Reflections of a Former Christian
- Thread starter §outh§tar
- Start date
I'm sure your daughter understands you perfectly, but here's a principle from the book "Growing up before your children do": If we don't want a child to keep doing something, we don't allow it to be repeated. This is exactly what God did when Adam and Eve made a mistake. He took them away from the temptation. He didn't take away the trees in paradise, because they were part of the reason it was paradise. Obedience doesn't just consist of telling someone something is wrong, but in showing them that it's wrong - even while forgiving them for the mistake.SnakeLord said:
Jenyar said:
LOL. I didn't.
I just saw "verse blah this bible god jesus sayeth" and presumed.
Don't read my observation if you don't like it.
Why don't you read my post above to water and actually learn something? Hmm. I don't think I speak your language. Perhaps If I'd put it in bible speak you could get it.
I sayeth unto thee that thou shalt not judgeth of the reality of the lord, as ifeth he be, he hath separated your from himself upon granting your awareness. Thus he granteth you independence, or the idea of the lord be-eth short sighted-eth in its conception. If thouest can find sense in thine context, then thou art truly blessed. Have faith in the strength of thine good will, and thou shalt livest to thine days in completeness.
And don't sweateth thine small shit.
So sayeth the nerd.
Last edited:
Jenyar said:
Sorry about the late reply Jenyar. I was making a long post to respond to some people in the meantime.
Do you think apostates are condemned by God?
4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
7For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.
(Hebrew 6)
Like I said, I didn't exactly go around looking to lose my faith. It is more accurate to speak of my faith leaving me. Just as you cannot, at this moment, willfully decide to stop believing in Jesus, so could I not. And that is the problem I have when Christians here intimate that my apostasy is 'my fault'. I know you used 'people' instead of 'you' but the gist is still the same. The miracle I asked for was nothing too spectacular for God. He has specifically promised to give us wisdom and also to be with us till the end of time. Considering this, I struggle to see why He did not at least dip His finger in water and touch my tongue when I was at my weakest and looked to Him most earnestly.
There is nothing wrong with expecting miracles from God since a) they fortify faith in an age of skepticism b) God is not tired; He is the same miracle worker of yesteryear; nothing is too difficult for Him.
Your interpretation of Paul's words in 2 Timothy is debatable. The context, rather than pointing to a corporate promise, tells us that the promise is made "to faithful men", and more specifically, "for the sake of the elect". Paul has specific diction in his epistles and he makes exhortations and gives counsels to churches without wordplay and here, even as he wants the message passed on "to faithful men", he is addressing not a nation, or people, but his 'son'. There is nothing in the context which can tell us that "we" refers to the entire body of Christ.
Such a hypothesis suffers to explain my condition at the time. If I couldn't believe that God was faithful and I could not remember Jesus, then crying out to God and God alone in my darkest time brings my sanity into question, does it not?
No, that is wrong. It is precisely because I believed God was a God of power, the God of James 1:5, that I entreated and begged Him FULLY expecting Him to fulfill His promise. If you will say that He would have answered me in His own time, then the apologetic fails since He waited until after my faith had waned it's last. If you say He answered me degree by degree when I was erroneously expecting a supercharge of faith instead then that too is false. I am tempted to use the analogy of the drowning man in the storm who is drawn in inch by inch despite his most earnest begging.
That sits on James 1:19
Saved from the snares of Satan, which threaten to snuff faith. 1 Cor 10:13 Why did He not make me a way of escape, as promised?
If God did not forsake me, then why did He not fulfill His promises?
I allowed God's faithfulness for a loong time during that period, believing that my foolishness blinded me from the wisdom of God, and yet He still hid his face.
Will He find fault?
Because I am so estranged from Christianity, I cannot now speak of God in terms of the Christian God. But I will say this. From time to time, in order to quell the questions of doubt and uncertainty which rise from time to time, I wait for God to fulfill His promise. But surely, if He hasn't fulfilled one for 2000 years, it's hard to hope He's going to fulfill one now.
Despite all the prayers, Terri Schiavo died (or was already dead, if you like).
That's a lame cop out for God. If it is not God's will that something happens, then His omnipotence is questionable for one. My conviction is also not that I have been rejected. Here is an analogy to explain what I see it as: Imagine a mother who sits on the porch and drinks lemonade whilst her three year old is mauled by wolves. That's not 'rejection'. Besides that, I never forgot that God existed before me and I did not want Him to 'prove' anything, all I asked was that He snatch my unfaithfulness and set me on the path of His choosing. Not much room in that for arrogance, I think. Just a man being earnest with God and prostrating himself.
We're establishing the grounds for a morality sans God right now. Feel free to read through the post I made on the previous page if you like. Thanks for all your advice and concern; I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
jayleew
Why have a child at all when all it can ever be expected to become is your right-hand, flunky or a mirror to see yourself in?
Do you have children only to have them serve you or worship you?
Only if he is worth it and if the creation is self-sustainable and independent.
If not then the creation is nothing but an extension of the creator, destined to never be anything more than that.
If there were, all free-will would be impossible and any attainment of free-will a joke.
Meaning is a creation not a discovery.
I will not find meaning in life, I will give it meaning.
And why not pursue your highest potential?
And why not explore your sensual interpretations of ‘reality?
And why not dedicate your life towards any goal that satisfies you as a person, instead of what satisfies another or a social group or a dogma?
Do you need to be given a reason to continue living?
If so then you certainly deserve not living.
Do you need to be told ‘truth’?
If so then you will always live in accordance to another’s.
Do you need to be told that life is worth something, that there is beauty as well as horror in it?
If so then another’s horror and definition of beauty will keep you confined to his motives.
If you want me to give you an alternative a reason to persist, then maybe you should just remain in the delusion you so need.
I hate everything that imposes itself upon my reality.
Live in a world of Goblins and Ghosts believe in Fairies and Leprechauns, if you wish, just don’t affect mine or I’ll tell you what you are.
I remember those retards that chopped off their penises and committed suicide at the sight of a comet, thinking it was an alien space ship come to whisk them away from Earth.
Did I mind them?
No. What else will entertain me?
Would I try to talk sense into them?
Only if they begin imposing themselves on my existence.
Then I’ll let them know how retarded they are.
But wait someone might let us know how happy and content they are, how loving and compassionate and unselfish and full of joy….
Now he pretends that he also knows life and that I, Satyr, do not hold a “monopoly on the right to enjoy the suffering of others”.
A hint that he has been intimidated, here. Just a hint.
Whereas he firstly wanted to present himself as an example of unbound joy and a life full of purpose and having one worth living, he saw how pathetically moronic and how obviously phony and pretentious this position was. So he backtracks now and only claims a piece of the pie.
