Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Can I interrupt here with a simple question?  If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, would they be the only two people on earth now?  Unless I am missing something, there is nothing said about them having children until after eating the fruit.

 

Or, if they were going to have children, would it have been without pain?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Good observation, Myrkhoos.  In 1 Timothy, Paul contradicts his views of women in the church as he expresses them elsewhere, because 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.  It is widely accepted - outside

Why would an omniscient god need to "test" anything?  Shouldn't he have already known the answers?

Edgarcito,   You are trying and failing to defend the indefensible and to excuse the inexcusable.   Scripture is what it is and says what it says.   No amount of wishful

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Weezer said:

Can I interrupt here with a simple question?  If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, would they be the only two people on earth now?  Unless I am missing something, there is nothing said about them having children until after eating the fruit.

 

Or, if they were going to have children, would it have been without pain?

 

Weezer,

 

There's a terrible misunderstanding on the part of Christians who think that life in the garden would have been unending bliss if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed god and eaten the fruit.

 

The key to understanding this can be found if you ask yourself this question.

 

How could Eden continue to be blissful if god permitted the most powerful rebel archangel (Satan) free access to it?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Here’s my debate... in your intellectually superior post to me, you were so incredibly wrong, you failed at anything spiritual.  Pretty much end of debate.   Need you demonstrate more prowess??

 

The debate hasn't even started. And it ends with you completely losing your end of it. 

 

God has to be the whole, you struggle with this. But sort of understand the concept more than a lot of christians.

 

An omnipresent god can not be anything short of everything in existence or else you lose omnipresence. Because you struggle with this spiritual insight, known in many cultures as the mystical realization, you will always remain at least one rung below anyone else in this world on the human spirituality latter who does understand the mystical realization. 

 

So you're screwed on the true depths of human spirituality topic. As are all christians, basically. 

 

The only way around it is to move up a rung or two to meet myself or anyone similar who is above your current understanding and experience.

 

We can debate this and you will lose to me. Even to the extent that I'm an agnostic atheist, I can still kick your ass on spirituality because you don't understand it to the level that I do. And the offer is for you to put your money where your mouth is. Try and debate me on these issues of ex christian superiority. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The debate hasn't even started. And it ends with you completely losing your end of it. 

 

God has to be the whole, you struggle with this. But sort of understand the concept more than a lot of christians.

 

An omnipresent god can not be anything short of everything in existence or else you lose omnipresence. Because you struggle with this spiritual insight, known in many cultures as the mystical realization, you will always remain at least one rung below anyone else in this world on the human spirituality latter who does understand the mystical realization. 

 

So you're screwed on the true depths of human spirituality topic. As are all christians, basically. 

 

The only way around it is to move up a rung or two to meet myself or anyone similar who is above your current understanding and experience.

 

We can debate this and you will lose to me. Even to the extent that I'm an agnostic atheist, I can still kick your ass on spirituality because you don't understand it to the level that I do. And the offer is for you to put your money where your mouth is. Try and debate me on these issues of ex christian superiority. 

Woke up to more of your shit today Josh ... and your ego as well.  Let me put this very plainly that even you might understand.  You failed spiritually with me through the post which angered me.  This tells me that in all of your intellectual prowess, you don’t actually comprehend spiritual....i.e., you didn’t become like God as the serpent touted to Eve by eating the fruit of that tree....no insight, no help....no spiritual.  Just a self aggrandizing douche bag with nothing to debate..

 

 

edit:  I’m feeling generous today.  Please take out all the mean stuff and just read it for the insight that is apparent.  Maybe we will discuss omnipresent another day...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Weezer said:

Can I interrupt here with a simple question?  If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit, would they be the only two people on earth now?  Unless I am missing something, there is nothing said about them having children until after eating the fruit.

 

Or, if they were going to have children, would it have been without pain?

 

Hello again Weezer.

 

Your question about the number of people on earth is something that I don't think anyone can really answer.  But you are correct that the bearing of children isn't mentioned until after Adam and Eve disobeyed god.  When it is, it forms part of god's curse upon Eve and upon all women.

 

Genesis 3 : 16

 

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labour you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

 

That's all we know until Genesis 4, when we read that Adam and Eve had a number of children.  Cain, Abel and Seth.  After this Genesis 5 : 4 tells us that after Seth, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.  And that's it.  That's all we know.

 

Assuming that god's curse still held sway, we should therefore infer that Eve bore her children with great pain, as did all of her daughters.

 

Would she have pain free childbirth if they hadn't disobeyed god?

 

Who knows?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is allowed for Josh to confer with the Peanut Gallery?

