question about christianity!

[SnakeLord]

So you have your own perspective most people often do.
I was speaking of the biblical view.

What in my post wasn't the "biblical view"? That satan is blamed for everything nasty while god has the largest human kill count in the universe? The bible agrees, the bible merely shows that entity saying you must fear and worship it or it will do the same to you. It then concludes that you will be tortured in fire with gnashing of teeth unless you bow to him. Oh, and lest anyone forget.. satan's the bad guy.

I thought you didn't believe in God.

That depends... which one?

He said you "positively will not die". Considering that they did Indeed Die as a result wouldn't you call that deciet?

Not really. Upon eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve would realise the value in also eating from the tree of life and thus not die. That god cursed them and blocked off the tree is down to that god, not the serpent.

I don't understand.

With no knowledge of 'evil' or 'bad' how would you ever be able to determine that satan is 'evil'/'bad'? Simply put you wouldn't and thus might very well find yourself in collaboration with him because you do not have knowledge that he or his activities are evil.

Perhaps if your intrest is so strong you might look it up and let me know.

Well, the only word that seems to go well with god is "fictional".

Or it's understood that all prophesies in the bible are conveyed by metaphor and symbolism but you'd have to read and study to have that understanding.

Both read and studied. You're just reaching. It's like people advocating that Nostradamus made accurate predictions.. These things work purely because you can insert any meaning you want into them.

However, it's quite certain there is symbolism.. it relates to the cosmos, the stars. Even you recognised that angels were referred to as "third of the stars". So yeah, it all refers to the constellations. Maybe you should read and study to have that understanding. Sounds quite presumptuous does it not?

The rapist did have Free will. He did choose to do wrong. The child had free will aswell but obviously this did not lead to the mistake. I'm sure you knew that.

And then this god had the free will coupled with the ability to know what was going to happen and tripled with the ability to prevent it. He chose to sit on his ass and let the rapist rape and kill a 3 year old child. You would condemn any man choosing not to intervene when he knows someone is about to do something terrible and yet glorify this god for doing exactly the same.

And that's why we've been allowed to live. It wasn't our fault our original parents made a mistake that indangered us but we're living the consequences.

It wasn't their fault either. They were kids in a playpen. The parent, (god), put an open bottle of bleach in the playpen and said "don't drink it". What a butthead.

A perculiar statement.

Not peculiar at all. You claimed they knew good. god says: "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil". That statement by this god shows that they didn't have knowledge of good or evil until, (bizarrely enough), eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The name of the tree should have given you some indication Saquist.

If it leads to your death then I would have to classify that as bad wouldn't you?

Not if you have no knowledge of "bad". Duh. YOU indeed stated they had no knowledge of bad. You can hardly argue your case now.

 

[Saquist]

What in my post wasn't the "biblical view"? That satan is blamed for everything nasty while god has the largest human kill count in the universe? The bible agrees, the bible merely shows that entity saying you must fear and worship it or it will do the same to you. It then concludes that you will be tortured in fire with gnashing of teeth unless you bow to him. Oh, and lest anyone forget.. satan's the bad guy.

Everything in the post.
Satan has the the "largest kill count for misleading the original parents. Everyone who dies is a direct result of his actions.

That depends... which one?

That's for you to decide.

Not really. Upon eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve would realise the value in also eating from the tree of life and thus not die. That god cursed them and blocked off the tree is down to that god, not the serpent.

Actually you can only chose one not both.

With no knowledge of 'evil' or 'bad' how would you ever be able to determine that satan is 'evil'/'bad'? Simply put you wouldn't and thus might very well find yourself in collaboration with him because you do not have knowledge that he or his activities are evil.

Obedience. Loyalty, Trust.
Why else have parents?

Well, the only word that seems to go well with god is "fictional".

So be it.

And then this god had the free will coupled with the ability to know what was going to happen and tripled with the ability to prevent it. He chose to sit on his ass and let the rapist rape and kill a 3 year old child. You would condemn any man choosing not to intervene when he knows someone is about to do something terrible and yet glorify this god for doing exactly the same.