My “delight”, retard, only comes from exposing your hypocrisy and revealing your blatant bragging, which hints, again, at some deep seated anxieties.
It’s like watching a colorblind man reciting the intricate colorations of a rainbow to a blind boy.
Look how he comforts himself:
How I envy the retarded, sometimes.
I mean if reality is a matter of perspective how peaceful and simple theirs is; so clear of any complications and blemishes.
Then I remember how weak and pathetic they are, and my envy turns into glee.
The Quantum Nut came here to tell us how happy and joyful he is and all that because he has love and compassion and purpose and he so desperately wants to share these gifts with others. He has been blessed with so many positive things, no doubt due to his brilliant mind, his deep wisdom and his positive outlook and courageous character.
It is the compassion and love of one that has never deciphered what that means but chooses to think of these words {Love, Compassion, Joy, Pleasure}, these mystical symbols, as omnipotent, transcending forces that will redeem his stupidity by making his suffering worthwhile.
Meanwhile he prefers to avoid those other, equally mystical forces of {Hate, Despair, Intolerance, Pain}, because he is told these are "negative, self-destructive things as opposed to the previous constructive, positive ones.
He has the purpose of one that has accepted what social norms and cultural imperatives were offered to him at birth, by mommy and daddy, as purpose and what nature commands him, through instinct and using pain/pleasure manipulations, to do and to be and to think.
His joy can be explained in multiple ways, since existence knows only ephemeral joy and existence can be defined as constant need that leads to constant desire and results in constant suffering:
It is either the joy of the unaware, who are content with superficial, mundane goals, just like a kitten finds infinite, unceasing pleasure in strings and cotton balls, the joy of a child never asking difficult questions and forever basking in the world of appearances, aesthetics and play.
It might be the pleasure of one wanting to pretend a life he wishes he had or thinks he should have or deserves to have. A way of competing with the neighbors so as to not seem like he’s made an error or that he wasn’t satisfied with what he originally thought would be enough for him to be happy; a forced artificial joy produced by his need to think of his life as meaningful and interesting, a hypocritical joy that acts out the appropriate signals for so long that it eventually falls victim to its own act.
Or it might be the joy of the defeated and cowardly, the ones that have given up the search, the questions, the struggle, the discomforts of reality and have grasped onto one of those life-preservers that sailors throw overboard.
The comforting sensation of that inflatable, rubber preserver, filled with air, makes him feel self-assured and safe. He now prefers bobbing up and down on the waves and doesn’t dare swim off on his own or dive into the dark, dangerous depths.
He sits on a mound of horseshit with pretty flowers growing on the surface.
He inhales the perfume, enjoys the colors and the textures, he tumbles on the grass, all the while forgetting about the hill of shit it is feeding off of.
When he is reminded of his delusion or his ignorance or his pretence he pretends that he is superior because he chooses to live on the surfaces where flowers bloom and birdies sing and butterflies fill the air with spectacles and the underground is forgotten and ignored.
Then, when he cannot avoid the shit, he insinuates that he knows about it but that is only half the truth and he lives within all of it.
Here is where his lies are exposed.
He believes the surface, pretty world of rainbows and dandelions and roses sparkling with the dewdrops of a spring shower are ‘half’ of reality and the horseshit it rests upon is the other ‘half’.
water
Can’t you smell it?
It’s on your face.
On Topic
Talking about God is like talking about Santa.
You can only humor children for so long before you want to talk about grown up things.
Trying to prove or disprove this human invention by using the Bible is like using science manuals to disprove science or using pop-culture prejudices and concepts to criticize pop-culture.
Now I can either sit here and quote passages from the Bible and indulge my need to feel superior to another by guiding him through the stages of awareness or I can just indulge this same need by destroying Qunatum Quak’s ego, instead.
I can sit here and go over the same subject matter for the umpteenth time with infants who have just learned to walk and think it’s a big deal or with adults with infantile minds that find pleasure in the obvious or who have ulterior motives, which I would love to expose or who are constantly tempted to return to their childish past and all its delights and comforts and want arguments against this mental degradation, because they don’t think they can survive for long without that past illusion and that naiveté or I can pluck my eyebrows and weak women’s lingerie, as I enjoy how I look in my mirror and get a hard-on from the silky fabric.
Guess which ones I chose.
Then is the child free?
Why have a child at all when all it can ever be expected to become is your right-hand, flunky or a mirror to see yourself in?
Do you have children only to have them serve you or worship you?
I’m assuming you meant to ask if a creator doesn’t deserve the honor of a creation.
Only if he is worth it and if the creation is self-sustainable and independent.
If not then the creation is nothing but an extension of the creator, destined to never be anything more than that.
There is no such thing.
If there were, all free-will would be impossible and any attainment of free-will a joke.
Meaning is a creation not a discovery.
I will not find meaning in life, I will give it meaning.
Why not?
And why not pursue your highest potential?
And why not explore your sensual interpretations of ‘reality?
And why not dedicate your life towards any goal that satisfies you as a person, instead of what satisfies another or a social group or a dogma?
Yes, and why not live instead?
Do you need to be given a reason to continue living?
If so then you certainly deserve not living.
Do you need to be told ‘truth’?
If so then you will always live in accordance to another’s.
Do you need to be told that life is worth something, that there is beauty as well as horror in it?
If so then another’s horror and definition of beauty will keep you confined to his motives.
If you want me to give you an alternative a reason to persist, then maybe you should just remain in the delusion you so need.
I hate everything that threatens my well-being and my freedom.
I hate everything that imposes itself upon my reality.
Live in a world of Goblins and Ghosts believe in Fairies and Leprechauns, if you wish, just don’t affect mine or I’ll tell you what you are.
I remember those retards that chopped off their penises and committed suicide at the sight of a comet, thinking it was an alien space ship come to whisk them away from Earth.
Did I mind them?
No. What else will entertain me?
Would I try to talk sense into them?
Only if they begin imposing themselves on my existence.
Then I’ll let them know how retarded they are.
But wait someone might let us know how happy and content they are, how loving and compassionate and unselfish and full of joy….
He originally wanted to present himself as an example of a well adjusted, modern mind that seeks out to help the wanton lamb that has lost its shepherd and now calls out for another.
Now he pretends that he also knows life and that I, Satyr, do not hold a “monopoly on the right to enjoy the suffering of others”.
A hint that he has been intimidated, here. Just a hint.
Whereas he firstly wanted to present himself as an example of unbound joy and a life full of purpose and having one worth living, he saw how pathetically moronic and how obviously phony and pretentious this position was. So he backtracks now and only claims a piece of the pie.
