God Is A Liar

[TheRedneckProfessor]

With that, I think my autonomous entity theory is in question....I don't know, maybe not. I think A&E were ok to dwell with God forever provided they didn't become knowledgeable concerning good and evil. God says that since they become one like them that they would then have access to the tree of life which God did not want to happen. So apparently they had not eaten from that one either.

So, their options were to remain in ignorance and dwell with god, or gain potentially dangerous knowledge, doing so to their own detriment and that of every human born thereafter?  And god seems to have preferred they remain ignorant (perhaps he is the same today, yesterday, and forevermore).

 

But, since you mention the tree of life, let's talk about it.  According to the myths, the fruit of the tree of life was meant to grant everlasting life to anyone who ate it.  Granting eternal life, I assume, was god's goal all along.  If god truly did want us to have free will, with the potential for immortality in his presence, then why would he have not left the tree of life in the garden.  Then the choice would have been simple.  All who want dwell in the presence of god forever could stay in the garden and those who preferred to take their chances without god could leave the garden after deciding whether to eat the fruit of the tree of life or not.  This would even absolve god of death, as those who chose not to eat from the tree of life, knowing its significance, effectively chose to die.

 

No need for hell; no need for Original Sin; and certainly no need for jesus to suffer through a three day hangover.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Regardless, I gather we are untrained and potentially unworthy without the proper knowledge.

I gather, from christian doctrine, that it was the knowledge that made us unworthy.

[midniterider]

 

Well Prof, the consensus is that there is no consensus on hell.

christians are unable to agree on one of the fundamental doctrines of their religion?  Imagine my surprise!

 

 

If Lord Jesus really existed why would he let Christians have differences in the understanding of basic Christian doctrine? If Christians all pray for knowledge of Him, why doesn't Him give them all the same information? Instead we have thousands of different denominations believing different things about Jesus. Is this what Jesus wants? How can a God that really exists let his people believe things that conflict with things his other disciples believe? It's almost as if Jesus doesn't really exist at all. It's almost as if people believe the way 'they' want to believe. Where is the grand unity of believers?

[RipVanWinkle]

RNP Quit confusing them with logic and facts. bill

[TheRedneckProfessor]

RNP Quit confusing them with logic and facts. bill

Would you rather I show videos?

[Guest end3]

 

With that, I think my autonomous entity theory is in question....I don't know, maybe not. I think A&E were ok to dwell with God forever provided they didn't become knowledgeable concerning good and evil. God says that since they become one like them that they would then have access to the tree of life which God did not want to happen. So apparently they had not eaten from that one either.

So, their options were to remain in ignorance and dwell with god, or gain potentially dangerous knowledge, doing so to their own detriment and that of every human born thereafter?  And god seems to have preferred they remain ignorant (perhaps he is the same today, yesterday, and forevermore).

 

But, since you mention the tree of life, let's talk about it.  According to the myths, the fruit of the tree of life was meant to grant everlasting life to anyone who ate it.  Granting eternal life, I assume, was god's goal all along.  If god truly did want us to have free will, with the potential for immortality in his presence, then why would he have not left the tree of life in the garden.  Then the choice would have been simple.  All who want dwell in the presence of god forever could stay in the garden and those who preferred to take their chances without god could leave the garden after deciding whether to eat the fruit of the tree of life or not.  This would even absolve god of death, as those who chose not to eat from the tree of life, knowing its significance, effectively chose to die.

 

No need for hell; no need for Original Sin; and certainly no need for jesus to suffer through a three day hangover.

 

As I said in another thread...my will is not greater than my nature. It seems from the context that maybe the "gods" or whatever "one of them" was, that maybe they have the ability such that their will is stronger than their nature.....last part of chapter 3 I think.

 

Did a word search on tree of life. It comes up a few times. What was interesting to me was the way it was phrased......"this is the tree of life" when talking about particular actions.

 

So am thinking that life is a quest somewhat to eat, touch, etc. the tree of life.

 

Edit: Truthfully I don't think I have the knowledge nor the ability to predict execution of the "tree of life" for others. The bible does say that this life is a test? I assume God allows whomever back into the Garden/Heaven through his judgment alone because there is ultimately no way to execute the aforementioned perfectly.....hence the teachings of works, grace, etc. Faith seems like a rather small hurdle for humanity to jump. I do NOT say that in light of many folks history, especially here, but rather that we are incapable imo of the other.