That's the say you think he's done nothing to correct the problem.

It wasn't their fault either. They were kids in a playpen. The parent, (god), put an open bottle of bleach in the playpen and said "don't drink it". What a butthead.

But they weren't children and they weren't ignorant. There are poisions all around us some people live with guns, open electrical plugs and drano under the sink. If your grown adult child decided to stick his finger in the socket, play with a gun, or swallow drano it's hardly your fault.

Not peculiar at all. You claimed they knew good. god says: "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil". That statement by this god shows that they didn't have knowledge of good or evil until, (bizarrely enough), eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The name of the tree should have given you some indication Saquist.

I can't agree. Nor does the rest of the bible. Sin or badness was a result of their actions in the Garden. Clearly they knew good. Infact Genesis does not tell us either way but the scriptures that follow make it clear that it was badness introduced not goodness. That was inherent in their design. That's why we're given the other 65 books.



Not if you have no knowledge of "bad". Duh. YOU indeed stated they had no knowledge of bad. You can hardly argue your case now.[/QUOTE]

Having no knowledge of bad means you're inclined to do good. The Tree was only symbolic. The bible doesn't say they were incapable of doing bad. It said they had no knowledge of it. Bad was a choice. They thus went against their own nature. The situation showed that not all knowledge is beneficial. They chose wrong and chose wrong for all of us.

It's been intresting listening to your beliefs.
It's been "intresting " hearing your position.

 

[Myles]

I am convinced that The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are true. It's a question of understanding the metaphors.

 

[SnakeLord]

Satan has the the "largest kill count for misleading the original parents. Everyone who dies is a direct result of his actions.

Not true.

1) god retains the largest kill count for allowing the serpent to 'deceive' his own children which was only possible because he had put a certain tree that he didn't want them to eat from right in front of them coupled with the biblical fact that he hadn't provided them with the needed knowledge with which to make an informed decision. More on this later..

2) Even if we completely ignore the above we have to recognise that this god drowned everyone - men, women and children. The only people he allowed to live were clearly blameless. He obviously picked them for good reason, and that reason is explained - upright, walk with god blah blah. Everyone is a descendant of a blameless man and yet we all still need a saviour and are born to sin. Can't blame the snake for that one, he was busy eating dust apparently.

Actually you can only chose one not both.

Says who?

Personally I would eat from the tree of knowledge, not the tree of life. Maybe it's just me but eternal life sounds so damn boring. Sure I could use more time, but I doubt I'd really give a shit about much in 50 gazillion gazillion gazillion years time. What makes it worse is that right now is about the time where some theist informs me that I would spend all of that time, (and the rest of eternity), worshipping this god. That's one hell of an ego... eternity of worship for him? He's pushing it a little bit.

Obedience. Loyalty, Trust.
Why else have parents?

Certainly. Of course as parents would know kids are vulnerable in that they do not have much in the way of knowledge of good and evil. They love you, trust you and are loyal but that doesn't stop them falling victim to the local paedophile because of their lack of knowledge of evil. As any parent bar one would tell you, if you knew they were going to fall victim you'd intervene. Any parent would. Except one. Any parent that willingly allows their children to become victims does not sit good in my book. Even worse would be the parent that, because of his kids mistake, then goes on to punish his grandkids, great grandkids and so on and so forth and then deems the best forgiveness is to kill his most special child.

That's the say you think he's done nothing to correct the problem.

That's interesting isn't it? You see, with all that blaming of satan and disrespect for him and it seems like he is doing even you a massive favour. It is typically held that these "bad" people, rapists and whatnot, get punished in hell - an eternal pit.. Funnily enough satan apparently rules that pit and therefore:

A) Is clearly still a much needed employee of god

B) Can hardly be accused of causing the problem when he is the method god uses to solve it.

C) Or... you're espousing that god does nothing to solve the problem but satan does.