My “delight”, retard, only comes from exposing your hypocrisy and revealing your blatant bragging, which hints, again, at some deep seated anxieties.
It’s like watching a colorblind man reciting the intricate colorations of a rainbow to a blind boy.
Look how he comforts himself:
In one swoop he avoids confrontation and the dangers of me exposing his stupidity or hypocrisy in public and he also insinuates that he sees more of the bigger picture, as if Satyr’s life is only full of pain and suffering and, ugly, joyless solitude compared to his ecstatic, pleasurable, beautiful life full of the sublime wonderments of existence and constantly bombarded by milk, honey and rose-petals from the sky.
How I envy the retarded, sometimes.
I mean if reality is a matter of perspective how peaceful and simple theirs is; so clear of any complications and blemishes.
Then I remember how weak and pathetic they are, and my envy turns into glee.
The Quantum Nut came here to tell us how happy and joyful he is and all that because he has love and compassion and purpose and he so desperately wants to share these gifts with others. He has been blessed with so many positive things, no doubt due to his brilliant mind, his deep wisdom and his positive outlook and courageous character.
It is the compassion and love of one that has never deciphered what that means but chooses to think of these words {Love, Compassion, Joy, Pleasure}, these mystical symbols, as omnipotent, transcending forces that will redeem his stupidity by making his suffering worthwhile.
Meanwhile he prefers to avoid those other, equally mystical forces of {Hate, Despair, Intolerance, Pain}, because he is told these are "negative, self-destructive things as opposed to the previous constructive, positive ones.
He has the purpose of one that has accepted what social norms and cultural imperatives were offered to him at birth, by mommy and daddy, as purpose and what nature commands him, through instinct and using pain/pleasure manipulations, to do and to be and to think.
His joy can be explained in multiple ways, since existence knows only ephemeral joy and existence can be defined as constant need that leads to constant desire and results in constant suffering:
It is either the joy of the unaware, who are content with superficial, mundane goals, just like a kitten finds infinite, unceasing pleasure in strings and cotton balls, the joy of a child never asking difficult questions and forever basking in the world of appearances, aesthetics and play.
It might be the pleasure of one wanting to pretend a life he wishes he had or thinks he should have or deserves to have. A way of competing with the neighbors so as to not seem like he’s made an error or that he wasn’t satisfied with what he originally thought would be enough for him to be happy; a forced artificial joy produced by his need to think of his life as meaningful and interesting, a hypocritical joy that acts out the appropriate signals for so long that it eventually falls victim to its own act.
Or it might be the joy of the defeated and cowardly, the ones that have given up the search, the questions, the struggle, the discomforts of reality and have grasped onto one of those life-preservers that sailors throw overboard.
The comforting sensation of that inflatable, rubber preserver, filled with air, makes him feel self-assured and safe. He now prefers bobbing up and down on the waves and doesn’t dare swim off on his own or dive into the dark, dangerous depths.
He sits on a mound of horseshit with pretty flowers growing on the surface.
He inhales the perfume, enjoys the colors and the textures, he tumbles on the grass, all the while forgetting about the hill of shit it is feeding off of.
When he is reminded of his delusion or his ignorance or his pretence he pretends that he is superior because he chooses to live on the surfaces where flowers bloom and birdies sing and butterflies fill the air with spectacles and the underground is forgotten and ignored.
Then, when he cannot avoid the shit, he insinuates that he knows about it but that is only half the truth and he lives within all of it.
Here is where his lies are exposed.
He believes the surface, pretty world of rainbows and dandelions and roses sparkling with the dewdrops of a spring shower are ‘half’ of reality and the horseshit it rests upon is the other ‘half’.
water
Yes.
Can’t you smell it?
It’s on your face.
On Topic
Talking about God is like talking about Santa.
You can only humor children for so long before you want to talk about grown up things.
Trying to prove or disprove this human invention by using the Bible is like using science manuals to disprove science or using pop-culture prejudices and concepts to criticize pop-culture.
Now I can either sit here and quote passages from the Bible and indulge my need to feel superior to another by guiding him through the stages of awareness or I can just indulge this same need by destroying Qunatum Quak’s ego, instead.
I can sit here and go over the same subject matter for the umpteenth time with infants who have just learned to walk and think it’s a big deal or with adults with infantile minds that find pleasure in the obvious or who have ulterior motives, which I would love to expose or who are constantly tempted to return to their childish past and all its delights and comforts and want arguments against this mental degradation, because they don’t think they can survive for long without that past illusion and that naiveté or I can pluck my eyebrows and weak women’s lingerie, as I enjoy how I look in my mirror and get a hard-on from the silky fabric.
Guess which ones I chose.
Last edited:
stretched,
This parable is based on the belief that God is evil. Only someone who already believes that God is evil will come up with such a story to explain his version of the morality behind the happenings in Eden.
Moreover, it assumes that a situation created by humans can resemble that wherein God is an agent. Which is once more a falsity. Humans do not know what it is like to be God, and they must therefore refrain from making allegories wherein the part of God is played by a human.
That they or we "weren't given a chance to learn from their mistake" only reveals your poor understanding of *Christ*ianity.
No. But we are responsible for our actions, in good and in bad.
If we would see no connection between our intent and our action, we would lose all sense of having done something, which would in turn paralyze us and make us unable to live.
Try: Your intent is to drop a pen. Do so. Unless you see that the pen is then on the ground, not in your hand anymore, you will think you have done nothing, even though you had the intent and have noticed dropping the pen. We do not choose the consequences of our actions, and each action has a course determined by the way the universe works.
Just like we aren't able to walk on our head. Some things are beyond our scope. To claim it should be otherwise, or to complain it isn't otherwise, only reveals our god-complex.
Yes.
For example, students do not understand that not doing their homework is bad for them. At best, they are able to see the short-term repercussions (as bad grades), but this is it for them.
If they are allowed to get away with not doing their homework once, or twice, or x-times, they will insist that doing their homework is ultimately pointless, so why do it all. Allow for this, and you allow that not going to school at all is a valid option. And then it just spreads: not working is a valid option, being a parasite and having others to provide for you is a valid option. Is it really?
No disobedience should go unpunished, and the punishment has to be real.
* * *
Jenyar,
Exactly. It is beyond *human* understanding what disobedience to God brings. A living human does not know death first hand, this is why he can toy with God's warnings.
* * *
wesmorris,
Only if you believe so.
I make them ex negativo, using only logic.
