God Is A Liar

[Pantophobia]

 

 

 

Again, my speculation is how would he create an "independent" entity to commune with.

 

That point has always bothered me. I don't get why the god described in the Bible needs to "commune" with anything. After all, he is the all-powerful creator of everything, knows the future, and is perfect in every way. Whom would this guy go drinking with? Why would he need constant affirmation?

 

 

Yes Florduh, that bothered me too! If someone is perfect and content w/ themselves, why the constant praise, adoration, worship????

You would think God would be satisfied with God. Bible god seems infantile.

 

 

...almost as though he was a character invented by people whose thinking hadn't become very sophisticated yet.

 

Or had roots in other megalomaniacal deities that predated him, like Zeus or something….

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

And maybe it's perspective Merry. Sounds like you have never considered God from a warning the people type stance. As in, "hey, if you do this, you die". Oh wait, that's what the story says.

 

Well, answer me a few things, if you would, End3.

 

What was Adam and Eve's understanding of death? What experience or knowledge did they have of it at the time god threatened them with it?

 

What was Adam and Eve's understanding of good and evil before they ate the fruit that gave them knowledge of good and evil? Did they understand that obedience was "good" and eating the fruit "evil"? If so, how did they have that knowledge before eating the fruit?

 

And since god had to invent death as his particular form of punishment -- not as a natural consequence, but as something he deliberately created and imposed as his idea of a fitting punishement -- do you agree that the death of every living thing and all the suffering that goes with it is an appropriate level of punishment for one act of disobedience?

 

I think they had some sense that God was different and knowing. We assume they knew little of good or evil. The devil appears to bring in envy or wanting to Eve.

 

Do I personally think hell is justified. No. Do I know what it means to side with the devil.....I expect so. We sow death, we reap death. Are we accountable to that at some point. I don't know because we are not ultimately all knowing. Maybe there is a significant reason for the consequences of choosing evil.

 

Isn't envy a sin?  How could the devil bring envy in Eve if sin didn't enter their nature until after they ate the fruit?

 

See, that's a fucking thoughtful question after reading the text. Thank you. I'll get back to you.

 

End3, I was wondering if you had had time to consider an answer to this question.  If not, no worries.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

And maybe it's perspective Merry. Sounds like you have never considered God from a warning the people type stance. As in, "hey, if you do this, you die". Oh wait, that's what the story says.

 

Well, answer me a few things, if you would, End3.

 

What was Adam and Eve's understanding of death? What experience or knowledge did they have of it at the time god threatened them with it?

 

What was Adam and Eve's understanding of good and evil before they ate the fruit that gave them knowledge of good and evil? Did they understand that obedience was "good" and eating the fruit "evil"? If so, how did they have that knowledge before eating the fruit?

 

And since god had to invent death as his particular form of punishment -- not as a natural consequence, but as something he deliberately created and imposed as his idea of a fitting punishement -- do you agree that the death of every living thing and all the suffering that goes with it is an appropriate level of punishment for one act of disobedience?

 

I think they had some sense that God was different and knowing. We assume they knew little of good or evil. The devil appears to bring in envy or wanting to Eve.

 

Do I personally think hell is justified. No. Do I know what it means to side with the devil.....I expect so. We sow death, we reap death. Are we accountable to that at some point. I don't know because we are not ultimately all knowing. Maybe there is a significant reason for the consequences of choosing evil.

 

Isn't envy a sin?  How could the devil bring envy in Eve if sin didn't enter their nature until after they ate the fruit?

 

See, that's a fucking thoughtful question after reading the text. Thank you. I'll get back to you.

 

End3, I was wondering if you had had time to consider an answer to this question.  If not, no worries.

 

"Knowledge" of good and evil vs. nature? If they were the original humanity, were would they derive the knowledge OR nature.....guessing nature becomes inherent.

[Kris]

This is a perfect example of how the bible is written by humans. Iit takes mental gymnastics to make it work. Face it--- the story is ridiculous. I figured that out in my Sunday school class when I was seven. And as a woman--- I truly resent the sexist implications of this story. The people that wrote it on behalf of their god were douchebags.

[Guest end3]

This is a perfect example of how the bible is written by humans. Iit takes mental gymnastics to make it work. Face it--- the story is ridiculous. I figured that out in my Sunday school class when I was seven. And as a woman--- I truly resent the sexist implications of this story. The people that wrote it on behalf of their god were douchebags.

I don't know Kris. I am no geneticist. Just seems intuitive that the further back the history of man goes the genetics of disease, "nature", you name it, would be less and less prevalent. Again, I know little of that field or theory.