There are poisions all around us some people live with guns, open electrical plugs and drano under the sink. If your grown adult child decided to stick his finger in the socket, play with a gun, or swallow drano it's hardly your fault.

It is my fault if I didn't give him knowledge of good and evil. There's nothing wrong with sticking your fingers in the electric socket when you have no understanding of wrong. Is playing with a gun bad? Not if you have no knowledge of 'bad'. That is why they were like children.

I can't agree. Nor does the rest of the bible.

You are now calling god a liar. In his own words he makes the statement that they gained the knowledge after eating the fruit. That you contest this issue is perhaps something you'd be better, (or worse), off taking up with god.

Clearly they knew good. Infact Genesis does not tell us either way

In fact Genesis does, indeed god does. You're calling god a liar and you're lying. That's not a good start. You can't say "clearly they knew good", state that the bible doesn't say so, against god's statements and consider yourself as having a worthwhile argument. But it's all you've got isn't it? Make it up, insert it yourself... Oh so shameful.

Having no knowledge of bad means you're inclined to do good.

Lol, you'd never know if what you did was bad. Not having knowledge of bad does not prevent you from doing it, it merely prevents you from recognising it for what it is.

 

[Saquist]

The point is, how would they know that, they have no knowledge of Good and Bad.



This does not tell them that death is bad. The 'discontinuation of life' on Earth, does not necessarily mean the discontinuation of existence. Isn't that the key ingredient of any religion?

Not according to the Bible. You're refering to the immortality of the soul. While the bible does speak about those that will become immortal it does not state that man's soul is undying infact it says the opposite. There are a couple scriptures refering to those that will go to heaven but these speak nothing of man's soul. In relation a vast majority of scriptures actually speak of death as sleep and as state where there is no planning or seeing or thinking, the same as the animals. There is of course disagreement.

Besides, the point is, they had no understanding of good and bad... they could not tell the two apart. Good to obey God, Bad to disobey?.. or is it the other way around? I can't tell, can you?... maybe after we eat this fruit, we will be able to tell?[/QUOTE]

(sorry I didn't see this)
Well lets assume they had neither I you suggest. Then why did they make this particular choice?

Where in genesis does it state they know good?
If they didn't know "bad" then they obviously could not separate the two concepts and know good was good. Nor could they know God was good.

You're right lets' not assume.
Imperfection means an error so we know they were without error. But that tells us nothing of what they new. We could assume but lets ask the all important question If you don't know then how do you make a choice?
Put yourself in there shoes at that time period. What would you do?

 

[Revolvr]

Im a strong believer in christ as my savior and in god and the holy spirit. A answer to these questions would furthur my walk with god even more. Thank you and god bless
-John D.

If you want a serious answer to a serious question about your faith, this is the last place I'd look. I suggest you find a Christian forum. The atheist faithful here will mostly try to talk you out of your delusion.

 

[Myles]

Nice to see you again in all your humility. You were going to explain why the greatest philosopher writing in English , David Hume, was arguing in a circle. Is that something you were told on a Christian forum ?

Stick to visiting Christian forums where you will have your ignorance re-inforced. Avoid people who reason, like the plague !

 

[Revolvr]

Nice to see you again in all your humility. You were going to explain why the greatest philosopher writing in English , David Hume, was arguing in a circle. Is that something you were told on a Christian forum ?

Stick to visiting Christian forums where you will have your ignorance re-inforced. Avoid people who reason, like the plague !

Your response to that validated my claim. No need to get on my case because you can't see it. There is much you can't see.

 

[Revolvr]

I understand your points of different or no belief's although trying to convince me there is no god is pretty much impossible because of my past experiences. Call me delusional.... call me anything I dont mind I would only like someone more scripturally educated to help me understand my own questions that are definitly answerable maybe not threw direct physical evidence but surely there is a answer.

