Did God think before creating Sinners?
- Thread starter piffi
- Start date
Raven. Haven`t I told you that you ask the only sensible preacher in our time. I am not to preach here as others forbade me to do so and of course I am not a preacher but a mere member of God`s household. If ever you have time to ask whether online or e-mail, do it.one_raven said:
I am not asking you to preach.enton said:
I am asking you to explain something to me that you said, and I do not understand.
I am asking you to explain your reasoning.
If anything, the post I am questioning "God does not create sinners for He is Holy." is preaching, especially if you do not explain your reasoning.
I know others have already stated similar things to what I am about to, but the whole Adam and Eve debate is one of my personal favourites so I'm gonna go through a couple of things. Hope nobody minds 
Stop right there. The serpent told the truth - which can be clearly seen by reading the text. Here, let's look at it:
"god knows in fact that the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good from evil."
This is fully attested to by god who later says:
"man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil".
As we can see by this statement, man has now, (after eating the fruit), become like the gods, knowing good and evil. The serpent was right on the money - smart snake that he was.
Umm.. your statement doesn't make any sense. They clearly were tempted, and ate it, (thus unable to resist the temptation). What specific sentence the serpent feels like using is entirely irrelevant.
An 'external' being created by god, placed in the garden by god, given the ability to speak by god, (which is unheard of in any other snake in history), given the express nature to tempt the world's first humans by god, and put right next to a tree created by god.
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil. You cannot in any way argue against that because it's written in black and white, attested to by god. As a result of that undeniable biblical fact, Adam could have quite easily urinated in god's face, beaten Eve to a pulp, and had rampant sex with a hedgehog without any moral concerns whatsoever. There would, for them, have been no way of distinguishing a difference between god and the serpent, no way of understanding or caring about any implications or threats given if they eat from the fruit because they had no knowledge of good or evil. Further to which the religious kind would have us believe that there was no death in the garden, (although the bible doesn't state this). If there was no death in the garden then Adam and Eve wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what the threat meant, or indeed, as I've just explained, would they care considering they would have no way of working out whether 'death' was a good thing or not.
You cannot in any way justify the g of e story, and that is just the first few pages of the bible. If you can't even substantiate the very first portion of the book without losing badly, what chance do you have for the rest of it?
And uhh.. who made the serpent, gave it the ability to talk and deceive and put it right next to the tree?
Of course not. Without any knowledge of good and evil, god is completely meaningless. You 'know' satan is evil and god is good, they didn't. You cannot in any way argue against that.
Whether he could recognise it or not, it is inconsequential. He didn't know good from evil, so - as I've already explained, he had no reason to give a shit.
Once again I see a religious man going against his very own supposed principles. What you are saying is truly bad, truly nasty - and yet I bet you don't even realise or recognise why.
Let me explain for you:
What you are stating is that Adam should have lied to god. Let's check the text:
"The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give.. So she took some of it's fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate it.."
As you will know, the serpent tempted Eve beforehand.
Now, when god asks what happened Adam says:
"The man replied, 'It was the woman you put me with; she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.' Then Yahweh god said to the woman, 'Why did you do that?' The woman replied, 'The snake tempted me and I ate'.
As you can hopefully now see, the explanation is 100% accurate, 100% truth.
I must ask why you would want Adam to lie instead of telling the absolute truth. Is lying to god a good thing? Is it the way you would personally do it? Do you have knowledge of good and evil? Do you not realise that lying to god would be a bad thing?
Oh but people like you don't care do you? You'd rather have these people lie to god instead of showing their honesty. Maybe they can get some extra punishment for lying when they had the opportunity to be straight up about the incident. You'd love that heh?
Adam told the absolute truth. Your statement needs to be changed to "If Adam have had lied to god we wouldn't be in this mess", but then we still would no? After all, god knows everything right, so lying would have just made the situation far worse and we'd be even further up shit creek.
It's so common to see the religious man stating that Adam should have just lied to god. It's quite off-putting really considering you all class yourselves as moral people.