[Sheild Maiden]

Great post, Professor, I had these exact same thoughts about Adam and Eve when I was combing through the Bible a few years ago. It was clear to me that God had set them up.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

As I said in another thread...my will is not greater than my nature. It seems from the context that maybe the "gods" or whatever "one of them" was, that maybe they have the ability such that their will is stronger than their nature.....last part of chapter 3 I think.

So, then, they were not created in the image of god and god lied when he said they were.

[Guest end3]

 

As I said in another thread...my will is not greater than my nature. It seems from the context that maybe the "gods" or whatever "one of them" was, that maybe they have the ability such that their will is stronger than their nature.....last part of chapter 3 I think.

So, then, they were not created in the image of god and god lied when he said they were.

 

I don't know if control of the same nature is out of bounds for "created in the image".

[bornagainathiest]

Whatever anyone here or anywhere else says, you're still going to believe, End.

 

If so, why is that?

 

If I'm wrong, please explain why.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

As I said in another thread...my will is not greater than my nature. It seems from the context that maybe the "gods" or whatever "one of them" was, that maybe they have the ability such that their will is stronger than their nature.....last part of chapter 3 I think.

So, then, they were not created in the image of god and god lied when he said they were.

 

I don't know if control of the same nature is out of bounds for "created in the image".

 

I still disagree.  We have the ability to overcome our nature through our will.  That's the power behind will-power.  The problem Eve had was that she apparently already had a sinful nature (ability to experience envy and pride) but she knew nothing of the will to overcome that nature.  At that point, she had no will, free or otherwise, because her entire existence thus far had been spent only doing what Adam told her that god told him to do.  This would appear to be the first choice she would ever make and she was doing so with no information.  How could she have overcome the nature of sin god created her with unless she a.) had all of the relevant information and/or b.) understood that will-power could be used as a tool against her nature?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 Well, I am assuming there is a message to be drawn out of the Adam 1/Adam 2 differences.....let me think it over

 

 Thought it over yet?

[NeverAgainV]

 

Good work Prof!

 

Here's additional evidence that God was the deceitful party in Genesis.

 

I've highlighted sections in verses 16 and 18. 

 

You'll note that before Eve was created from Adam's rib and before God declared that Adam shouldn't be alone, God commands only Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Not Eve.  So, reasonably assuming that the events decribed in Genesis are happening in chronological order, God made sure that Eve never heard that command from His own lips.  God commands only Adam, not Eve.

.

.

.

Later, the serpent asks Eve what God said.

He doesn't lie.  He doesn't imply anything.  He simply asks her what God said about the tree of knowledge.  Now, because she wasn't there to actually hear what God said only to Adam, she gives the serpent a false and inaccurate report of God's words.  God didn't actually say they would die if they touched the fruit.  He said they would die on the day they ate it.  Not the same. 

 

Q.  So is anyone actually lying here?

A.  Yes.  But not the humans and not the serpent. 

 

Not Eve. 

She cannot lie.  She's still in a state perfect innocence.  A lie is different from an innocent mistake.  If she heard a garbled version of God's command from Adam, that's not her fault - that's down to Adam for not reporting what God told him correctly. 

 

Not Adam.  

He couldn't have lied to Eve about God's command, either.  He's in a perfect state of innocence too.  There was no subterfuge in Adam to cause him to lie to Eve.  However, he was fallible and could have given Eve a mistaken report about God's command.

 

Not the serpent. 

He's just asking Eve to tell him what God said about the trees in the garden of Eden.  Her only source of information about this was Adam.  Since Adam couldn't lie to her, either she misreported Adam's true account of God's command or she correctly reported Adam's garbled account of it.

 

That leaves only one other person who could have practiced deceit in Eden, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit and knew good and evil.  The same person who made sure that Eve didn't hear His warning about the tree of knowledge.  The same person who (supposedly) foreknew all things before be created anything.  The same person who put two innocents in a position of supreme responsibility and then blamed them for not foreseeing the consequences of their actions.   The same person who told Adam he would die on the day that he ate, even though Adam went on to live for nearly a thousand years.  The same person who knew about good and evil from get go.

.

.

.

.

Guess who?

.

.

.

Genesis 3 : 22, KJV.