In fact, logic is the straightest path to an omnimax entity: where logic fails, you make inferences. And they are inferences of the first cause or eternity. Inferences of consistency and coherence.
Technically, yes. But if you have ever found yourself in situations where your body was deadly threatened, then you make experiences that give you some insight into death.
Ever ran before an angry cow?
Ever faced a rabid dog?
Ever been diagnosed with suspicion of meningytis, and left for 3 weeks until all the symptoms show?
Ever been assaulted and overpowered?
The experience of actually fearing for your well-being is a source of knowledge about death. One might not become aware of this knowledge immediately, and it may not become active immediately. But it can work its way up. (And I'm not talking about near-death experiences.)
Conclusions reached by someone immersed into comfort.
I think this is a similar situation of lack of understading as when men tend to not understand why a women thinks about pregnancy *before* sex.
It is supposed to be relative. What well-being is to person A is situation X, may not be well-being to B in the same circumstances (like two people sitting next to eachother in the middle of the waiting hall at an airport), but both are concerned with their wel--being.
A matter of characater, yes.
??
Maybe, it would take you to indulge your absolutism and ego to the extreme to make such assertions, but I assure you I am not. Pick up any heavy philosophy book.
Yes. And what is this character? One that fears nothing? Or one that fears nothingness?
Sure. But think meta. You assume I am indulging my absolutism and my ego, when I am in fact speaking in strictly meta terms.
Some people are like that, yes. But I'm interested in their justification for their course of action, in their meaning of life.
I'm not interested in them; I'm just interested in the argument behind a certain stance.
I'm interested in your conceptualization of love, in what your love is based on.
I do not think that you share the same understanding of scripture as the one quoting them does.
This parable is based on the belief that God is evil. Only someone who already believes that God is evil will come up with such a story to explain his version of the morality behind the happenings in Eden.
Moreover, it assumes that a situation created by humans can resemble that wherein God is an agent. Which is once more a falsity. Humans do not know what it is like to be God, and they must therefore refrain from making allegories wherein the part of God is played by a human.
That they or we "weren't given a chance to learn from their mistake" only reveals your poor understanding of *Christ*ianity.
No. But we are responsible for our actions, in good and in bad.
If we would see no connection between our intent and our action, we would lose all sense of having done something, which would in turn paralyze us and make us unable to live.
Try: Your intent is to drop a pen. Do so. Unless you see that the pen is then on the ground, not in your hand anymore, you will think you have done nothing, even though you had the intent and have noticed dropping the pen. We do not choose the consequences of our actions, and each action has a course determined by the way the universe works.
Just like we aren't able to walk on our head. Some things are beyond our scope. To claim it should be otherwise, or to complain it isn't otherwise, only reveals our god-complex.
Yes.
For example, students do not understand that not doing their homework is bad for them. At best, they are able to see the short-term repercussions (as bad grades), but this is it for them.
If they are allowed to get away with not doing their homework once, or twice, or x-times, they will insist that doing their homework is ultimately pointless, so why do it all. Allow for this, and you allow that not going to school at all is a valid option. And then it just spreads: not working is a valid option, being a parasite and having others to provide for you is a valid option. Is it really?
No disobedience should go unpunished, and the punishment has to be real.
* * *
Jenyar,
Exactly. It is beyond *human* understanding what disobedience to God brings. A living human does not know death first hand, this is why he can toy with God's warnings.
* * *
wesmorris,
Only if you believe so.
I make them ex negativo, using only logic.
In fact, logic is the straightest path to an omnimax entity: where logic fails, you make inferences. And they are inferences of the first cause or eternity. Inferences of consistency and coherence.
Technically, yes. But if you have ever found yourself in situations where your body was deadly threatened, then you make experiences that give you some insight into death.
Ever ran before an angry cow?
Ever faced a rabid dog?
Ever been diagnosed with suspicion of meningytis, and left for 3 weeks until all the symptoms show?
Ever been assaulted and overpowered?
The experience of actually fearing for your well-being is a source of knowledge about death. One might not become aware of this knowledge immediately, and it may not become active immediately. But it can work its way up. (And I'm not talking about near-death experiences.)
Conclusions reached by someone immersed into comfort.
I think this is a similar situation of lack of understading as when men tend to not understand why a women thinks about pregnancy *before* sex.
It is supposed to be relative. What well-being is to person A is situation X, may not be well-being to B in the same circumstances (like two people sitting next to eachother in the middle of the waiting hall at an airport), but both are concerned with their wel--being.
A matter of characater, yes.
??
Maybe, it would take you to indulge your absolutism and ego to the extreme to make such assertions, but I assure you I am not. Pick up any heavy philosophy book.
Yes. And what is this character? One that fears nothing? Or one that fears nothingness?
Sure. But think meta. You assume I am indulging my absolutism and my ego, when I am in fact speaking in strictly meta terms.
Some people are like that, yes. But I'm interested in their justification for their course of action, in their meaning of life.
I'm not interested in them; I'm just interested in the argument behind a certain stance.
I'm interested in your conceptualization of love, in what your love is based on.
I do not think that you share the same understanding of scripture as the one quoting them does.
§outh§tar,
What is important here is: Do you consider yourself to be an apostate?
What was the miracle you asked for?
Wisdom or knowledge?
And how can you tell whether He is with you or not?
Ahem.
You are taking upon yourself to do the part God has to do. And it is because of this that you do not see His doings, but your own -- which are imperfect and faulty and disappointing.
We have no insight into what was going on there, we do not have the whole story. So it is better to refrain from such statements as above.
No. Whatever God wills, this happens. But we do not know God's will in all cases, so we can't make assessments of whether He is omnipotent or not.
(Wes, if you are reading this: This is merely a logical argument, a matter of consistency and implications of basic premises.)
Hah! Hah! SouthStar, you little bastard you. You wanted to make God be responsible for your obedience to Him, you wanted that God release you from your free will and choose for you.
God has granted you faith, but your obedience to Him is *your* thing. This is the really hard and scary part!
* * *
Satyr,
No, I can't smell your anus. You have been feeding mostly on hot air, so there is no digestion excrements from you, and thus no smell.
The other things you have fed on, you are throwing back up all the time.
We'll have to give you some proper food first.
What is important here is: Do you consider yourself to be an apostate?
What was the miracle you asked for?
Wisdom or knowledge?
And how can you tell whether He is with you or not?
Ahem.
You are taking upon yourself to do the part God has to do. And it is because of this that you do not see His doings, but your own -- which are imperfect and faulty and disappointing.
We have no insight into what was going on there, we do not have the whole story. So it is better to refrain from such statements as above.
No. Whatever God wills, this happens. But we do not know God's will in all cases, so we can't make assessments of whether He is omnipotent or not.