[Guest end3]

This is a perfect example of how the bible is written by humans. Iit takes mental gymnastics to make it work. Face it--- the story is ridiculous. I figured that out in my Sunday school class when I was seven. And as a woman--- I truly resent the sexist implications of this story. The people that wrote it on behalf of their god were douchebags.

On a side note K, I've been here several years now and you one of many who have stated that it didn't make sense or you knew from a very young age that you didn't agree. Kind of interesting. Never heard many Christians state the same in reverse.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

End3, I was wondering if you had had time to consider an answer to this question.  If not, no worries.

 

"Knowledge" of good and evil vs. nature? If they were the original humanity, were would they derive the knowledge OR nature.....guessing nature becomes inherent.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that Eve was supposedly still in a state of perfect innocence.  She should not have been able to have "sinful" emotions such as envy or pride ("you shall be like god").  She should only have become capable of such feelings after eating the fruit, unless those things were already part of her nature.  But if sinful feelings were already a part of her nature, then that calls the idea that Adam and Eve were created in god's image into serious question.  Does god have a sinful, envious, prideful nature?  The old testament makes it clear he does. 

 

So, then, were Adam and Eve ever innocent?  If they were created in the image of a sinful, envious, prideful god and were able to experience those emotions before eating the fruit, then I would argue that, no, they were never truly innocent.  In this case, god is even more diabolical, because it means that he created them as sinners and only used the fruit to prove their sinfulness to them so that he could curse them.  Thus, Original Sin was god's creation as well as the garden and the tree.  No matter how you look at it, god set humanity up to fail.

[mymistake]

 

This is a perfect example of how the bible is written by humans. Iit takes mental gymnastics to make it work. Face it--- the story is ridiculous. I figured that out in my Sunday school class when I was seven. And as a woman--- I truly resent the sexist implications of this story. The people that wrote it on behalf of their god were douchebags.

I don't know Kris. I am no geneticist. Just seems intuitive that the further back the history of man goes the genetics of disease, "nature", you name it, would be less and less prevalent. Again, I know little of that field or theory.

 

 

This is willful ignorance.  Go back 100,000 years in our past and where is the genetics of disease?  Humans only lived to 29 because they were killed by disease.  If you were 29 you were the oldest person in your family and in very bad health.  Go back a million years in our genetic past and our ancestors were barely people.  Disease kills the weak.  Go back 10 million years into our genetic past and our ancestors are animals living the life of chimpanzees.  Disease was part of life.

 

There was no garden with magic fruit.

[bornagainathiest]

1 Timothy 2 : 13 & 14, NIV.

 

13   For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

14   And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

[Guest end3]

 

End3, I was wondering if you had had time to consider an answer to this question.  If not, no worries.

 

"Knowledge" of good and evil vs. nature? If they were the original humanity, were would they derive the knowledge OR nature.....guessing nature becomes inherent.

The point I'm trying to make is that Eve was supposedly still in a state of perfect innocence.  She should not have been able to have "sinful" emotions such as envy or pride ("you shall be like god").  She should only have become capable of such feelings after eating the fruit, unless those things were already part of her nature.  But if sinful feelings were already a part of her nature, then that calls the idea that Adam and Eve were created in god's image into serious question.  Does god have a sinful, envious, prideful nature?  The old testament makes it clear he does. 

 

So, then, were Adam and Eve ever innocent?  If they were created in the image of a sinful, envious, prideful god and were able to experience those emotions before eating the fruit, then I would argue that, no, they were never truly innocent.  In this case, god is even more diabolical, because it means that he created them as sinners and only used the fruit to prove their sinfulness to them so that he could curse them.  Thus, Original Sin was god's creation as well as the garden and the tree.  No matter how you look at it, god set humanity up to fail.

 

It appears the only other option is that Eve declines the invitation of nature. But she didn't. And then subsequently the knowledge was born.

 

I still don't know how this interferes with the theory that God was creating an autonomous entity that knew God and chooses good over evil...

[Guest end3]

 

 

This is a perfect example of how the bible is written by humans. Iit takes mental gymnastics to make it work. Face it--- the story is ridiculous. I figured that out in my Sunday school class when I was seven. And as a woman--- I truly resent the sexist implications of this story. The people that wrote it on behalf of their god were douchebags.

I don't know Kris. I am no geneticist. Just seems intuitive that the further back the history of man goes the genetics of disease, "nature", you name it, would be less and less prevalent. Again, I know little of that field or theory.

