I agree completely, nicknack. The message is clearly about taking responsibility for one's actions. And OvrLrdLegion has made this point many times... only to be ignored or brushed-off as irrelevant. But that IS the point of the banishment of Adam and Eve. It connects the Free Will that God gave us directly to the responsibility that comes with that Free Will. The message is so obvious that it is funny to see people who do not "get it", and instead want to find some way to blame God for all of this.
I glad two people understand this fact. Yes, OvrLrdLegion has repeated this many times and so have I, it ends up being ignored or rather being irrelevant for people to reply telling me time and again that God deceived them. It is really funny, yes, that it is quite apparent and people taking it quite nonchalantly and ignore it.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I am saying that I beleive that God was created by mankind, because he needed something to believe in, to be loved by and to obey. A substitute parent to be told what to do by, and to be told that it's all going to be okay by, once we're all grown up and have to take full responsibility for our lives. I think it's easier to give God some of that responsibility.
Instead of Man creating God his image. It is God who created us in his image. Yes, for your side of atheism, Man may have created God. But vice versa, it is more possible for God to create Man in his own image. I don't understand why would Man want to make a slave himself to a creator creating all sorts of evil and punishments, is that what Man would really want to do?
Simply because it is arrogant as it does not take into consideration what the masses would agree upon.
Many. I've also been to church services, church youth groups, Sunday school, RE, sang in church services, been to religious festivals, talked to Rabbis, monks, nuns, Moslems, Wiccans, people who follow Asratu, pagans, cultists...and so on. Why?
This may be so, but have you listened to what they have to say? Does it strike to you that despite participating in many conversations with so many different religious groups, the truth to you is like something lost in a fog thus making you an atheist because everything added up would only confuse you and lead you to think it is all ridiculous to believe in such things.
So why haven't the original manuscripts survived? Why do we only have copies of copies? If they were divinely protected, then how come they were destroyed?
The original manuscritps are still around for your information, only in several bits and pieces. That is why the Bible had a cannonial test in which people compiled the Bible together do prevent it from being eradicated forever. They were not destroyed.
Okay, let me put it this way. You have a toddler, naieve enough not to really understand it's choices (if they didn't know Good from Evil, then how were they to know that disobeying God was Evil?), but knowledgeable enough to . You tell it not to do something. It does it. So you take it out to the middle of the desert and leave it there. A day or two later, the toddler is dead. Are you telling me that the toddler's death is not your fault, rather it's the toddler's fault?
Apparently to most people, my statement makes it so obvious that even a child can understand it. It is highlighted in Bold and it is certainly not verbose to confuse anyone. As you can see they were newly created, like a Child but a mind that is pure, however, like an adult. They knew Good and Evil after eating the fruit. However, in which case in Eden there wasn't any evil. They knew evil when the serpent deceived them. They knew more when they were thrown out. In the first place, your analogy of the 'toddler' is wrong. God was the creator of Adam and Eve, although he threw them out and was angry. He forgave them and even make clothes for them to wear before throwing them out. He did not use any of his powers to strike them out of Eden painfully. I would appreciate it if RainmanTime would explain this aspect to you, trollface.
Yes, they fight in the name of Jesus, saying they are fighting for their religion. It's Protestants vs. Catholics.
Ah. Yes, they call in the name of Jesus. So does Contemporary Islamists like Osama Bin Laden who cry out Jihad to make war upon Man. It is the same in which case the name of Jesus is used for war and bloodshed. It is more of Man's selfishness and politics that they fight, and certainly not in the name of Jesus.
You've never heard of Rev. Iain Paisley, then?
No I have not. Maybe, you would have forgotten that not all pastors are benevolent or perfect as it seems? Joaquim Kang, a top bishop in an Anglican church here has just laundered millions from the church funds. Many other religious figures in the world may be gay or even commit sexual abuse to their followers. There are many who like that, but there are also good ones who follow the word of God faithfully and do not give in to temptations to commit such heinous acts.
Not many. Despite many theories, you wouldn't be convinced anyway.
Yes, but I haven't claimed to have proof that there isn't a God. You, on the other hand, have claimed that you have proof that there is a God.
Not as proof that can be seen but can be believed. There are many theories here that we can believe that there is a God that created this universe.
I don't know how the universe was created, but every theory I have every heard seems to have a flaw or two, in my opinion.
I am interested to hear what the flaws are and in which theory.
I don't get what you're saying. Why does this mean that you don't read what I've quoted from scripture?
This is pointed out to some of your replies.
Yes, i read the later parts. At no point did you back up what you said with scripture. If you want to claim that, then please do so.