(Wes, if you are reading this: This is merely a logical argument, a matter of consistency and implications of basic premises.)
Hah! Hah! SouthStar, you little bastard you. You wanted to make God be responsible for your obedience to Him, you wanted that God release you from your free will and choose for you.
God has granted you faith, but your obedience to Him is *your* thing. This is the really hard and scary part!
* * *
Satyr,
No, I can't smell your anus. You have been feeding mostly on hot air, so there is no digestion excrements from you, and thus no smell.
The other things you have fed on, you are throwing back up all the time.
We'll have to give you some proper food first.
water said:
I guess not. The only word available for a theist who is no longer a theist is apostate. That does not describe me since apostate refers to a willful defection. But the trap here is that most Christians here I know cannot bring themselves to fathom that someone can unwillfuly lose faith. You might accuse them but there is basis for this in the Bible.
The answer to your first question is faith (to replenish my battered store). The second is a little tricky since I am now of the perspective that He was never with me to begin with - all a product of herdism. But that is probably irrelevant to answering your question if we change its timeframe to the point at which my faith was leaving me. At that time, I knew He was not with me (but I feared at the time that it might have been because He left me). But I believed in the promise so that in praying I believe His answer would put all such troubles to sleep. You might say if I had faith to pray and faith to believe that an answer was coming then my faith was ok but those prayers were prayers of desperation from one who wanted to cling to faith in God.
Problem is God never showed up at crunch time.
According to the promise that He will answer our prayer, I think not. If you say He will only answer at His discretion, then you mean He forsook me at His discretion.
Jenyar believes God is omnipotent and I was writing to Him. If we stick with your rational then we can say nothing about God, much less the word God itself.
42Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done."
Matthew 26
Many similar verses of commendation to be found.
water said:
Is it only my belief that your statement came from your body, or what emerged from it? Is it only my belief that your ideas on this topic emerged from your mind? Is it only my belief that you are limited to the context of you, even if you think it isn't? Is it only my belief that you, if focused on god, have extended that idea from your being, from your experience? Was god your idea?
LOL. What fact? I'm sorry but that isn't an argument. It's an assertion, rather, a set of them which are only subjectively true. Game over.
Consistency and coherence are relative. They presume one abides by the same rules you do. Since everyone lives in their own impression of reality, the rules are often simply non-existent in the minds of those you might argue with on any topic you think you know the rules about. (screw it I'm not fixing that sentence)
Sorry, but the threat of death and its related reflections don't really say much to the facts of any matter but itself. Hardly can one make claims of death without being dead, in which case claims are rather... sparse to say the least.
No. I know the adrenaline rush of serious threat, yes.
Emotionally charged experiences count as knowledge of death eh? You're stretching for one who claims to be so coldly logical. Near death is not death, just so you know. Death is a rotting body.
No, that's a data source for study about fixation. You can't be serious.
Says you? I'm not convinced... now what?
It's a state of mind. You make no point.
Dragging your christian baggage into the scenario doesn't improve your argument. You are trying to pretend you have knowledge of something you have ZERO knowledge of, and can't. This is the shortest route to delusion. You can't be alive and know death. They are mutually exclusive conditions if you didn't notice. You're arguing from mysticism based on overwhelming emotions as if they are evident of more than a strong emotional experience. It's interesting how our emotions convince of us things (myself included of course).
Okay then.
Indeed.
I'll take your word for it, but assert the same nonetheless. There may be a certain truth to the generalization, but one cannot predict the moment before the moment arrives in particular context, except based in character - if it can be exposed.
Yes. And what is this character? One that fears nothing? Or one that fears nothingness?
Fear? Fear's function is in the moment. Those who over-utilize it pay the cost in fixation on things like death.
Character IMO, is a volume, cohesion and power of personality.
Perhapsit's a harmony of egos. Like your favorite song in personality form. Somethign that moves that instance of personality that is YOU.
You're correct about that. So what? My opinion is unchanged.
IMO he has done exactly as you asked...and well here we are.......it could be argued that God wants to be seen and religion only serves to hide the truth and not expose it.......
No problem. If you won't mind a long post in reply...§outh§tar said:
In other words, if they reject what Christ had achieved on the cross. This has nothing to do with how much faith you feel you have, or at what stage of maturity of faith you are in. This section states the sufficiency of Christ to do what he came to do, and the unavailability of salvation outside Him. It also emphasizes what I've said: that Christ already fulfilled God's promise, and it seems that you expected the same promise to be fulfilled again, in your personal life. Your salvation never depended on your experience of God, or the strength of your faith, but in God's action.
But to extend the metaphor: you haven't received the last rain until you let out your last breath, and your "rejection" isn't complete until that day ("near to being cursed"). The fruit you will have produced by that time will testify about your actual decisions, not just your intellectual ones.
Faith is not an autonomous entity that can leave or arrive by its own will. If God's Spirit was saddened within you, it might have produced those forlorn feelings to make you aware of something. Find "fault" or placing blame is not the issue, what matters is how you responded, and the consequences of that response, which was for you to renounce your faith. "It" did not "leave" you anymore than a sound leaves you when it is drowned out by something louder.
But He did not promise that you will use this wisdom or feel His proximity. Neither of these undo what God did through Christ, or affect your security with Him.
Paul also asked God to remove the weakness that often threatened to bring him down:
2 Cor. 12:8-10
Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
He elaborates in Romans 8:Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Romans 8:22-26
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.
God's faithfulness does not depend on your strengths, your wisdom, or your experience of circumstances.We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.
I contest (a), since miracles are just as likely to have the opposite effect in an age of skepticism (and Jesus himself performed miracles according to faith, not where there was unbelief) and (b) Miracles were used as confirmation of someone's authority - with purpose, not just because God can. Once again, not a placeholder for faith. And then there are Jesus' own words:
Luke 4:24-27 "I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian."
We can't claim divine intervention just because we believe that nothing is too difficult for God. That may be true, but that doesn't mean if something doesn't work out as planned that God couldn't do it. Still less it means that He wasn't there to do it. Neither can we demand such attention because we think we were on the "inside". We may ask for miracles, but should be just as happy if we receive them by "normal" means.Combine the two thoughts here: Paul "endures everything for the sake of the elect", and God remains faithful even though we are unfaithful. The faithful support the unfaithful and the faithless. This was evidently Paul's intention, because he adds "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth...". Paul addresses Timothy with people in your situation in mind.
You may not have gotten the wisdom you asked for in a way that you would perceive to be "directly from God", but that doesn't mean it hasn't been made available to you anyway. Paul ends his letter to Timothy with this: "...continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus".
