.

 

 

9.  Yeah, and this could be another system thing, how God set things up.  Maybe there's more reason behind why it's like this that we don't know, or maybe it's just sadistic.  Based on the things I've read, I wouldn't say God loves people suffering forever.  A sadist loves those kinds of things.  If you were to ask me, I believe there's more reason behind it than we know.  I know everyone says this is a copout, me trying to defend my beliefs about God.  However, even if that were true, my research right now isn't about looking into that kind of thing.  It's going to be about verifying the historical points of the Bible, and determining if God is true at all.

 

 

10.  Maybe.  Yet something interesting Paul once said concerning this age, that the suffering of this life won't be worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed to us.  If all that is true, this life will only be a minor inconvenience.  Yet while we are still here, is it unjust that all life was subjected to Adam and Eve's actions?  Not to the system.  Is the system unjust?  Perhaps not if we learn something significant.  I do know that everyone who receives Christ, it will be better for them (possibly now, definitely in the end) than anything Adam experienced prior to the fall.  God owns everything as we imagine.  The Holy Spirit's job is to basically take everything that belongs to Jesus, and declare it to us.  That is way more than what Adam had, to put it lightly.  Adam simply had dominion over the world, but now in Christ, the whole universe belongs to us and we are garuanteed nothing will seperate us from God again.

 

 

Thanks for the discussion here.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  Again, respond to my answers, I'll be back to read them.

 

 

 

 

If you wish to address why "god" couldn't do the things you apparently think he should be able to do then go right ahead. I'm not going to complete your half-finished work.

Abraham didn't appeal to anything. Abraham told "god" how to do his job. I quoted the text. If Abraham had concern for Lot it's a simple matter to make that known. Just because we, the reader, know of Lot doesn't mean it's an issue for those in the story. But I agree. He should be concerned for family and he should have made it an issue instead of simply bargaining for some generic men and hoping for the best.

 

 

Abraham did make an appeal by asking Him would He destroy the righteous with the wicked.  Yet getting back to the main discussion, did God change His word?  You brought up this situation as an example, but overall it's not what I meant by my statements of God word not changing.  However, in this situation, it doesn't speak to God changing anything anyway.  What if the outcry was wrong concerning the city?  Yet you present this situation like God was going to destroy the city, even if Abraham didn't say anything, and the whole city was righteous. (As you said the default position was God destroying the city, and Abraham bargaining for the cities safety)

 

 

Really?

Exodus 34:7 Having mercy on thousands, overlooking evil and wrongdoing and sin; he will not let wrongdoers go free, but will send punishment on children for the sins of their fathers, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 20:5 You may not go down on your faces before them or give them worship: for I, the Lord your God, am a God who will not give his honour to another; and I will send punishment on the children for the wrongdoing of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation of my haters;

 

Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers are not to be put to death for their children or children for their fathers: every man is to be put to death for the sin which he himself has done.

     Oh, if only "god" had spoken these in a different order then everyone would be responsible for their own sins but as it is the children are responsible until the third and fourth generations.  Or are they?  We're all still suffering for Adam and Eve.  The "unwritten" punishment.  So it's forever.  Then third and fourth generations.  Then to each their own.  But somehow overlooking evil and wrongdoing and sin at the very same time which is impossible but still possible.

 

 

I hate to get technical again, bare with me, but Deuteronomy here is dealing with being put to death for breaking a command concerning the Law. (Ie picking up sticks on the Sabbath, cursing God's name, committing murder)  Yet punishment and being put to death are two different things.  Now, there is definitely more information in Deuteronomy concerning the Law, than there is in Exodus and so forth.  Scholars have credit this to be additions written later, and revisions.  I tend to continue to study that aspect.  Yet there's no contradiction once we look at what is being said.

 

 

The suffering brought on by Adam and Eve again deals with inheritance.  Passing on of genes as we know it today.  If you read concerning the birth of Seth, he was made in the image of Adam.  Adam at this time was returning to dust.  So in the same way, everyone after him will die.  So what we inherited from Adam, is not necessarily God punishing us.  In fact there's Scripture that states blessings concerning living a long life, and death is just something that happens at the end.  I apologize if these answers seem like mental gymnastics and copouts.