It is not by scripture, but you do understand God created Man perfect in its form, and so were the angels. You would have to understand that after they left Eden, they had to face 'death', 'pain' and 'sadness'. Thus death was nowhere implemented in Eden. God created Man to love him.
I believe it is that sentence above that you were saying.
In Genesis 1-2 and in the first half of part 3, there was no death mentioned when God created anything. Everything was perfect and death was not to be implemented until they were banished.
I know what the Bible says the Serpent did, and that's all I've been talking about. You're the one who wants to speak of behaviour outside of what the Bible says.
Similarly, you said that the Serpent told the truth and God lied. I've been wondering where was that found in Genesis?
Because what he said would happen would happen, and what he said wouldn't happen didn't happen, according to the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is wrong about this?
That is the truth but what about the fact they would not surely die? He also told them they would be like God. That is the lie.
Well, then, in your own words..."Oh, did it forget God was omniscent. How stupid."
That was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice. Satan and the serpent were seperate entities if you didn't know. The serpent was the most cunning of all creatures, and he certainly was not the same Devil we know of today.
Equally with my hypothetical mother, yes.
So, you are comparing to a non-perfect human to a perfect God?
i'm sorry, I'm still not getting why my interpretation of the story isn't ethical. If, as you say, one must consider all possible interpretations of these storys, then shouldn't you consider my version? I've considered the interpretation that the Church gives the story many times. So can I assume that, in the interests of being ethical, you will accept my interpretation of the story as equally valid? Or do you really mean that it's only ethical to agree with the way that you see it?
I'm sorry but I agree with OvrLrdLegion's comments on your posts. It does not offer a tinge anything that might make anyone agree with. Not with me or others. Maybe Roel. However, all your interpretations directly point out that the Bible was a lie itself, I've considered it and otherwise, replied it, repeating some facts over and over again, only to see the question being repeated time and again. I accept you interpretation, but based on my interpretation, I would have to see it as wrong and would try to correct to see it in both sides. I do understand that the Bible has its own contradictions, I have my doubts too. I do not just put all my trust in the Bible and say it's right not before I know what it is trying to tell me.
Again, you're not being clear. I don't mean to be rude, but your profile says that you're from Singapore. Is English not your first language? It's just that I sometimes have difficulty trying to figure out what you're saying.
You asked me why God would let the Bible survive if he comes accross as a bad guy at times. My simple answer is that he didn't, because he doesn't exist.
Yes. That would be so. Just as it would seem, my english here is above average in standard and we study the same english practised in Britain. Maybe, you do not seem to understand what I'm saying. But sometimes I have trouble understanding what you are trying to say too. What I said was. Although there were many powerful bad guys who tried to eliminate the Bible, however, God protected it and it was not destroyed, lost and was still intact.
What denomination of Church do you belong to? I don't think I've encountered one that didn't believe that Satan was the Serpent. Just one example:
http://goodnewschristianministry.org/footnote_Q105.htm
What would be surprising is, I do not go to church. So technically, I am not in any denomination of any Church. All my life I have attended 4 churches for a couple of years. I study literature in my school. I do not come across the Bible saying that God transformed Satan into a serpent. The link indicates: "
Satan's reptillian imagery" Imagery means: Figurative Language. Thus the serpent was just a metaphor used to describe satan in it's cunning image to deceive Adam and Eve.
It was there that God transformed Satan into a belly-crawling creature after he had seduced Adam and Eve.
This sentence however, would be your standpoint in saying that Satan=Serpent. I do not know when in the scriptures does it say that.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.
They did. They died because they didn't eat from the Tree Of Life, not beacue they ate from the Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil.
Yes they died. You are correct. Wouldn't it be different if they didn't eat the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Hm..
God would seem to disagree with you, there. Genesis 3: 22 " 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us[...]"
Not like God meaning they were not omnipresent, omniscient or eternal or perfect like him. Another aspect of being like God is knowing Good and Evil, that's it.
Eve said the Serpent decieved her. Have you never encountered someone trying to palm the blame off onto someone else? "He made me do it!", "It's not my fault, he told me to!", "He said you wouldn't mind!" She was trying to wiggle out of it, while sucking up to the boss. Would you be brave enough to call God a liar to His face?
I'm sorry. My bad. Yes I have encountered such situations. But I don't see how God is lying that way.
Every time before he did something to Job, Satan came to God and asked his permission. god told him exactly what he could or could not do, and Satan obeyed him to the letter. God said "yeah, sure, you can take everything he has and make his life miserable" for what amounts to a bet.
Yes. That would be so in that aspect. But does satan send his minions to come attack us? Scar us with burns and marks to torture us? No. He only increases the temptations we face with modern technology and conveniences to make us destroy ourselves. That would be it.