What kind of wisdom did you ask for, that you know you didn't receive it? What kind of faith did you want God to strengthen? You might be getting what you asked for - even while you're without faith - but eventually you will have to believe what God tells you for that knowledge to mean anything to you.
At some stage, you will have to decide whether you are disappointed in God, or whether you don't believe He exists. The two are mutually exclusive. If you don't believe He exists - or existed even when you thought He did - you are only fooling yourself to think that God "failed" you. If you do not believe God now, that means you believe there was also no faith to lose back then. On the other hand, I can tell you that the faith it takes to be mad at God is the same amount of faith that Jesus' said can move mountains, just misapplied.
You are no doubt aware that you have since doubted the truth of James 1:5, so appealing to it shows the double-mindedness it warns against. You have lost the expectation of receiving an answer, and perhaps the answer might become clear when you address the real issues.
You say God failed because He waited until after your faith had waned, but if you still have enough faith to resent Him for that, perhaps God is showing you that that is all the faith you'll need. Because it's not the amount of faith that saves you, it's Him. "If we are faithless, he will remain faithful". Has the implication of this verse started sinking in yet?
God did not need you to have the faith you asked for to be there for you, or to save you. Jesus made this clear in Luke 17:5, when the apostles asked Prostithemi hemin pistis!: "Increase our faith!"
James 1:19-20
My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.
And it certainly doesn't bring about that life. I'm not sure I see your point. When we are "quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry", this doesn't make us any more certain of salvation. But it speaks of the kind of attitude that our knowledge of salvation should bring - it's the attitude God saved us for.My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.
How do you know He didn't? 1 Cor. 10:13 speaks of the temptation to sin, that God gives us the strength to stand up under it and escape (not that He will remove them, or "put them to sleep"). These snares might strangle your faith, but it doesn't affect God's faithfulness. Romans 8 again:
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (v.38-39)
You haven't lived 2000 years, so that's just a statment of your new faith. As for promising wisdom, maybe it required that you get rid of some misconceptions - and with it, the faith that relied on those misconceptions. Christ is still there to love you, Christians are still there to ask questions to, the Bible is still there to "make you wise for salvation".
Either there is a deeper seated resentment against God, or you haven't been clear about your reasons for abandoning ship. If they're not quite clear to you yourself yet, I pray that you will receive the clarity you seek.
Many people die in spite of prayers. Prayer doesn't operate God like a slot machine, and as you pointed out, even Jesus' wasn't spared the cup He had to drink, even though He prayed fervently. Prayer is a deposit of faith that certainly bears results, but sometimes we don't know what we're asking:
Matt. 20:22-23
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"
"We can," they answered.
Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
You are probably being put through this because you asked for it, but it might not take the form you expected until it is done - until God's will is done. What you had in mind for the faith and wisdom you asked for might not be what God had in mind. We don't exist only for ourselves, and God's gifts aren't meant only for ourselves."You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"
"We can," they answered.
Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
Since when does God's omnipotence mean that everything happens where you can see it, and in a way you can recognize it? Does it even mean that God has to finish every act in one fell swoop, within your lifetime? What length of time does omnipotence need to qualify as omnipotence to you? The problem (for us) is that our time is limited, not God's.
Imagine a father who sends his son to a vinyard that he left in the care of farmers, to collect the rent they owe him, and to see him ripped to shreds by the people he trusted. Imagine a father upon seeing his son return to him after it was almost certain he was dead. Imagine a father having the grace to let the son go in the first place.
It might be defined sans God, but that doesn't mean it exists apart from God. Our "sense of what is fitting" makes no sense if our premise is that nothing is more or less fitting than anything else, by virtue of having become the norm through an undirected and haphazard process of evolution. It makes sense if we were created in the image of God, and can still recognize that image independent of Him.
Last edited:
Quote J:
“In the first place, it depends on unwarranted deductions from Genesis - for instance that Adam and Eve had the moral aptitude of 3-year olds. This is often taken for granted when people assume they represent the "childhood of humanity", or the "infancy of faith". But it's an assumption. Genesis portrays them as intelligent adults: walking with God, naming animals, tending the garden, and conversing with the serpent.”
* Have you ever imagined yourself not knowing good from bad? How does this feel? Do you feel like young child without knowledge of consequences? How could Adam and Eve possibly be intelligent adults without ANY knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad? In this state one would be naïve. Like a young child. No?
Quote J:
“With the warning God gave them, which they clearly understood, Adam and Eve had the necessary information to avoid the kind of temptation they were faced with in the garden.”
* OK. Now I have to go back to what I really have never understood, and that I STILL have not heard a reasonable explanation. What exactly was the reason for the tree being in the garden? What purpose did it serve other than to provide “temptation” for the story to continue? If there is something that may cause danger to my kid I would remove it. The usual answer is to demonstrate the whole free will thing. Yes, yes. But reverse engineered, the story could not continue without the initial course of events in the garden. Adam and Eve were set up. And here you admit as much:
Quote J:
“I could use Laughlin's story against him as well: he appeals to the power of common sense, as if different variables would satisfy common sense better than Genesis. But consider this: the whole garden was grown around the "tree in the middle" - it suggests that the garden and the tree was inseparable. It had to be there. So it wasn't some odd cookie jar placed within child's reach. Another fact: Adam was created outside Eden. He was only placed in Eden when both were completed and ready. Third: "Eden" means "delicate, delightful place of pleasure", and it's significant that divine knowledge and eternal life is inextricably connected with it (see Rev. 22:2). This wasn't a cookie jar, it was a cookie factory, and Adam and Eve were the chiefs in charge of it. The tree, however, was God's territory alone - His stake in their lives there, and in the garden He gave them. Of course it's desireable - if you wished to take over God's share. This wasn't mere curiosity, it was a calculated act of disobedience by people who knew better. Common sense would have dictated that they listen to the owner of the garden and not to its inhabitants.”
* You are saying it was a set up. They did not know better. You have been indoctrinated to believe in this “calculated” act of disobedience. Where is the evidence that they were not driven to curiosity by the serpent? Who just happened to be passing by. Heh.
Quote J:
“People like to say in defense, "if you tell someone not to do something, it's the surest way of making them want to". If people really believed this justified anything, our criminal justice system would have looked a lot different.”
* The serpent played the role of drug pusher here. Without the serpent would they have chowed down? Why would god (omniscient) let such a dangerous character run around this place of perfection and pleasure to temp the good folk? I don’t allow drug dealers around my kid, no matter how much I’ve warned him. It is for his own good as he does not know as much as me, “yet”.