Stop right there. The serpent told the truth - which can be clearly seen by reading the text. Here, let's look at it:
"god knows in fact that the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good from evil."
This is fully attested to by god who later says:
"man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil".
As we can see by this statement, man has now, (after eating the fruit), become like the gods, knowing good and evil. The serpent was right on the money - smart snake that he was.
Umm.. your statement doesn't make any sense. They clearly were tempted, and ate it, (thus unable to resist the temptation). What specific sentence the serpent feels like using is entirely irrelevant.
An 'external' being created by god, placed in the garden by god, given the ability to speak by god, (which is unheard of in any other snake in history), given the express nature to tempt the world's first humans by god, and put right next to a tree created by god.
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil. You cannot in any way argue against that because it's written in black and white, attested to by god. As a result of that undeniable biblical fact, Adam could have quite easily urinated in god's face, beaten Eve to a pulp, and had rampant sex with a hedgehog without any moral concerns whatsoever. There would, for them, have been no way of distinguishing a difference between god and the serpent, no way of understanding or caring about any implications or threats given if they eat from the fruit because they had no knowledge of good or evil. Further to which the religious kind would have us believe that there was no death in the garden, (although the bible doesn't state this). If there was no death in the garden then Adam and Eve wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what the threat meant, or indeed, as I've just explained, would they care considering they would have no way of working out whether 'death' was a good thing or not.
You cannot in any way justify the g of e story, and that is just the first few pages of the bible. If you can't even substantiate the very first portion of the book without losing badly, what chance do you have for the rest of it?
And uhh.. who made the serpent, gave it the ability to talk and deceive and put it right next to the tree?
Of course not. Without any knowledge of good and evil, god is completely meaningless. You 'know' satan is evil and god is good, they didn't. You cannot in any way argue against that.
Whether he could recognise it or not, it is inconsequential. He didn't know good from evil, so - as I've already explained, he had no reason to give a shit.
Once again I see a religious man going against his very own supposed principles. What you are saying is truly bad, truly nasty - and yet I bet you don't even realise or recognise why.
Let me explain for you:
What you are stating is that Adam should have lied to god. Let's check the text:
"The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give.. So she took some of it's fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate it.."
As you will know, the serpent tempted Eve beforehand.
Now, when god asks what happened Adam says:
"The man replied, 'It was the woman you put me with; she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.' Then Yahweh god said to the woman, 'Why did you do that?' The woman replied, 'The snake tempted me and I ate'.
As you can hopefully now see, the explanation is 100% accurate, 100% truth.
I must ask why you would want Adam to lie instead of telling the absolute truth. Is lying to god a good thing? Is it the way you would personally do it? Do you have knowledge of good and evil? Do you not realise that lying to god would be a bad thing?
Oh but people like you don't care do you? You'd rather have these people lie to god instead of showing their honesty. Maybe they can get some extra punishment for lying when they had the opportunity to be straight up about the incident. You'd love that heh?
Adam told the absolute truth. Your statement needs to be changed to "If Adam have had lied to god we wouldn't be in this mess", but then we still would no? After all, god knows everything right, so lying would have just made the situation far worse and we'd be even further up shit creek.
It's so common to see the religious man stating that Adam should have just lied to god. It's quite off-putting really considering you all class yourselves as moral people.
enton said:Okay.
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
*************
M*W: one_raven specifically asked you to explain your reasoning for the statement "God does not create sinners for he is holy." You failed to provide an explanation. All you did was quote scripture. This is not an explanation. This is preaching.
*************enton said:
M*W: This is a science forum. If you make a statement, you need to back it up with an explanation or references. If all you can do is quote bible scripture and not discuss your statements, that is not participating in the forum. That's preaching. Thus far, all you've managed to do is resurrect old threads. You have nothing original to present to the forum, and you refuse to use your own mind in discussion. I see no reason for you to be here.
Excellent! It makes perfect, bullet-proof sense. Well done enton. Well done.