 

 

     Good.  If the "command seemed contradictory" thanks to your time-traveling mind-reading abilities then that's good enough for me.  That demonstrates the problem.  At *THE TIME* the command was given Abraham thought that Isaac would DIE.  He may have came to believe it but that's of no consequence.  Whatever your explanation is doesn't change your now admitted fact that Abraham was going to kill his son by the command of "god" and my previous point stands. 
 
     It's now your turn to go ahead and rewrite all of this so that Abraham realizes that Isaac won't die just a split-second sooner so the command is understood differently.  Have fun with that.

 

 

So this will be an instance where God's word changed?  Techinally speaking, you are right.  Though it should be noted the passage does tell us that it was a test.   Nah, again you would be right here, but I wouldn't say this effects the overall statement I made concerning God keeping His word.  Perhaps the sacrificing of the ram, was for that intent, systematically taking Isaac's place. (Because looking at it by itself doesn't make much sense.  God stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, the scene should end right there.  Why was it necessary for the ram to be there?  Perhaps so God can legalistically keep His word?)

 

 

 

      Actually, I don't know what "god" supposedly knows.  You've been telling me lots of things on what "god" knows, what he has to do, what he can't do, what he feels like doing, what he doesn't really want to do, and on and on and on.  You're the one that knows ever so much about "god."  Things that aren't ever actually mentioned anywhere...you know them.  This is why I keep asking you questions.

 

     So "god" knows good and evil.  How does he know this?  What does it mean to be "contrary" to him?  In what way "contrary?"  Like if he really likes blue and I like orange am I being contrary?  "God" might like all colors but perhaps blue is just the best of the best.  And not just blue but a particular frequency of blue.  Maybe one I can't see too well.  So I say orange is better.  Now I'm evil?  Because I am "contrary?"  I should "go along to get along" as the saying goes?  Wouldn't this just be a lie?  And lying is bad.  Wouldn't this also be evil?  But telling the truth and liking orange better than blue seems problematic.  And lying is too.  I'm in quite a pickle.

 

    

 

 

Theoretically, if God saw the color blue as the best, He would have created you to see it's the best as well.  So in the beginning, blue is the best to you. (Also, if God created everything, He created blue to be the best color.  So it is, in the world God created, and it's not a matter of opinion, but the facts)  However, with your free will, you decide to say orange is the best color.  Once you deviate, you are now in sin, and you fall from the original nature you were given.  Techinally speaking, again, the facts in God's created world, blue really is the best color.

 

This is how sin is to be seen.  If God decided blue is no longer the best color in this world, He would also be going contrary to His word.  Of course you might say God could find some loopholes around this, by mentioning some of the explanations I gave in the couple of other responses I gave to you.  The deal is, blue will always be the best color.  God could find another way, but that way would be to bring you back to seeing blue as the best color again.  That makes any sense?

 

 

 

 

     So we're using Greek to talk about "sin" and "god" now?  Why is that?  I've posted the actual languages before and that seemed too much for you.  I'm lazy now so I'll just post Wikipedia:

 

Hebrew has several other words for sin beyond khata, each with its own specific meaning. The word pesha, or "trespass", means a sin done out of rebelliousness. The word aveira means "transgression". And the word avone, or "iniquity", means a sin done out of moral failing. The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", khata, literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path.

     Put two and two together and maybe you'll get the story of Cain.  He "sinned" which is "he went astray" and in the story he actually is sent "wandering."  What a coincidence.  It's like in the story he did what it said he was going to do.

 

     But on your insistence here's your "sin:"

 

Hamartia (Ancient Greek: ἁμαρτία) is a word most famously used in Aristotle's Poetics,^[1] where it is usually translated as a mistake or error in judgment. In modern discussions of tragedy, hamartia has often been described as a hero's "tragic flaw."^[2] The word hamartia is rooted in the notion of missing the mark (hamartanein) and covers a broad spectrum that includes ignorant, mistaken, or accidental wrongdoing,^[3] as well as deliberate iniquity, error, or sin.^[4]

 

This form of drawing emotion from the audience is a staple of the Greek tragedies. In Greek tragedy, stories that contain a character with a hamartia often follow a similar blueprint. The hamartia, as stated, is seen as an error in judgment or unwitting mistake is applied to the actions of the hero. For example, the hero might attempt to achieve a certain objective X; by making an error in judgment, however, the hero instead achieves the opposite of X, with disastrous consequences.