²² And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

.

.

.

'nuff said?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

That was an awesome explanation!! Thanks!

[Pantophobia]

Funny how everyone has forgotten about Lilith in this "One man, one woman, original sin!" mythology, too. If this literally happened, why did the account of it need to be purged? If it is "symbolic," then why did the whole symbolic story have to be changed so drastically from its original version? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Funny how everyone has forgotten about Lilith in this "One man, one woman, original sin!" mythology, too. If this literally happened, why did the account of it need to be purged? If it is "symbolic," then why did the whole symbolic story have to be changed so drastically from its original version? 

I've often wondered how the Lilith myth fit in to the whole creation/fall/original sin myth.  I've never been able to find any reconciliation between the two.  Have you?  And if so, would you share?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 Well, I am assuming there is a message to be drawn out of the Adam 1/Adam 2 differences.....let me think it over

 

 Thought it over yet?

 

Bump.  End3, I am looking forward to continuing out conversation.

[FriendlyChristian]

Whatever anyone here or anywhere else says, you're still going to believe, End.

 

If so, why is that?

 

If I'm wrong, please explain why.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Your right.

 

But more important is the reasons why you are still going to believe.  Sometimes "reasons" and "motives" are the same. . .

[Pantophobia]

 

Funny how everyone has forgotten about Lilith in this "One man, one woman, original sin!" mythology, too. If this literally happened, why did the account of it need to be purged? If it is "symbolic," then why did the whole symbolic story have to be changed so drastically from its original version? 

I've often wondered how the Lilith myth fit in to the whole creation/fall/original sin myth.  I've never been able to find any reconciliation between the two.  Have you?  And if so, would you share?

 

 

I'm sorry I didn't see this post sooner, Redneck! I first learned about Lilith in a world mythology course, and, since I was in my Decade of Apologetics phase, I allowed it to make sense as "God took Eve from Adam's rib because they were equal" whereas Lilith, made from the "leftovers," expressed the "dark fears" of womenhood, or somesuch. Yeah, mental gymnastics, which were interesting from a literary standpoint, but didn't make much sense in general.

 

But considering most Christians are absolutely ignorant of Lilith, it's not surprising that the contemporary understanding of the creation myth has developed the way it has, and emphasizes binaries the way it does. Believe it or not, Milton and Paradise Lost has more to do with our contemporary understanding of the creation/fall/original sin than the Hebrew OT!  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Funny how everyone has forgotten about Lilith in this "One man, one woman, original sin!" mythology, too. If this literally happened, why did the account of it need to be purged? If it is "symbolic," then why did the whole symbolic story have to be changed so drastically from its original version? 

I've often wondered how the Lilith myth fit in to the whole creation/fall/original sin myth.  I've never been able to find any reconciliation between the two.  Have you?  And if so, would you share?

 

 

I'm sorry I didn't see this post sooner, Redneck! I first learned about Lilith in a world mythology course, and, since I was in my Decade of Apologetics phase, I allowed it to make sense as "God took Eve from Adam's rib because they were equal" whereas Lilith, made from the "leftovers," expressed the "dark fears" of womenhood, or somesuch. Yeah, mental gymnastics, which were interesting from a literary standpoint, but didn't make much sense in general.

 

But considering most Christians are absolutely ignorant of Lilith, it's not surprising that the contemporary understanding of the creation myth has developed the way it has, and emphasizes binaries the way it does. Believe it or not, Milton and Paradise Lost has more to do with our contemporary understanding of the creation/fall/original sin than the Hebrew OT!  

 

I never made this connection until now, and it's still formulating in my head so bear with me if I don't make much sense.

 

It would appear that god's intention all along was to introduce evil into the world and manipulate humanity into becoming/choosing evil. 

 

God created Lilith first and she became the mother of demons (not to mention a horrible "wife" for Adam).  When she escaped from Adam over a disagreement about sex, Adam complained to god and asked for somebody else.

 

Since Adam wanted nothing more to do with Lilith, God, then, realizing that his plan to force humanity into choosing evil hadn't worked, created Eve so that he could work out his contingency plan of creating a sinner and then using the fruit of knowledge as an excuse to curse humanity for being sinful.

 

Does any of that make sense?

[Pantophobia]

It makes about as much sense as the rest of the bible! 