Quote J:
“But to think that Adam lived in perpetual misery is also unwarranted. If we can enjoy life outside paradise, so could he. And God certainly didn't abandon them, just like He doesn't abandon us when we sin.”
* So why were they in Paradise to start with? For the story to be told no?
Quote J:
“If the reasons are really above their understanding, do you think explanations would help, or make obedience harder and more complicated?”
* I see what you mean. Firstly we don’t know if reason was beyond their understanding. But I disagree strongly with the mode of thinking which says: “Do as I say or else!” without any reasoning. Welcome to Automatonland. And religions like Christianity. Despotism.
Quote J:
“But which part of "do not eat from this particular tree, or you will surely die" is hard to understand without explanation?”
* If the consequences were so dire, would an explanation not be MORE forthcoming? It’s not like there were many other rules in the garden. Are you denying the power of reasoning to win converts? When you sell Christianity, what are the rewards you promise? You don’t say: Believe in Jesus or BURN do you? Wait a minute I think that tactic is used. Heh.
“In the first place, it depends on unwarranted deductions from Genesis - for instance that Adam and Eve had the moral aptitude of 3-year olds. This is often taken for granted when people assume they represent the "childhood of humanity", or the "infancy of faith". But it's an assumption. Genesis portrays them as intelligent adults: walking with God, naming animals, tending the garden, and conversing with the serpent.”
* Have you ever imagined yourself not knowing good from bad? How does this feel? Do you feel like young child without knowledge of consequences? How could Adam and Eve possibly be intelligent adults without ANY knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad? In this state one would be naïve. Like a young child. No?
Quote J:
“With the warning God gave them, which they clearly understood, Adam and Eve had the necessary information to avoid the kind of temptation they were faced with in the garden.”
* OK. Now I have to go back to what I really have never understood, and that I STILL have not heard a reasonable explanation. What exactly was the reason for the tree being in the garden? What purpose did it serve other than to provide “temptation” for the story to continue? If there is something that may cause danger to my kid I would remove it. The usual answer is to demonstrate the whole free will thing. Yes, yes. But reverse engineered, the story could not continue without the initial course of events in the garden. Adam and Eve were set up. And here you admit as much:
Quote J:
“I could use Laughlin's story against him as well: he appeals to the power of common sense, as if different variables would satisfy common sense better than Genesis. But consider this: the whole garden was grown around the "tree in the middle" - it suggests that the garden and the tree was inseparable. It had to be there. So it wasn't some odd cookie jar placed within child's reach. Another fact: Adam was created outside Eden. He was only placed in Eden when both were completed and ready. Third: "Eden" means "delicate, delightful place of pleasure", and it's significant that divine knowledge and eternal life is inextricably connected with it (see Rev. 22:2). This wasn't a cookie jar, it was a cookie factory, and Adam and Eve were the chiefs in charge of it. The tree, however, was God's territory alone - His stake in their lives there, and in the garden He gave them. Of course it's desireable - if you wished to take over God's share. This wasn't mere curiosity, it was a calculated act of disobedience by people who knew better. Common sense would have dictated that they listen to the owner of the garden and not to its inhabitants.”
* You are saying it was a set up. They did not know better. You have been indoctrinated to believe in this “calculated” act of disobedience. Where is the evidence that they were not driven to curiosity by the serpent? Who just happened to be passing by. Heh.
Quote J:
“People like to say in defense, "if you tell someone not to do something, it's the surest way of making them want to". If people really believed this justified anything, our criminal justice system would have looked a lot different.”
* The serpent played the role of drug pusher here. Without the serpent would they have chowed down? Why would god (omniscient) let such a dangerous character run around this place of perfection and pleasure to temp the good folk? I don’t allow drug dealers around my kid, no matter how much I’ve warned him. It is for his own good as he does not know as much as me, “yet”.
Quote J:
“But to think that Adam lived in perpetual misery is also unwarranted. If we can enjoy life outside paradise, so could he. And God certainly didn't abandon them, just like He doesn't abandon us when we sin.”
* So why were they in Paradise to start with? For the story to be told no?
Quote J:
“If the reasons are really above their understanding, do you think explanations would help, or make obedience harder and more complicated?”
* I see what you mean. Firstly we don’t know if reason was beyond their understanding. But I disagree strongly with the mode of thinking which says: “Do as I say or else!” without any reasoning. Welcome to Automatonland. And religions like Christianity. Despotism.
Quote J:
“But which part of "do not eat from this particular tree, or you will surely die" is hard to understand without explanation?”
* If the consequences were so dire, would an explanation not be MORE forthcoming? It’s not like there were many other rules in the garden. Are you denying the power of reasoning to win converts? When you sell Christianity, what are the rewards you promise? You don’t say: Believe in Jesus or BURN do you? Wait a minute I think that tactic is used. Heh.
Quote w:
“This parable is based on the belief that God is evil. Only someone who already believes that God is evil will come up with such a story to explain his version of the morality behind the happenings in Eden.”
* This god is evil. Oops, no wait, he is just misunderstood. Heh.
Quote w:
“Moreover, it assumes that a situation created by humans can resemble that wherein God is an agent. Which is once more a falsity. Humans do not know what it is like to be God, and they must therefore refrain from making allegories wherein the part of God is played by a human.”
* And here we have humans writing a book, interpreting it, pointing fingers at each other for getting it wrong, going to war for it, but that parable which is an identical scenario to the original, is a negative falsity because humans are standing in for the original. We should not try to make sense of an irrational scenario via our own perceptions. Silly me for being so naive. There must be may better alternatives.
Quote w:
“That they or we "weren't given a chance to learn from their mistake" only reveals your poor understanding of That they or we "weren't given a chance to learn from their mistake" only reveals your poor understanding of *Christ*ianity.”
* Explain to me your understanding of how they learnt from their mistake. My poor understanding of “*Christ*ianity”, is the same problem that perplexes millions of other rational misguided folk on this planet.
Quote w:
“No. But we are responsible for our actions, in good and in bad.”
* Thank you. “we” are responsible.
Quote w:
“No disobedience should go unpunished, and the punishment has to be real.”
* Scary woman.
“This parable is based on the belief that God is evil. Only someone who already believes that God is evil will come up with such a story to explain his version of the morality behind the happenings in Eden.”
* This god is evil. Oops, no wait, he is just misunderstood. Heh.
Quote w:
“Moreover, it assumes that a situation created by humans can resemble that wherein God is an agent. Which is once more a falsity. Humans do not know what it is like to be God, and they must therefore refrain from making allegories wherein the part of God is played by a human.”