 

However, hamartia cannot be sharply defined or have an exact meaning assigned to it. Consequently, a number of alternate interpretations have been associated with it, such as in the New Testament where hamartia is the Greek word translated "sin".^[5] Bible translators may reach this conclusion, according to T. C. W. Stinton, because another common interpretation of hamartia can be seen as a “moral deficit” or a “moral error” (Stinton 221). R. D. Dawe disagrees with Stinton’s view when he points out in some cases hamartia can even mean to not sin (Dawe 91). It can be seen in this opposing context if the main character does not carry out an action because it is a sin. This failure to act, in turn, must lead to a poor change in fortune for the main character in order for it to truly be a hamartia.

 

     Fortunately for me I now know that "god" apparently created his system off the Greek and it's not too exacting.

 

 

Are you saying ultimately that Christianity borrowed the idea of sin from Greek writings and so forth?  That the NT kind of contrued all this together, and the result being that man is sinful?  I must have missed your original discussion concerning the Hebrew language.  I actually enjoy going into this area, I don't consider it to be too much for me. 

 

 

Yet as for the greek of it all, I don't think it would matter much what I say here because the greeks definitely impacted the culture of Israel, before Jesus came about.  So you could say even if we had some hardcore writings from Jesus, they would have been influenced in some way by greek understanding.  Yet all in all, the message is clear throughout the OT.  Jeremiah talks about a new covenant that was to come, and it's benefits was God being merciful to our unrighteousness.  Isaiah talks about a suffering servant, coming to suffer for our iniquities.  Then if you connect all that with many other things mentioned in the OT, the roadmap for the NT was clearly set up.  Greek influence or no, the results are the same.  By the way, I do believe other cultures and religions had truth in them.  Yes, we all can't be right, but if we came from the same family, some stuff should be similar.

 

 

 

     So is the story literal or is it myth?  What's this story?

 

          mwc

 

 

 

I see it as literal or else I wouldn't be a Christian. (It's because of my faith I'm doing the research.  At the end of that journey, it might show these things didn't happen, and I won't be Christian anymore.  Yet right now, I'm confident there's evidence to be found.  Even if I re-disprove the history of the Bible, I'm confident I'll stumble across a big discovery anyway) 

 

Yet my statements concerning the mythical aspect of it all, is that if it was just a made up story, the pictures from the story are the main thing the writer wants his/her reader to take with them.  I think the pictures of the story show us some of the things I've been stating.  Feel free to respond to my answers here if you want to, I'll be back to read them.

 

 

[Heavenese]

Man Heavenese does your brain hurt after all that mental gymnastics?

 

This is the overall picture of God throughout the Bible.  We see it particularly with the giving of the Law.  (Exodus 34 verses 6-7)  That God has mercy for thousands, but by no means clearing the guilty.  We are also told that God doesn't lie, and that His word is as good as His name or better.  So I connect all those things together.

 

 

 

God lies

Genesis 6:2

 

² the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose

 

John 3:16

 

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

Spoiler alert there are more lies.

 

 

Well, Jesus is one of a kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 One, when I look at Israel, I find it similar in how the prophecies speak concerning it.  The fact they exist in the land today is interesting to me.  There's no real reason why they should have come back into the land and occupy it.  It would be like a persecuted people group in the US, going somewhere and making their own country on occupied land.  Something like that wouldn't happen in today's world without a war in the least.  Another reason deals with certain scientific hypotheses and theories concerning string theory.  It's believed concerning how these cosmic strings vibrate, that dictates everything around us and it's properties.  The vibration part always catch my ear because documentaries are always comparing this vibration to that of strings on a musical instrument.  I'm not necessarily saying the strings of string theory makes sound, but sense it's visualized in that context, the Bible states God brought creation in by speaking it into existence.  Certainly a voice makes sound, or sound waves travel.  I consider stuff like this to be circumstantial, and worthy to look into.  In Daniel, it's prophecied that knowledge would increase as the time of the end drew near, and I believe that is general knowledge. (And interesting enough, the "word" science means knowledge)  So those are a couple of my reasons.