 

Secondly, would someone please fkn explain to him why his claims are not by faith alone.  Does he want me to participate as spirituality is good science?  I'm already having to help him with his argument.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Why is allowed for Josh to confer with the Peanut Gallery?

Technically, you are both allowed to participate in the Peanut Gallery, so long as y'all's private debate doesn't spill over outside of the assigned thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Technically, you are both allowed to participate in the Peanut Gallery, so long as y'all's private debate doesn't spill over outside of the assigned thread.

I can’t post there...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I can’t post there...

I guess that will ensure that y'all's private debate doesn't spill over outside of the assigned thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When does the penis measuring begin??  😁

9 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Hello again Weezer.

 

Your question about the number of people on earth is something that I don't think anyone can really answer.  But you are correct that the bearing of children isn't mentioned until after Adam and Eve disobeyed god.  When it is, it forms part of god's curse upon Eve and upon all women.

 

Genesis 3 : 16

 

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labour you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

 

That's all we know until Genesis 4, when we read that Adam and Eve had a number of children.  Cain, Abel and Seth.  After this Genesis 5 : 4 tells us that after Seth, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.  And that's it.  That's all we know.

 

Assuming that god's curse still held sway, we should therefore infer that Eve bore her children with great pain, as did all of her daughters.

 

Would she have pain free childbirth if they hadn't disobeyed god?

 

Who knows?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

One of my points is that with all the loose jointed sadistic thinking and loose ends in Genesis (and elsewhere)  how can anyone think it came from an all knowing, all powerful, supposedly brilliant god??  And if he is all knowing, he knew how it was all going to work out in the end.  Did god get his jollies from watching all that crap he set up to happen??   He knew ahead of time his "angel" would fall from heaven and become satan, etc.  I guess he isn't perfect after all, since his creation didn't turn out like he wanted. The longer I am away from this crap, the more ridicilous it sounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh and Edgar, do you realize how childish your posts have been in the past few days??  I can understand a "slip" now and then, but this has gone beyond all reason.  If this kind of thing continues, I predict this site will suffer severely.  It already seems to be fading away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Josh and Edgar, do you realize how childish your posts have been in the past few days??  I can understand a "slip" now and then, but this has gone beyond all reason.  If this kind of thing continues, I predict this site will suffer severely.  It already seems to be fading away. 

Just holding Josh's feet to the fire Wheezy with ExC arguments.  The interesting thing is reading the honest comments in the peanut gallery.  If people actually disclosed on that level, this site would do well in my opinion.  I’ve already noted him acting like he was in middle school.  His zeal and combined ignorance made me want to inquire how old he was.  Site started suffering years ago before you arrived.  Was decent.  Now I feel like I want to help Dave with content... so I come cuss at the residents periodically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Just holding Josh's feet to the fire Wheezy with ExC arguments.  The interesting thing is reading the honest comments in the peanut gallery.  If people actually disclosed on that level, this site would do well in my opinion.  I’ve already noted him acting like he was in middle school.  His zeal and combined ignorance made me want to inquire how old he was.  Site started suffering years ago before you arrived.  Was decent.  Now I feel like I want to help Dave with content... so I come cuss at the residents periodically.

 

What is called "debate" here is using the term very loosely.  Debating doesn't resort to calling each other derogatory names.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Why is allowed for Josh to confer with the Peanut Gallery?

 

Secondly, would someone please fkn explain to him why his claims are not by faith alone.  Does he want me to participate as spirituality is good science?  I'm already having to help him with his argument.....

.......

I can't agree with your assessment here. You haven't even taken a stance in the argument. He has explained his background and started going in depth on over all spirituality as it pertains to other faiths and mystics. The one that needs help with his argument is you. I admit. Josh hoes a little over my head sometimes. But generally he ends up eventually bringing it down to my level. His last post was very good. So why don't you get in there and actually debate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

.......

I can't agree with your assessment here. You haven't even taken a stance in the argument. He has explained his background and started going in depth on over all spirituality as it pertains to other faiths and mystics. The one that needs help with his argument is you. I admit. Josh hoes a little over my head sometimes. But generally he ends up eventually bringing it down to my level. His last post was very good. So why don't you get in there and actually debate. 

I never agreed to a debate.  The thread just showed up.  It's not formal.  He lost before he ever started claiming his knowledge base defines spiritual, much less is capable of defining a brand thereof, superior.  But will play in the sandbox because it's a good exercise in communion.  The irony...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dark Bishop is saying this denies self and Walter says it’s promoting self?  
 

The reality of the eastern religions is I don’t see anyone walking around as the whole...change my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The reality of the eastern religions is I don’t see anyone walking around as the whole.

Perhaps that is because you misunderstand Eastern religions.

 

21 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

change my mind.

Change comes from realizing your mind does not exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody will be changing your mind, Edgar. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
41 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

...Change my mind.