Interesting the atheists here feel the need to evangelize their faith. Most atheists are evangelists. They want to argue it and appear to want to gain converts. Why would this be? I don't talk to people about my non-belief in pink unicorns. On the other hand if somewhere deep in my heart I really thought pink unicorns might exist, and I really wanted them not to exist and I felt insecure about it and wanted to talk to others to validate my belief, I might engage in arguments about pink unicorns. Perhaps this is why atheists feel the need to argue God so often?

 

[SkinWalker]

Interesting the atheists here feel the need to evangelize their faith. Most atheists are evangelists. They want to argue it and appear to want to gain converts.

Actually, what's interesting is your special type of ad hominem known as tu quoque.

It leaves one to wonder if the superstitious people who find themselves posting at the Religion section of a Science forum don't actually see some problem with their superstitions. Thus they basically say, "you, too" at accusations of faith, belief, evangelism, etc.

There's no "evangelism" of atheism going on here. I freely admit to the desire of wanting to share rational perspectives with a hope that rational thought will emerge. If this means that the discussions include the point of not buying into credulous claims of gods and superstitions, then that's a symptom of rational thought.

But, like many deluded by superstitions and cult beliefs, they want to say, "you, too!" to the atheists. Sorry. It doesn't wash, bub.

 

[Myles]

Your response to that validated my claim. No need to get on my case because you can't see it. There is much you can't see.

You and Saquist make a right pair. You both avoid facts like the plague.

What is " your response to that validated my claim" supposed to mean ?

It means you are so ignorant that you accuse one of the worls's greatest philosophers of arguing in a circle and ,when asked where he did so. you regard the question as validating your claim. A nice way to substantiate your claim.

I suggest you picked up that rubbish about Hume on a Christian website like some of the ones I have seen. They explain why evolutionary theory is wrong because the Bible does not sanction it, so they have invented ID. I have yet to speak to anyone on these sites who knows the first thing about evolution. How could they when they will not read " unholy " books which might rock the boat ?

Where others use reason to seek answers, you make it your business to remain ignorant and snipe at those who don't buy your mythology, using snippets of information which you do not understand and which you seem to think constitute an argument. You and Saquist have provided evidence that you cannot engage in rational debate, as anyone who looks at some of your other posts will see.

 

[Saquist]

Actually, what's interesting is your special type of ad hominem known as tu quoque.

It leaves one to wonder if the superstitious people who find themselves posting at the Religion section of a Science forum don't actually see some problem with their superstitions. Thus they basically say, "you, too" at accusations of faith, belief, evangelism, etc.

There's no "evangelism" of atheism going on here. I freely admit to the desire of wanting to share rational perspectives with a hope that rational thought will emerge. If this means that the discussions include the point of not buying into credulous claims of gods and superstitions, then that's a symptom of rational thought.

But, like many deluded by superstitions and cult beliefs, they want to say, "you, too!" to the atheists. Sorry. It doesn't wash, bub.

It's not an illogical path or reasoning but it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. Religion and faith can cause a sense of blindness but there are direct causes. Some like myself and Revolvr have found harmony between the two.

Yet I believe that those that are simply dogmatic in discussion whether believer or atheist fall short of rationality. irrationality is just the system of agenda.

 

[Myles]

It's not an illogical path or reasoning but it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. Religion and faith can cause a sense of blindness but there are direct causes. Some like myself and Revolvr have found harmony between the two.

Yet I believe that those that are simply dogmatic in discussion whether believer or atheist fall short of rationality. irrationality is just the system of agenda.

I would never accuse you of being rational; most of ypour posts show why this is so.

You start from the premise that the Bible, or rather your version of it. is the word of god which can only be questioned uncritically. From that point on the only thinking you do is about how to make the ridiculous plausible. And you can't even make a good job of that.

 

[nova900]

Imperfection means an error so we know they were without error. But that tells us nothing of what they new. We could assume but lets ask the all important question If you don't know then how do you make a choice?
Put yourself in there shoes at that time period. What would you do?

