Response 1
LOL!!! Succeed in what? Creating a building out of bricks to travel light years (at best) away. Tell me you’re joking, please.
Well, confusion like this will arise if you take one sentence out of twenty and question it. But while we're on the subject of humour, if you find the idea that ridiculously funny why would god feel otherwise? Why confuse and spread them over the planet instead of just letting them build their brick house? Let's look at the text:
Gen 11:6 'The lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them..."
It's quite apparent from modern scientific understanding no man would survive long enough to make a building that reaches 'the heavens'. As you have stated correctly they would encounter problems and would inevitably die once it had been built to a certain height.
However god wasn't so interested in what they were doing but more what it would lead to. If they could work together at that stage to work their way into heaven, then it's only a matter of time before we would reach it. 2000+ years later man has reached 'the heavens'. It's all about progression- god's confusing of mankind slowed down the inevitable progression of man. It's only a matter of time before we can travel a lot further throughout the cosmos. There is absolutely no mention of man 'wanting paradise' so why make the groundless assumption? Man didn't want to be scattered over the face of the whole earth. How would your mind assume you can prevent something like that? Ah, you build upwards. Look at modern day skyscrapers... Now try and fit all those people on a flat surface and think of the area it would take. If you build upwards you save land space. To this day man still builds skywards to prevent over-consumption of ground mass. There's no mention of 'paradise' as you speculated so it's pointless here. Just to point out where you said it: "but whichever way you look at it, they wanted paradise." Whichever way you look at it? How about looking at it from the angle of what it actually says, not what you want it to say.
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.
Again, groundless assumption based on nothing. If you're going to debate the text, use the text.
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.
Well that progression from mortar to bricks was enough to worry god.
Gen 11:6 'The lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them..."
Nothing? If he had no worry this statement is as pointless as the action that followed. The aim from a scientific standpoint would be considered futile. You can't build a tower that reaches space. The futility or 'daftness' of doing such a thing however bears no relation to god but to science. If you read the text you will see god specifically put a spanner in the works to slow down human progression, not to save them from 'fatal intentions' as once again you have groundlessly assumed.
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.
Well we know that the Sumerians were here 5000+ years ago. We know the bible is a collection of translations of texts, many handed down from Sumerian stories. We know that as far as truth is concerned here it's better to listen to the original authors who witnessed all the events spoken of than to rely on the handed down translations of those stories. That's not to say any of them are pure fact but If one of those must be true it would be the original because they were there at the time and any further translations are just diverting from what was originally spoken. If Sumerian texts aren't true then neither is the majority of the bible. The location of the garden of eden was in Sumeria, (Basra area), which is universally accepted. The religious faction use that as proof of god but what they don't even consider is that it all originates from stories of multiple alien beings. They created mankind and put them to work in their garden etc etc. So on the one hand they accept that it all originated in Sumeria and on the other hand dismiss any Sumerian texts. This is the bias of the religious establishment.
Truth does change, (assumed truth anyway- which is the field of religion). It wasn't until the jews that god became a singular. When that change was made it became the truth above all previous truths. Once Christianity arrived it changed the truth once more from the jews truth to the christian truth. There are now a few million 'truths'. A thousand off-shoots of christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and so on and so forth. You think any of you actually differ? You can all sit down in a room and the only thing any of you say is you 'know the truth'. It would then be like a Poirot mystery because all but one of you must be wrong. You really can't get into a discussion about truth where religion is concerned.
We can claim things to ourselves, based on our understanding, as we both are doing. How else could we have had this discussion?
Showing my point that neither one of us can claim we have the ultimate truth. I will try from your angle: "I know enough to know what i've said is the real truth." Now do you understand what i mean by 'personal'? Your own personal truth can be whatever you want but if you have any interest in real truth you must question instead of dismissing everything out of hand with groundless assumptions.
And depending on the level of understanding, it can read into it, exactly how it is.
Ok then, my understanding is of such level i have read into it exactly how it is. Prove me wrong. Is this where you proceed in making wild accusations that i'm not god concious and thus am wrong? You might be right, you might just be delusional. It's all down to 'mights and might nots'. That's the point, which is why i said: "but none of us can claim knowledge of the truth in this instance." And you concurred saying: "We can claim things to ourselves".
Why would I want people to just accept what I say, when I don’t just accept what people say?
Glad to hear it, if you truly feel that way.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree.
Ok so someone who hasn't seen, heard or witnessed god in any form, shape or molecule should just accept it as being true? If that's the case i can in accordance with age old argument just accept unicorns, fairies, aliens etc. Without bearing witness to something of this nature you have no starting point. You can of course just accept he exists, you can just accept when someone else tells you he exists but we've already discussed that and you agreed that you can't expect people to just accept.
I’ve never stated that I know more facts than anyone else, where is this coming from.
It's coming from all your other replies. I suggest you read them.
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.
Is this a fact? I'm apparently just ignorant so obviously you do know more truth than me, and the manner with which you state: There's only one god shows claim to having fact. If not kindly say 'there might be only one god' and stop with the petty attack on my brain. I'm ignorant, you're right. Whoopie-doo. In the bible god himself speaks in plurals. Elohim is plural-not singular. It was the jews that changed the belief into a singular being. Don't try and talk of my ignorance when you make statements like you have. I'm gonna do this your way...
There’s many Gods, you only want to see it as one god because it justifies your preferred understanding, and makes it seem as though it’s all controlled and organised. That is your ignorance.
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."
Ok... you didn't pay any attention to
also, (NJV uses 'too'). The now is still taken in the context of 'now'. Adam had become like 'one of
them' and must be stopped from eating the other and living forever aswell as having knowledge of good and evil.
It remains that until they had eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they would have no understanding of it. It remains that god is speaking in plurals and it remains that you have no worthy combat to this point. Let's say Adam always had knowledge of good and evil, god would never have said "now that...", he would have known that from the very first second he created man and already put flaming swords in front of the tree of life.
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.
More groundless speculation? If Adam was perfect and his mind was fixed on god he wouldn't have ate the fruit in the first place. Simple. As for it being imperative..... If i was god i'm sure i could think of a real way to stop him....... (For instance: Not putting the bloody tree there in the first place)- unless god had no choice but to put the tree there? What other reason would he put a tree of
knowledge of good and evil and a tree of life there for? If Adam was perfect etc etc and god didn't put the tree there Adam would still be perfect. Don't blame Adam- he's blameless.
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.
A) You're hardly in a position to tell me what i need to learn.
B) Re-read your former posts and you will see you said intelligence=loving everyone.
Why can’t you read the script for what it is.
Aha, says the person who makes up stuff not even written in the 'script'. Not once in the twoer of babel does it mention man wanting paradise, not once here does it mention god having taught adam everything, adam being perfect or otherwise. All these additions have been made by your mind, and your mind alone. Pointless debating stuff you made up on the spot. Example:
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.
Where does it say Adam wanted to be on equal terms with god? Where does it say god taught adam everything?