 

 

To your second response, certainly Solomon's temple existed prior to the Babylonian captivity. (Scholars possibly argue that)  If the temple existed, it's not a stretch to say all the instruments and items such as the ark existed prior to the captivity as well.  Those things would go back to Moses, or the traditions of Moses and the giving of the Law.  I also believe the accounts that make up Genesis would also have an existence prior to the captivity.  I consider all that information to be closely related.  So if there was a temple, there was an ark.  If there was an ark, there were the tablets that contained the Ten Commandments.  All all traditions, including that of Genesis, are related to that time period of the giving of the Law.

 

 

{snip}

 

To you last reference, if we want to get technical, no adultery was committed.  This was like artificial insemination

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to cut out all the issues where we are not making progress.  It's been established that you will just repeat theology so no headway can be made there.

 

Modern Israel has nothing to do with ancient Israel.  The similarity in name is only a coincidence.  The closest you can get to ancient Israel are the Palestinians who's ancestors survived the Roman purge only to be over run by the Muslim Jihad.  Those who survived converted to Islam.  Modern Israel did come about as the result of a war.  World War II was quite a big one.  Afterwards the United Kingdom decided to draw the maps differently and disposed of their extra land as they saw fit.  There is nothing prophetic about it.  Modern Israel is a European culture.  It's a democracy rather than a monarchy or theocracy.  You could not be more wrong about this.

 

String theory therefore the voice of God?  That is ridiculous.  You reject science except to give you buzz words that you use to fit your own needs without regard to their real meaning.

 

Daniel really went out on a limb "prophesying" that knowledge increases over time.  That is almost as good as prophesying that water is wet.  Have you not noticed that human knowledge increases over time?  Hasn't everybody?  I'm going to prophesy that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.  I'm a prophet of God.  However no matter how many thousands of years go by the end never draws near.  It's never the last days.  

 

The fact that there was a temple doesn't mean it had an ark or that the ark was authentic nor that the Patriarchs such as Moses had ever lived.

 

Artificial insemination was invented thousands of years later.  It didn't exist back then.  People living back then could not have seen the events using a concept invented in modern times.  However they did understand young ladies getting pregnant when the law said they shouldn't and hearing all kinds of weak excuses.  According to "God's law" Mary was the property of Joseph and God violated that.  Mary was suppose to be stoned to death for "playing the harlot" or drink biohazard from the tabernacle floor as required by the torah.    If we found some roadkill that had been out in the sun for a while and scooped up the dust underneath it and you drank that maybe you too would earn "God's jealousy curse" with no grain offering or prayer from any priest required.  It isn't magic and it isn't divine power.  Drink something so very yuck and you will get sick.

 

You suspend disbelief when your religion is silly.  I'm sure you can explain all of this away with some good hand waving.

 

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit.  Yet those are my reasons for my wanting to search this out for myself.  I'm sure you understand that feeling.  Even if my understanding is nonsense, should I come to that conclusion without looking into it for myself?  I'm still confident I'll stumble across something big, in spite of my understanding right now.  Yet if I'm right, and find evidence to the things I've been speaking on, well, that will speak for itself.  Of course some of those reasons I listed was a few and didn't go into much detail. (Being why I would disagree with you)

 

 

 

 

 

As for the verse, I don't see a contradiction.  The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.  We basically earn death, but if we receive God's gift, we can have eternal life.  In that case upon receiving the gift, we have eternal life.  So it's not a matter of being both dead and having eternal life, it's an either/or.  If you want what you earn, you will get death.  If you want the gift of God, you will receive life.

 

 

As for should we see what Jesus did really being a sacrifice, from my reading Jesus could have failed His mission.  He could have gave over into temptation like Adam did, and become corrupt.  So that was a risk.  Another thing is Jesus didn't have to do what He did.  He could have let man earn what he got. (And if God decided to go that route, then Adam and Eve would have been judged right there, and we wouldn't have existed)  So it was a sacrifice from that perspective.  Yeah, God was well able to pay for our way, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a sacrifice.  If a soldier goes in to save his comrade, and ultimately both survive, does that mean the heroic soldier didn't sacrifice his life for another?  If you say the soldier risked his/her life, Jesus also risked Himself as well, because He could have gave in to temptation and fell like Adam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the wages of sin is death .... The very act of being born.... You are condemned to original sin. Sorry, I've committed no crime. I'd rather not worship something that condemns me upon birth for something my great great great....grandfather did. That's like me going to jail because my Dad stole a car. Makes no sense and you wouldn't see this scenario in a courtroom either.