 

 

This is willful ignorance.  Go back 100,000 years in our past and where is the genetics of disease?  Humans only lived to 29 because they were killed by disease.  If you were 29 you were the oldest person in your family and in very bad health.  Go back a million years in our genetic past and our ancestors were barely people.  Disease kills the weak.  Go back 10 million years into our genetic past and our ancestors are animals living the life of chimpanzees.  Disease was part of life.

 

There was no garden with magic fruit.

 

All I am saying is if God created from the dust, "poof" then there would be no history of the evolutionary battle to which you refer. Chill Bill.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

This is a perfect example of how the bible is written by humans. Iit takes mental gymnastics to make it work. Face it--- the story is ridiculous. I figured that out in my Sunday school class when I was seven. And as a woman--- I truly resent the sexist implications of this story. The people that wrote it on behalf of their god were douchebags.

I don't know Kris. I am no geneticist. Just seems intuitive that the further back the history of man goes the genetics of disease, "nature", you name it, would be less and less prevalent. Again, I know little of that field or theory.

 

Actually, the evidence of current research is demonstrating that most of the DNA that controls our immune systems came from interbreeding with Neanderthals.  The earliest modern humans, it would seem, would have been constantly ravaged by disease.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

End3, I was wondering if you had had time to consider an answer to this question.  If not, no worries.

 

"Knowledge" of good and evil vs. nature? If they were the original humanity, were would they derive the knowledge OR nature.....guessing nature becomes inherent.

The point I'm trying to make is that Eve was supposedly still in a state of perfect innocence.  She should not have been able to have "sinful" emotions such as envy or pride ("you shall be like god").  She should only have become capable of such feelings after eating the fruit, unless those things were already part of her nature.  But if sinful feelings were already a part of her nature, then that calls the idea that Adam and Eve were created in god's image into serious question.  Does god have a sinful, envious, prideful nature?  The old testament makes it clear he does. 

 

So, then, were Adam and Eve ever innocent?  If they were created in the image of a sinful, envious, prideful god and were able to experience those emotions before eating the fruit, then I would argue that, no, they were never truly innocent.  In this case, god is even more diabolical, because it means that he created them as sinners and only used the fruit to prove their sinfulness to them so that he could curse them.  Thus, Original Sin was god's creation as well as the garden and the tree.  No matter how you look at it, god set humanity up to fail.

 

It appears the only other option is that Eve declines the invitation of nature. But she didn't. And then subsequently the knowledge was born.

 

I still don't know how this interferes with the theory that God was creating an autonomous entity that knew God and chooses good over evil...

 

Precisely.  Eve had no way of ascertaining the knowledge without eating the fruit.  It touches your second point in that god intentionally withheld the vital information the autonomous entity needed to make an educated decision concerning good over evil.

 

Moreover, god merely told Adam that he would die.  he never mentioned Original Sin; nor did he caution him about eternal conscious torment in hell.  If both of those were to be consequences of eating the fruit, on top of death, then a loving god who wanted fellowship would have been more forthcoming.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

End3, I was wondering if you had had time to consider an answer to this question.  If not, no worries.

 

"Knowledge" of good and evil vs. nature? If they were the original humanity, were would they derive the knowledge OR nature.....guessing nature becomes inherent.

The point I'm trying to make is that Eve was supposedly still in a state of perfect innocence.  She should not have been able to have "sinful" emotions such as envy or pride ("you shall be like god").  She should only have become capable of such feelings after eating the fruit, unless those things were already part of her nature.  But if sinful feelings were already a part of her nature, then that calls the idea that Adam and Eve were created in god's image into serious question.  Does god have a sinful, envious, prideful nature?  The old testament makes it clear he does. 

 

So, then, were Adam and Eve ever innocent?  If they were created in the image of a sinful, envious, prideful god and were able to experience those emotions before eating the fruit, then I would argue that, no, they were never truly innocent.  In this case, god is even more diabolical, because it means that he created them as sinners and only used the fruit to prove their sinfulness to them so that he could curse them.  Thus, Original Sin was god's creation as well as the garden and the tree.  No matter how you look at it, god set humanity up to fail.

 

It appears the only other option is that Eve declines the invitation of nature. But she didn't. And then subsequently the knowledge was born.

 

I still don't know how this interferes with the theory that God was creating an autonomous entity that knew God and chooses good over evil...

 

Precisely.  Eve had no way of ascertaining the knowledge without eating the fruit.  It touches your second point in that god intentionally withheld the vital information the autonomous entity needed to make an educated decision concerning good over evil.

 

Moreover, god merely told Adam that he would die.  he never mentioned Original Sin; nor did he caution him about eternal conscious torment in hell.  If both of those were to be consequences of eating the fruit, on top of death, then a loving god who wanted fellowship would have been more forthcoming.