 

There have been parallels made between Lilith and Pandora, the simultaneous releasing evil + providing hope thing. And historically, the Lilith figure is derived from Assyrian origin tales that predate the biblical ones. Really, if you want to get all Joseph Campbell about it, there are variations of this trope in multiple world mythologies! Of course, the important thing to take from this is that this is where the writers got Dr. Frasier Crane's wife's name.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Well, I am assuming there is a message to be drawn out of the Adam 1/Adam 2 differences.....let me think it over

 Thought it over yet?

 

Bump.  End3, I am looking forward to continuing out conversation.

 

Sorry Prof, I have lost the train of thought on our discussion. Apologies.

 

 

 

 

As I said in another thread...my will is not greater than my nature. It seems from the context that maybe the "gods" or whatever "one of them" was, that maybe they have the ability such that their will is stronger than their nature.....last part of chapter 3 I think.

So, then, they were not created in the image of god and god lied when he said they were.

 

I don't know if control of the same nature is out of bounds for "created in the image".

 

I still disagree.  We have the ability to overcome our nature through our will.  That's the power behind will-power.  The problem Eve had was that she apparently already had a sinful nature (ability to experience envy and pride) but she knew nothing of the will to overcome that nature.  At that point, she had no will, free or otherwise, because her entire existence thus far had been spent only doing what Adam told her that god told him to do.  This would appear to be the first choice she would ever make and she was doing so with no information.  How could she have overcome the nature of sin god created her with unless she a.) had all of the relevant information and/or b.) understood that will-power could be used as a tool against her nature?

 

OK, thanks for hanging in. So following your assessment,(that seems fair), humanity would then be faced with attaining an experiential knowledge base of good and evil?

[Guest end3]

This also seems consistent with God selecting people because they were found somewhat righteous in their time. What did they have to go on other that obedience to God.....following your thoughts.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Well, I am assuming there is a message to be drawn out of the Adam 1/Adam 2 differences.....let me think it over

 Thought it over yet?

 

Bump.  End3, I am looking forward to continuing out conversation.

 

Sorry Prof, I have lost the train of thought on our discussion. Apologies.

 

 

 

 

As I said in another thread...my will is not greater than my nature. It seems from the context that maybe the "gods" or whatever "one of them" was, that maybe they have the ability such that their will is stronger than their nature.....last part of chapter 3 I think.

So, then, they were not created in the image of god and god lied when he said they were.

 

I don't know if control of the same nature is out of bounds for "created in the image".

 

I still disagree.  We have the ability to overcome our nature through our will.  That's the power behind will-power.  The problem Eve had was that she apparently already had a sinful nature (ability to experience envy and pride) but she knew nothing of the will to overcome that nature.  At that point, she had no will, free or otherwise, because her entire existence thus far had been spent only doing what Adam told her that god told him to do.  This would appear to be the first choice she would ever make and she was doing so with no information.  How could she have overcome the nature of sin god created her with unless she a.) had all of the relevant information and/or b.) understood that will-power could be used as a tool against her nature?

 

OK, thanks for hanging in. So following your assessment,(that seems fair), humanity would then be faced with attaining an experiential knowledge base of good and evil?

 

I would agree that in order for humanity to understand the difference between good and evil, experience would be the best teacher.  What I question is god's motivation for tying that knowledge to eternal damnation due to Original Sin without informing humanity of those consequences.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This also seems consistent with God selecting people because they were found somewhat righteous in their time. What did they have to go on other that obedience to God.....following your thoughts.

Abraham was righteous for being willing to kill his own son in obedience to god?  The problem I see with god selecting "righteous" people based on their obedience is that god himself is so random and arbitrary.  But again, obedience is easier to obtain if the person being called upon to obey understands the consequences of not doing so, as any good parent knows.

[Roz]

 

This also seems consistent with God selecting people because they were found somewhat righteous in their time. What did they have to go on other that obedience to God.....following your thoughts.

Abraham was righteous for being willing to kill his own son in obedience to god?  The problem I see with god selecting "righteous" people based on their obedience is that god himself is so random and arbitrary.  But again, obedience is easier to obtain if the person being called upon to obey understands the consequences of not doing so, as any good parent knows.

 

 

And before a christian will counter with "god saved his son at the last minute!" let's throw in the story of Jeptath's sacrifice of his daughter here too.