 

Most people who say "change my mind" have no intention of changing their mind. Also you are the only person who can change your mind so asking us to change it is nonsensical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Dark Bishop is saying this denies self and Walter says it’s promoting self?  
 

The reality of the eastern religions is I don’t see anyone walking around as the whole...change my mind.

 

Walter is taking a stance on a biblical definition of spirituality. And he is right. To be considered spiritual in accordance to the Bible their are rules set and a certain criteria that must be followed for the "fruits of the spirit" to be evident. You are held under the scrutiny of a rule book when it comes to spirituality. 

 

I however am not talking about a biblical spirituality just as Josh is trying to drive home the point that a strictly literal biblical spirituality is very limited. 

 

I myself felt "spiritual" when I was Christian. I felt I was connected to a higher power (God, Jesus, holy spirit, other christians) but thats as far as you can go in Christianity. Outside of Christianity one can feel connected with all things. Our experience of life on earth matters. We affect other people and the world around us because we are a part of it. Whereas in Christianity you are told not to be in the world. But the world is a beautiful thing. Life is a beautiful thing. For instance. When I was Christian I would shun the homosexual community as abomination. That was a limit to my own personal spirituality. Now even tho I am not homosexual, I can meet a homosexual couple who are in love and I can rejoice with them. I can be a part of that love by just being happy they are who they are. And that they found someone. Before I couldn't do that. 

 

I read one of the most beautiful letters of spirituality on this forum. And I know you probably read it as well. When BAA passed away. He left a letter to be posted in the event of his death giving his final goodbye in his own words and describing his beliefs and the hope he had for the atoms that made up the material that was in his body in life. In a way even as an atheist he had come to a point in his spirituality that was even above that of the Christian IMO. He knew he would live on but that he would live on in a different manner than that of a limited Christian concept. 

 

IMO to be truly spiritual is to accept yourself for one thing. Be yourself, find yourself, and come to the realization that we are all connected in some way. I'm still working through my own path to that enlightenment. Hopefully one day I will be as satisfied with my own spirituality (whatever that may be) as BAA was with his. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Dark Bishop is saying this denies self and Walter says it’s promoting self?  
 

The reality of the eastern religions is I don’t see anyone walking around as the whole...change my mind.

 

No.

 

I wrote that you are promoting YOURSELF, Edgarcito.

 

In the religion of EDGARCITOism God, the bible and spirituality must all conform to what YOU want.

 

You are promoting YOURSELF and demoting god, the bible and spirituality to what YOU want them to be.

 

Which is why you have Christianity backwards.

 

In Christianity YOU demote YOURSELF by submitting to god.

 

Doing what he wants, living how he wants and playing by his rules.

 

Not YOURS

 

That's why its called Christianity and not EDGARCITOism.

 

Or is that just egoism?

 

 

 

 

Oxford Dictionary definition of Egoism.

 

"a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Walter is taking a stance on a biblical definition of spirituality. And he is right. To be considered spiritual in accordance to the Bible their are rules set and a certain criteria that must be followed for the "fruits of the spirit" to be evident. You are held under the scrutiny of a rule book when it comes to spirituality. 

 

I however am not talking about a biblical spirituality just as Josh is trying to drive home the point that a strictly literal biblical spirituality is very limited. 

 

I myself felt "spiritual" when I was Christian. I felt I was connected to a higher power (God, Jesus, holy spirit, other christians) but thats as far as you can go in Christianity. Outside of Christianity one can feel connected with all things. Our experience of life on earth matters. We affect other people and the world around us because we are a part of it. Whereas in Christianity you are told not to be in the world. But the world is a beautiful thing. Life is a beautiful thing. For instance. When I was Christian I would shun the homosexual community as abomination. That was a limit to my own personal spirituality. Now even tho I am not homosexual, I can meet a homosexual couple who are in love and I can rejoice with them. I can be a part of that love by just being happy they are who they are. And that they found someone. Before I couldn't do that. 

 

I read one of the most beautiful letters of spirituality on this forum. And I know you probably read it as well. When BAA passed away. He left a letter to be posted in the event of his death giving his final goodbye in his own words and describing his beliefs and the hope he had for the atoms that made up the material that was in his body in life. In a way even as an atheist he had come to a point in his spirituality that was even above that of the Christian IMO. He knew he would live on but that he would live on in a different manner than that of a limited Christian concept. 

 

IMO to be truly spiritual is to accept yourself for one thing. Be yourself, find yourself, and come to the realization that we are all connected in some way. I'm still working through my own path to that enlightenment. Hopefully one day I will be as satisfied with my own spirituality (whatever that may be) as BAA was with his. 

+1 Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.