 

As I stated further back, it doesn't appear to make much difference even today. So I expect this is why mere faith has the ability to get us through.

[bornagainathiest]

Genesis 3 : 6, NIV.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.  She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

 

1.

How could the innocent Eve understand what good and evil were? 

See verse 5. "...you will become like God, knowing good and evil."

 

2.

How did the innocent Eve understand what desire was? "...desirable for gaining wisdom..."

Desire isn't something a true innocent can understand.

 

3.

How did the innocent Eve understand what gaining was?  "...desirable for gaining wisdom..." 

Personal gain isn't something a true innocent can understand.

 

4.

How did the innocent Eve understand what wisdom was?  "...desirable for gaining wisdom..."

Wisdom isn't something a true innocent can understand.

 

5.

How did the innocent Eve understand that she and Adam lacked anything?

Adam and Eve lived in a garden planted especially for them by God to supply all of their needs. 

They had no concept of need or lack of anything. 

.

.

.

All of these questions relate to the time AFTER the serpent questioned Eve about the tree, but BEFORE she had even touched or ate of the fruit.

Therefore, BEFORE she touched or ate the fruit, she must have been able to understand what knowledge, good, evil, desire, gain, wisdom and need were.

Therefore, Eve was not innocent BEFORE she touched or ate the fruit.  A true innocent cannot understand these things.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

It's ok, End.

 

I don't expect you to respond to those questions. 

I reckon you just don't know why you believe - you just do. 

Nor do I think you can articulate why you believe - you just do.

It simply wouldn't be fair of me to expect you to answer...because you can't.

 

However, those questions do need asking.

Not for your sake, but for the sake of the lurkers reading this who are considering deconversion.

 

No offense intended, btw.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

It's ok, End.

 

I don't expect you to respond to those questions. 

I reckon you just don't know why you believe - you just do. 

Nor do I think you can articulate why you believe - you just do.

It simply wouldn't be fair of me to expect you to answer...because you can't.

 

However, those questions do need asking.

Not for your sake, but for the sake of the lurkers reading this who are considering deconversion.

 

No offense intended, btw.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Thanks, this is my take

 

Knowledge would have been imparted through the tree.

 

Nature was imparted through Satan. They certainly may have possessed the nature but were unknowing.

 

Regardless, I don't see any way around God allowing Satan in the Garden. The Captain is the Captain and goes down with the ship.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Thanks, this is my take

 

1. Knowledge would have been imparted through the tree.

 

2. Nature was imparted through Satan. 3. They certainly may have possessed the nature but were unknowing.

 

4.  Regardless, I don't see any way around God allowing Satan in the Garden. 5. The Captain is the Captain and goes down with the ship.

 

1. Didn't god walk with them in the cool of the day?  Could he not have used that time to impart knowledge to them?

 

2. Doesn't the text make it clear that they were created in the image of god?  Would that not imply that their nature was the image of god?  Satan imparted nothing but the truth that the fruit would allow them to know the difference between good and evil.

 

3.  Again, while god was walking with them in the cool of the day, could he not have used that time to explain their nature to them and the consequences of acting impulsively (death, Original Sin, and Hell)?

 

4.  "Satan, I'm omnipotent; stay the fuck out of my Garden".

 

5. The captain didn't go down with the ship; he sent his only begotten son to go down with it, instead.

[Kris]

So now trees are imparting knowledge? Yowsa! Sounding more and more like a fairy tale the more it tries to be explained.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

This is a perfect example of how the bible is written by humans. Iit takes mental gymnastics to make it work. Face it--- the story is ridiculous. I figured that out in my Sunday school class when I was seven. And as a woman--- I truly resent the sexist implications of this story. The people that wrote it on behalf of their god were douchebags.

I don't know Kris. I am no geneticist. Just seems intuitive that the further back the history of man goes the genetics of disease, "nature", you name it, would be less and less prevalent. Again, I know little of that field or theory.

 

 

This is willful ignorance.  Go back 100,000 years in our past and where is the genetics of disease?  Humans only lived to 29 because they were killed by disease.  If you were 29 you were the oldest person in your family and in very bad health.  Go back a million years in our genetic past and our ancestors were barely people.  Disease kills the weak.  Go back 10 million years into our genetic past and our ancestors are animals living the life of chimpanzees.  Disease was part of life.

 

There was no garden with magic fruit.

 

All I am saying is if God created from the dust, "poof" then there would be no history of the evolutionary battle to which you refer. Chill Bill.

 

 

I thought I was chilled.  But yes, the evidence of all this past shows that Genesis is false.

