Originally posted by SnakeLord
Firstly they said "the heavens" It's plural- is there more than one heaven or is it pertinent to suggest they were talking about the void of black in the sky?
I think it is safe to say they wanted to go to heaven. The heavens could mean, the upper region of the universe, but whichever way you look at it, they wanted paradise. They probably didn’t know that they couldn’t breathe in space, provided their building would get that far.
It wasn't that they were being foolish, it was worry that they were going to succeed.
LOL!!! Succeed in what? Creating a building out of bricks to travel light years (at best) away. Tell me you’re joking, please.
Well it is attempted progression on a human scale. That progression was stopped by god. If he didn't stop the humans progressing: "Nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."
That’s just plain silly. He just didn’t want the whole of mankind going down the swany, just for a few suicidal people who thought they could they could cheat death. The only progression in that scenario, was that the men had progressed from using mortar to using bricks, that was the scientific progression, but their ultimate aim was daft. God hasn’t stopped the progression of men, just the threat of fatal intentions.
As i said intelligence is the collaboration of understanding and knowledge. Your personal understanding is that god exists, even though you yourself said you understand hardly anything.
I disagree, I think understanding and knowledge defines ones intelligence. All understanding is personal, as I said before, it is impossible to understand something, until you understand it. I may not have a lot of knowledge of God, but I have enough to know that He exists. This is not a claim, as it personal.
Now you should look at the knowledgable side of it. Saying "I know he's real" is not knowledge, it's assumption based on personal understanding.
Then it’s still knowledge.
We can view the minimal and ancient texts which incorporate personal understanding of people thousands of years ago but that never leads to knowledge of truth.
We already have knowledge of truth, everyone of us, but we also have knowledge of a lot of other things which isn’t necessarily truth. The truth has to be, that which is, was and always will be, it cannot change, for to change would mean it wasn’t a truth in the first place. So whatever truth was spoken 5000 years ago, still applies today.
Our own personal understanding will decipher and read into that whatever we want,
And depending on the level of understanding, it can read into it, exactly how it is.
but none of us can claim knowledge of the truth in this instance.
We can claim things to ourselves, based on our understanding, as we both are doing. How else could we have had this discussion?
That's not to say you dont have the truth and the knowledge but why would anyone else have to believe you?
It doesn’t matter if people believe you, it matters that you are true to yourself, when/if the time is right, when we get to the point where we see God in everything and everything in God, then we can make others believe, just through our exemplary lifestyle, until then we are just learning.
That's all well and good but could you ever expect people to just accept what you say?
Why would I want people to just accept what I say, when I don’t just accept what people say?
No, the best thing to do is study the evidence in hope it leads to a truth.
What would you regard as evidence, that leads to the truth?
In these kind of scenarios though the only truth is to see it with your own eyes.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree.
If you believe in god you are admitting you know no more fact than anyone else.
I’ve never stated that I know more facts than anyone else, where is this coming from.
From what i've read there's many of them. I guess that's not speculation either then?
There’s only one God, the original cause of all causes.
You only want to see it as many gods, because it justifies your preferred understanding, and makes it seem as though it’s all mixed up and disorganised. That is your ignorance.
Gen 3:22 And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil..."
You see, here I can tell what your intention is simply because you chose to show only a part of that verse, which actually goes;
"Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
When you put “Now that” in front, it changes the feel.
Before Adam fell from grace, he was not aware of the dualities of nature because his mind was fixed on God, therefore, there was no need of the knowledge of good and evil, he was perfect. When he ate the fruit, he became aware of being self-consciousness, he was no longer purely God-conscious. Hence, once self-conscious, he immediately started feeling the pangs of material existence, he was now under the control of nature, whereas, before he was under the control of God. This meant nature began acting, and eventually he would die, as God said.
If at this stage, he had eaten from the tree of life, and lived forever, there would eventually be chaos and overpopulation, due to the eventual degradation of mans consciousness, it was imperative that he did not eat from that tree.
And i agree fully with you- what god told him was bloody pointless.
What are you talking about?
Ok it could be he wasn't physical at all but then why would anyone assume he wasn't? He's god, he's all powerful and can be physical if he so desires... right?
There is a lot to learn here, maybe we will touch on it again.
That's because you have this bizarre notion intelligence= loving everyone.
Before we go any further, you should learn not to add your own bits and pieces to what people say, learn to answer or respond exactly to what they’ve said.
Well, with a little help from you we have established Adam was innocent. Thus he wasn't being foolish, he just didn't know any better.
Why can’t you read the script for what it is. Adam may have been innocent, but he had knowledge, God taught him everything he needed to know. Adam decided he wanted to be on equal terms with God, by accepting the fruit, knowing (from God) that he would surely die. I would say that is a foolish move, you may not, but I do.
I'd call it an 'uprising' if every thing on the planet was sinning and obviously against god.
In the bible it says; the wages of sin is death. When we sin, we harm ourselves, sinning against God, is harmful to the individual.
If they were sinning against each other isn't that in itself going against god and his wishes?
Yes, but we’re just creating bigger and bigger rods for our backs.
Every man had evil in his heart- isn't that against god?
Didn’t you read and agree that the man I described as having evil intent, had evil in his heart?
Who was the intent for, human or God?
Love
Jan Ardena.