 

If God is angry because it is in our DNA to sin, then change our DNA.

 

And then after condemning us to death via original sin God says we can  be saved thru Jesus. Why not just repeal the original sin thing? Is God off his meds? Why would you want to live eternity in heaven knowing he would probably blow his stack again at some point? I'll take death.

 

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

 

Let's see, the father, the son, the holy spirit. The triune god. The three-in-one god. The trinity. How could Jesus have his own will separate from God if he was one and the same as God? If Jesus had decided, "I know I created myself here on Earth to hang myself on the cross, but now I don't wanna and so I refuse." He would be defying his own self since he is the trinity of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Or does god just have multiple personality disorder (father, son, holy ghost)? To say that he could have gone against his own will is absurd.

 

The comparison of Jesus to a human soldier does not apply. Jesus is supposed to be immortal, being God and all. Why would Jesus fear suffering on the cross a few hours? He was supposed to die, resurrect, and then live eternal life after that in heaven. A soldier on the other hand knows life could just end by putting himself in harms way. In no way would Jesus ever suffer a loss because he is immortal right? A soldier isn't.

 

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

 

The more we talk about how God comes up with convoluted solutions to simple problems the more I am convinced that someone on an acid trip wrote the bible.

 

 

 

It's more like us growing up in a bad home.  Even though it played a part in our development, we are still held accountable for crime that's committed, if we understand what we're doing.  In the courtroom, it wouldn't matter if I grew up in a bad home, I would still be held accountable if I broke the law.  In the same way, God doesn't hold us accountable to Adam's actions and the results of it.  God solved the DNA problem.  Our choices after that will be what's judged.

 

 

God doesn't have multiple personalities, but is three distinct persons.  The best way to describe it, is to look at the concept of spirit/soul/body.  According to the Bible, we are all made up of these three distinct parts, yet are one.  So it's like that, but in a more powerful sense.  Yet all in all, Jesus risked His own status and nature for us.  Just because He successfully accomplished His part, doesn't mean He couldn't have lost it.  That's the definition of a sacrifice.  Putting something on the line that you can lose for someone or something else.  Jesus could have fell just like Adam, just like Adam could have obeyed God.

[Ravenstar]

"You originally said it alluded to a creation account older than the one we have in Genesis.  I don't know about that."

 

I do:   

'Eridu Genesis'  was written by the Sumerians, the cuneiform tablets dated to around 1600 BC, it contains the first flood myth as well. It can be assumed that the oral tradition is much older.

 

and.. The 'Enuma Elish', Babylonian creation myth, dated between 1600 and 1200 BC, which is considered the origin of most of the Bible's Genesis account.

 

Both predate the Bible account and contain a lot of elements of the Hebrew story, and are obvious precursors.

 

The problem I find is that most people are not aware of the huge amount of literature we have from the middle east that predates the Hebrews. Not just the bible, but the people themselves. Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian... many stories, proverbs, laws and poetry that's in the bible can be found, in very similar form, in these earlier and more advanced cultures. For me that invalidates it.. not as interesting or even helpful information, but as "Yahweh's inspired word'. Enki, Osiris and Innanna might have issue with that. lol

 

The Hebrews got a lot of their info from the Babylonian exile... and a bunch of rewriting of the bible dates from that time.

[mwc]

Abraham did make an appeal by asking Him would He destroy the righteous with the wicked.  Yet getting back to the main discussion, did God change His word?  You brought up this situation as an example, but overall it's not what I meant by my statements of God word not changing.  However, in this situation, it doesn't speak to God changing anything anyway.  What if the outcry was wrong concerning the city?  Yet you present this situation like God was going to destroy the city, even if Abraham didn't say anything, and the whole city was righteous. (As you said the default position was God destroying the city, and Abraham bargaining for the cities safety)

      I brought this up as an example of "god" changing his word, yes.  Negotiation is changing your word.  That's what negotiating is.  We appear to agree on some amount but that's not the final amount.  There is another amount we can move to.  And is that the final amount or is there another?  And is this the final amount or is there another?  And so on until the actual end of negotiations where no one will move to another number.  Things are fixed.  Is "god" doesn't change its word then "god" simply does not negotiate.  It always has a fixed set of terms.  Period.  That's the deal.  But "god" did negotiate.  Its number changed.  "God" started at 50 but stopped at 10.  50 was a lie.  It didn't mean 50 when it said 50.  It didn't mean any of the numbers all the way down to 10.  Maybe it didn't even mean 10 but Abraham stopped.