If I only knew good as you say and did not know the concept of bad,there is no way I could make a distinction between what God wanted (don't eat that apple) or Satan (eat that apple) as being either good or evil. Being only good and perfect as you say I would have no negative emotions or agenda and might have felt the devil was actually a good guy and trust him. I would have no way whatsoever of knowing that God was a superior being and represented what is supposed to be considered good.
If anything the God of the OT demonstrated very little in the way of what we consider morally good and the old excuse "his moral base is superior and beyond our understanding " is a total farce!
That's the thing I find most ironic. We are told the devil and his demons represent all those evil things but their actions in relation to Yahwehs constant fits of anger,jealousy,outright slaughters and constant contempt for so much around him is like comparing the actions of a naughty schoolboy to tyrants like Timur(Tamarlane)

 

[Spud Emperor]

Revolvr, I guarantee something was majorly amiss in your life until you found the wonderful sanctity of the Lord's word. Either that or you were brought up with the Lord/the way and never bothered to question. Which was it?

 

[Revolvr]

You and Saquist make a right pair. You both avoid facts like the plague.

What is " your response to that validated my claim" supposed to mean ?

It means you are so ignorant that you accuse one of the worls's greatest philosophers of arguing in a circle and ,when asked where he did so. you regard the question as validating your claim. A nice way to substantiate your claim.

I suggest you picked up that rubbish about Hume on a Christian website like some of the ones I have seen. They explain why evolutionary theory is wrong because the Bible does not sanction it, so they have invented ID. I have yet to speak to anyone on these sites who knows the first thing about evolution. How could they when they will not read " unholy " books which might rock the boat ?

Where others use reason to seek answers, you make it your business to remain ignorant and snipe at those who don't buy your mythology, using snippets of information which you do not understand and which you seem to think constitute an argument. You and Saquist have provided evidence that you cannot engage in rational debate, as anyone who looks at some of your other posts will see.

Who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

You replied with a couple of quotes from Hume that in no way invalidated my view. I saw no need to reply further.

It is the atheist who has great faith in the nonexistence of the scientifically unproven. Doesn't seem too scientific to me. Atheism is intellectually dishonest. You go to your atheist Gospel web sites and pick up disingenuous one-sided arguments that commonly ignore facts and misinterpret the Bible, generate meaningless statistics. Then take great pride in repeating it here.

Atheists like to think the Gospel of Evolution disproves God. Evolution has become dogma, like anthropomorphic global warming, where scientists are not allowed to discuss its flaws. Why don't you tell me about the flaws? Can you be that objective? Evolution, even the parts that do fit the evidence, do not disprove God.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was quoted as saying, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Crick is an atheist. He cannot believe in a creator. So now he says that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships.

You believe this too don't you? Tell me more about these spaceships.

 

[Saquist]

If I only knew good as you say and did not know the concept of bad,there is no way I could make a distinction between what God wanted (don't eat that apple) or Satan (eat that apple) as being either good or evil. Being only good and perfect as you say I would have no negative emotions or agenda and might have felt the devil was actually a good guy and trust him. I would have no way whatsoever of knowing that God was a superior being and represented what is supposed to be considered good.

You share a similar mind as Adam. Let's assume he knew neither Good nor bad. You both have a reasoning mind and a sense of self preservation.
So where does the warning "not to eat from the tree" stand for you?
Do you endanger your life or not? And Why?

 

[Saquist]

Who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?


It is the atheist who has great faith in the nonexistence of the scientifically unproven. Doesn't seem too scientific to me. Atheism is intellectually dishonest.

Truer words rarely been spoken on the Forum.

 

[Revolvr]

Revolvr, I guarantee something was majorly amiss in your life until you found the wonderful sanctity of the Lord's word. Either that or you were brought up with the Lord/the way and never bothered to question. Which was it?

What brings you to such a conclusion?

 

[Spud Emperor]

What brings you to such a conclusion?

You sound like a second rate politician. Or an apologetic Christian.
Just answer the question. It is not that hard.