[Guest end3]

So now trees are imparting knowledge? Yowsa! Sounding more and more like a fairy tale the more it tries to be explained.

 

Thanks, this is my take

 

1. Knowledge would have been imparted through the tree.

 

2. Nature was imparted through Satan. 3. They certainly may have possessed the nature but were unknowing.

 

4.  Regardless, I don't see any way around God allowing Satan in the Garden. 5. The Captain is the Captain and goes down with the ship.

1. Didn't god walk with them in the cool of the day?  Could he not have used that time to impart knowledge to them?

 

2. Doesn't the text make it clear that they were created in the image of god?  Would that not imply that their nature was the image of god?  Satan imparted nothing but the truth that the fruit would allow them to know the difference between good and evil.

 

3.  Again, while god was walking with them in the cool of the day, could he not have used that time to explain their nature to them and the consequences of acting impulsively (death, Original Sin, and Hell)?

 

4.  "Satan, I'm omnipotent; stay the fuck out of my Garden".

 

5. The captain didn't go down with the ship; he sent his only begotten son to go down with it, instead.

 

If God wouldn't have wanted Satan there, he wouldn't have been there. Why do we assume God is not as powerful as He states?

 

Let me ask you this sincerely, anyone who wishes to answer. If you are allowing freedom to someone, what and how much are you going to tell them.

[Guest end3]

So now trees are imparting knowledge? Yowsa! Sounding more and more like a fairy tale the more it tries to be explained.

I would prefer you discuss politely K. Don't know that I have been disrespectful to you and would appreciate the same courtesy.

[thereisnoperfect]

 

So now trees are imparting knowledge? Yowsa! Sounding more and more like a fairy tale the more it tries to be explained.

 

Thanks, this is my take

 

1. Knowledge would have been imparted through the tree.

 

2. Nature was imparted through Satan. 3. They certainly may have possessed the nature but were unknowing.

 

4.  Regardless, I don't see any way around God allowing Satan in the Garden. 5. The Captain is the Captain and goes down with the ship.

1. Didn't god walk with them in the cool of the day?  Could he not have used that time to impart knowledge to them?

 

2. Doesn't the text make it clear that they were created in the image of god?  Would that not imply that their nature was the image of god?  Satan imparted nothing but the truth that the fruit would allow them to know the difference between good and evil.

 

3.  Again, while god was walking with them in the cool of the day, could he not have used that time to explain their nature to them and the consequences of acting impulsively (death, Original Sin, and Hell)?

 

4.  "Satan, I'm omnipotent; stay the fuck out of my Garden".

 

5. The captain didn't go down with the ship; he sent his only begotten son to go down with it, instead.

 

If God wouldn't have wanted Satan there, he wouldn't have been there. Why do we assume God is not as powerful as He states?

 

Let me ask you this sincerely, anyone who wishes to answer. If you are allowing freedom to someone, what and how much are you going to tell them.

 

As much as they want to know. Increasing knowledge increases freedom. If you don't know anything, you can't make an informed choice.

 

Ask yourself this: who wants a more educated citizenry, a democracy or a dictatorship?

 

Knowledge leads to freedom. Ignorance is its own slavery.

[mymistake]

 

So now trees are imparting knowledge? Yowsa! Sounding more and more like a fairy tale the more it tries to be explained.

I would prefer you discuss politely K. Don't know that I have been disrespectful to you and would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

 

 

Comments about an idea are not attacks upon you.  The stories in the Bible are absurd.  Is there a polite way to say that?  Is there a rude way to say it?  No matter how you spin it the Bible stories are false.  And for the record my comment about willful ignorance wasn't an attack or an insult.  It was a description of a behavior.  When somebody chooses to embrace ignorance and reject knowledge that is willful ignorance.  It's not an insult but rather a behavior that should be avoided.  Why should we avoid it?  Well, that behavior can have some very bad consequences.

 

Thousands of innocent women were murdered and burned to death because some clergy choose to reject reality and lock onto the King James Bible's directive to not suffer a witch to live.  Not saying you would do the same.  I think you would not do the same.  Rather I am trying to illustrate some historical consequences of willful ignorance.  This stuff isn't harmless.

[Guest end3]

As much as they want to know. Increasing knowledge increases freedom. If you don't know anything, you can't make an informed choice.

 

Ask yourself this: who wants a more educated citizenry, a democracy or a dictatorship?

 

Knowledge leads to freedom. Ignorance is its own slavery.

I guess I am speaking with respect to age. I have seldom seen youth deny there own experience for someone's word. We typically don't understand the perspective you mention until later....imo.

 

Edit: Ultimately your not free if I tell you anything.