 

 

 

Really?

 

Exodus 34:7 Having mercy on thousands, overlooking evil and wrongdoing and sin; he will not let wrongdoers go free, but will send punishment on children for the sins of their fathers, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generation.

 

Exodus 20:5 You may not go down on your faces before them or give them worship: for I, the Lord your God, am a God who will not give his honour to another; and I will send punishment on the children for the wrongdoing of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation of my haters;

 

Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers are not to be put to death for their children or children for their fathers: every man is to be put to death for the sin which he himself has done.

 

     Oh, if only "god" had spoken these in a different order then everyone would be responsible for their own sins but as it is the children are responsible until the third and fourth generations.  Or are they?  We're all still suffering for Adam and Eve.  The "unwritten" punishment.  So it's forever.  Then third and fourth generations.  Then to each their own.  But somehow overlooking evil and wrongdoing and sin at the very same time which is impossible but still possible.

 

 

I hate to get technical again, bare with me, but Deuteronomy here is dealing with being put to death for breaking a command concerning the Law. (Ie picking up sticks on the Sabbath, cursing God's name, committing murder)  Yet punishment and being put to death are two different things.  Now, there is definitely more information in Deuteronomy concerning the Law, than there is in Exodus and so forth.  Scholars have credit this to be additions written later, and revisions.  I tend to continue to study that aspect.  Yet there's no contradiction once we look at what is being said.

 

 

The suffering brought on by Adam and Eve again deals with inheritance.  Passing on of genes as we know it today.  If you read concerning the birth of Seth, he was made in the image of Adam.  Adam at this time was returning to dust.  So in the same way, everyone after him will die.  So what we inherited from Adam, is not necessarily God punishing us.  In fact there's Scripture that states blessings concerning living a long life, and death is just something that happens at the end.  I apologize if these answers seem like mental gymnastics and copouts.

 

     So why punishment for sins in Exodus 34:7 (over generations) and death for sins in Deuteronomy 24:16 (to individuals)?  This omits the just punishment verse (Exodus 20:5).

 

     I added the other two because they make a type of progression Exodus 20:5 (punishment for wrongdoing over generations) -> Exodus 34:7 (punishment for *sins* over generations) -> Deuteronomy 24:16 (death to individuals for *sins*).

 

     Then I went ahead and a used your usual reasoning how the order "god" spoke is really what makes things matter and how there's this long term mess from the garden (which doesn't exist since that punishment came immediately at the garden)  and how everything must be punished but it's sometimes not as per the verses here.

 

     So now you're saying it's because "scholars" say those things were written later.  So when were they actually spoken?  Because we know it is all about when "god" said them and not when they were written down.  If they come out of order then "god" can be seen to break his word and that just can't happen so the bible must be written incorrectly and that just doesn't seem correct either.  The best answer seems to be the ones we invent for ourselves that allow both of these things, both "god" and the bible, to be "right" all the time.

 

 

So this will be an instance where God's word changed?  Techinally speaking, you are right.  Though it should be noted the passage does tell us that it was a test.   Nah, again you would be right here, but I wouldn't say this effects the overall statement I made concerning God keeping His word.  Perhaps the sacrificing of the ram, was for that intent, systematically taking Isaac's place. (Because looking at it by itself doesn't make much sense.  God stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, the scene should end right there.  Why was it necessary for the ram to be there?  Perhaps so God can legalistically keep His word?)

     The reason is not important. It's whether or not Abraham knew *at the time*, from his personal perspective what was going on. He clearly did not and could not otherwise this would not be effective as a "test" or anything else. It's not a technicality. It's "god" breaking his word for whatever reason. You believe a "test" is a valid reason. That he had given his word prior and that would not be broken and you have invented reasons on how, even if Isaac would die he would be brought back to life (which are totally unfounded), and Abraham *came* to understand this...later. After the fact. So *at the time* Abraham understood that the deal was being altered. That the chosen offspring was now chosen to die. If he didn't believe this totally the test is pointless.