* And here we have humans writing a book, interpreting it, pointing fingers at each other for getting it wrong, going to war for it, but that parable which is an identical scenario to the original, is a negative falsity because humans are standing in for the original. We should not try to make sense of an irrational scenario via our own perceptions. Silly me for being so naive. There must be may better alternatives.
Quote w:
“That they or we "weren't given a chance to learn from their mistake" only reveals your poor understanding of That they or we "weren't given a chance to learn from their mistake" only reveals your poor understanding of *Christ*ianity.”
* Explain to me your understanding of how they learnt from their mistake. My poor understanding of “*Christ*ianity”, is the same problem that perplexes millions of other rational misguided folk on this planet.
Quote w:
“No. But we are responsible for our actions, in good and in bad.”
* Thank you. “we” are responsible.
Quote w:
“No disobedience should go unpunished, and the punishment has to be real.”
* Scary woman.
It could be argued that God needed Adam and Eve to eat from the tree as he would not exist in the minds of men in any meaningful way until they were capable of making value judgements.
God required they eat from the tree to give God a reality to work with and most importantly give reailty a God to work with. For surely God was just as much a captive of his creation as Adam was.
For God to become real mankind had to have it's self determination and in doing so give God his also. Other wise the jailer is just as much in the prison as the inmates.
The surreality of Eden would drive any self respecting God crazy with it's monotony. As would this mythical place called heaven.......
A good question to ask: "is there free-will in heaven ...?....hmmmmm
God required they eat from the tree to give God a reality to work with and most importantly give reailty a God to work with. For surely God was just as much a captive of his creation as Adam was.
For God to become real mankind had to have it's self determination and in doing so give God his also. Other wise the jailer is just as much in the prison as the inmates.
The surreality of Eden would drive any self respecting God crazy with it's monotony. As would this mythical place called heaven.......
A good question to ask: "is there free-will in heaven ...?....hmmmmm
Read your statement again: "...without knowledge of consequences". Is death not a consequence? Has God not told them what they did not know? The only time I imagine not knowing good for bad is when I question everything I've been told about good and bad. But how we imagine an ignorant, parentless childhood does not affect Adam and Eve's situation, what they knew, and who their moral judges were. It is possible to hold on to the good one knows, and thereby avoid many evils one does not know - especially if the good course is layed out by God. It is more likely that they were simply not acting their age:stretched said:
1 Corinthians 14:20
Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
This is bound to happen when one forgets God's authority over good and bad alike. If Adam acted on knowledge (rather than ignorance), he would have made the right decision.Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
Eph. 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.
They were driven to curiosity by the serpent, the Bible states that much. But curiosity still may not veto God. They did know better (they had God's warning), and they were held responsibile for what they knew. The serpent doesn't give the impression that he just "happened" to bepassing by, and just "happened" to question God's authority - neither does God, when He punishes it.
As for why the tree was there, I do not believe it was to "demonstrate the free will thing". That's just another way of saying they were set up. Jesus often says "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit", and there is little doubt in the Bible that knowledge and wisdom are generally considered good things. The tree was there for the good of the garden, and probably also for Adam and Eve - but that obviously didn't mean they could eat from it. Genesis 2:8 speaks of two trees in the middle of the garden, and when we look at Revelation, we see the second tree mentioned:
Revelation 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Take note of the words "give the right to eat". It's God's garden (paradise), and God's tree. All the other trees were there for man to enjoy. And later on we read:He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Revelation 22:2
On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.
A poison can also be an antidote, if taken in the right measure. That's why we trust the physician to deliver the right dose at the proper time, not the snake.On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.
I think it's significant that the serpent is simply called a serpent, just another (albeit crafty) creature of God's creation. He is not called the "father of lies", the "great accuser" or "evil incarnate". Adam and Eve had nothing to fear from it, and God did not even warn them against it. And he tried to sell something he did not own: God's property. He had nothing to offer but doubt, and his only pitch was the making dubious promise of "knowing everything God does". He was no more threatening than the fruit itself, and no more pursuasive in voice or appearance.
This is not the case of a drug dealer in a park somewhere, it's more like a shop assistant in a pharmacy. And if God trusted them in charge of paradise, they were old enough not to be thought of as children - at least in respect to the fruit in the middle of the garden, which is what the story centers on.
That was where God intended man to stay. And according to Revelation, heaven is man's restoration to paradise.
Reason certainly wasn't beyond their understanding. Arguing with the serpent shows them reasoning: "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden'". And the serpent's reasoning is the opposite: "You will not surely die, for God knows when you eat of it your eyes will be opened." All this is in the context of God's reasoning: "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die".
And, is it a general dislike of authority, or just of God's authority in particular? Will you also object to a game warden, firefighter or police officer saying "do as I say or else"?
I can't convince anybody to believe God, and I can't add to anything He said. Think of it as Adam going to his children, saying "God said we will surely die - I made the mistake of not believing him, and you can see the consequences with your own eyes. I don't want anybody to make the same mistake and fall under the same curse, and so I repeat God's warning to you, in the hope that you will listen." I don't plan to "win converts", I just keep on repeating the same message, trying to tailor it to the people and circumstances involved. In the case of Genesis, the people involved were Adam and Eve, the circumstances were Eden, and the message was "don't eat from that tree".
Here's a thought from the book "raising children for advanced parents": If you don't want your child to drink bleach, put it somewhere where they cannot get to it. Do not put it right in the middle of their playpen and tell them they're not allowed to drink it. They do not understand what you're telling them or any consequences that would follow from doing such a thing. If you do decide to leave the bleach next to them and they do drink it, kicking them out the house and cursing the ground they walk on is utter stupidity. Pay attention: You are to blame, not them.
Uhh.. no, my statement above is exactly what the god of the bible did. He put a bottle of bleach in the kids playpen and when they drank it instead of saying: "I am one fucking lousy ass parent", he said: "Stupid kids! Why did you do that?!" god is quite clearly a retard.
Yeah, he took them out of the playpen after he'd put the bleach in it and they'd drunk it. Bit too late I'd say.
Being a parent isn't only about 'obedience', but it is also your responsibility to ensure that you do your utmost to keep dangerous things away from where they are. It doesn't sound to me like you have kids, but if you do I'm shocked. Putting the bleach in their playpen and then smacking their bum when they drink it is not how to teach them. You keep all dangerous things away from them, you put covers over the plug sockets, keep the windows locked, keep the cordless power drill locked in the shed because they don't fucking understand the implications of sticking that power drill through their head, or putting their fingers in an electricity outlet.
Plain and simple. You're sitting here attempting to justify bad parenting, and it smells.