 

Theoretically, if God saw the color blue as the best, He would have created you to see it's the best as well.  So in the beginning, blue is the best to you. (Also, if God created everything, He created blue to be the best color.  So it is, in the world God created, and it's not a matter of opinion, but the facts)  However, with your free will, you decide to say orange is the best color.  Once you deviate, you are now in sin, and you fall from the original nature you were given.  Techinally speaking, again, the facts in God's created world, blue really is the best color.

 

This is how sin is to be seen.  If God decided blue is no longer the best color in this world, He would also be going contrary to His word.  Of course you might say God could find some loopholes around this, by mentioning some of the explanations I gave in the couple of other responses I gave to you.  The deal is, blue will always be the best color.  God could find another way, but that way would be to bring you back to seeing blue as the best color again.  That makes any sense?

      So being a "yes man" is the ideal to you?  No dissension?  No unique opinion?  Everyone just falls in-line?  The robots we're always told we're not desired to be we de facto become.

 

     The very negotiation that Abraham engages in should be described as sinful.  He didn't simply accept what was happening.  Yet the likes of Abraham is considered to be a righteous person.  This doesn't seem to add-up.

 

Are you saying ultimately that Christianity borrowed the idea of sin from Greek writings and so forth?  That the NT kind of contrued all this together, and the result being that man is sinful?  I must have missed your original discussion concerning the Hebrew language.  I actually enjoy going into this area, I don't consider it to be too much for me. 

 

 

Yet as for the greek of it all, I don't think it would matter much what I say here because the greeks definitely impacted the culture of Israel, before Jesus came about.  So you could say even if we had some hardcore writings from Jesus, they would have been influenced in some way by greek understanding.  Yet all in all, the message is clear throughout the OT.  Jeremiah talks about a new covenant that was to come, and it's benefits was God being merciful to our unrighteousness.  Isaiah talks about a suffering servant, coming to suffer for our iniquities.  Then if you connect all that with many other things mentioned in the OT, the roadmap for the NT was clearly set up.  Greek influence or no, the results are the same.  By the way, I do believe other cultures and religions had

truth in them.  Yes, we all can't be right, but if we came from the same family, some stuff should be similar.

     Greek is just the language the NT is written in but it's not what the OT is written in so the same ideas don't necessarily apply.  To anachronistically say that "missing the mark" is what these OT writers meant when you see the word "sin" in a modern translation is not correct.

 

     Isaiah is talking about an anthropomorphic Israel.  Jeremiah is talking about a time where everyone magically knows the law by heart.

 

     I believe the prophets.  Let's look at Ezekiel:

 

26:1 In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me:

2 "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,'

3 therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 

 

[...]

 

7 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 

 

[...]

12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

34:1 In the tenth year, in the tenth month on the twelfth day, the word of the LORD came to me:

2 "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against all Egypt.

[...]

18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre.

19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army.

20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign LORD.

     Well, hell, you can't win'em all.  Ezekiel is only passing along messages after all.  I left out all the rest about Tyre and Egypt that simply does not happen.  It's just easy to note he was promised a big payday then when it didn't come was promised another one to make up for the loss (as he never took Tyre).

 

I see it as literal or else I wouldn't be a Christian. (It's because of my faith I'm doing the research.  At the end of that journey, it might show these things didn't happen, and I won't be Christian anymore.  Yet right now, I'm confident there's evidence to be found.  Even if I re-disprove the history of the Bible, I'm confident I'll stumble across a big discovery anyway) 

 

Yet my statements concerning the mythical aspect of it all, is that if it was just a made up story, the pictures from the story are the main thing the writer wants his/her reader to take with them.  I think the pictures of the story show us some of the things I've been stating.  Feel free to respond to my answers here if you want to, I'll be back to read them.

     You're not doing any research.  So far you've told me that Abraham actually believed that Isaac would have been brought back to life had he died.  Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, will you find that information in the biblical texts if you do actual research.  You created that answer to suit your beliefs.  That is not how research works.

 

     What I think you're trying to tell me is that the story is not just a story but a type of allegory but foreshadowing.  Indeed if you are xian you should be saying that.  You should be saying that about most of the OT.  You should be telling me of all the clever foreshadowing and prophecies and whatnot that leading up to and ultimately are fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ.  It's not like I'm not aware of these things.  I just no longer believe them.

 

          mwc