There's something wrong here...

[heart]

The answer to your second question is none

Babies and animals are guilty??? How so?

Nobody is innocent before God, since nobody knows Him.

If you don't know "him" how come you have based your beliefs on "him"?

God also "kills" nobody

According to the Bible he has

He gave everybody who ever lived their life, and even when they die He will ressurrect them, guilty and innocent alike

What has this got to do with the fact that he killed innocent children and animals? Are you going to honestly tell me that a baby is guilty? Surely you have had the opportunity to witness a newborn in your lifetime. How could a baby that goes "goo goo" and sleep, eat, poop be guilty enough to kill?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Image of God

Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
How many wars did any god cause?
----------
(Not all gods caused wars. There were the peaceful gods (mostly female). Don't ask me who they are, because I don't really know. I would answer: Athena, Aphrodite, Eros, Mercury, etc.)
----------
The answer to your second question is none - Nobody is innocent before God, since nobody knows Him.
----------
(This just doesn't make sense, Jenyar. God created the human race "in his image." That would be his "spiritual" image. That doesn't mean physical features but the fire that moves us. Then you say "nobody is innocent before God, since nobody knows him." You've got to be kidding! This doesn't make sense, then, because why would God have even bothered to create us! "Sense nobody knows Him" then why are we here? You of all people have claimed the most adamantly to know God, and I take it that you see yourself as not being innocent before him!)
----------
You might be innocent in your own eyes, but you have no authority or measurement to proclaim anybody else either guilty or innocent. You did not die in the flood, did you? So if you are as innocent as you think, surely you were spared? God also "kills" nobody: He gave everybody who ever lived their life, and even when they die He will ressurrect them, guilty and innocent alike. Only then will you see justice done.
----------
(I don't think anyone on this forum sees themselves as being "innocent in their own eyes!" I'm not! And it's not for any of us to say whether the next guy is innocent or not. There's no way we know what's in his heart! I didn't live during the time of the flood, so I didn't die in it of course. The Bible makes it quite clear that God himself does the killing. He creates them, then he kills them. There will be NO resurrection. You're alive now--this is your resurrection! You misunderstand the word "resurrection." If we're called back into this life at a future time, then that portion of the One Spirit of God that we shared means we are "resurrected." This had nothing to do with Jesus. I would venture to say that even the portion of God's spirit that Jesus shared is alive today somewhere. His name may not be Jesus. It could be Joe, Lakeshia or Guilliermo. In fact, that person sitting next to you right now could very well be the Messiah!)

 

[Jenyar]

originally posted by Silivren
Why would a loving, kind god punish hundreds upon hundreds of generations of people for a single wrong act commited near the beginning of time? Wouldn't a reasonable god think that the only ones needing punishment would be the ones that committed the crime? Plus, why would he even put the temptation there in the first place? Make humans curious (and apt to do things that they are told not to,) place a forbidden object.. of course they're going to do what they're not supossed to! We were created that way, right Jenyar? Or did your god create something that spontaneously combusted and turned into something he didn't intend?

You misunderstand. It wasn't punishment, believe it or not: it was mercy. By right Adam and Eve should have died as God warned them they would. It was a warning, not a threat. God removed them from Eden because if they ate from the tree of eternal life, they would live forever with the consequences. But the whole of creation was affected by it, and therefore all their descendents.

The "temptation" was not a temptation until it was perceived to be one by the light of a lie. There is the possibility that the tree of knowledge represents God, and his knowledge of good and evil. Call it a fingerprint of God on his creation. It was implicit in creation - creation would not exist without it. Adam and Eve were also not ignorant children. They were able to name the animals and understand God. Their answer to the serpent proves that they clearly knew and understood God's warning. They should have recognized God's authority easier than anybody, knowing Him as their father. The earth doesn't have fences, neither does knowledge, and neither did the tree.

But wait, is that possible? He knows everything and can do everything... so it must have been of his design. Yeah. Uh. Kind god.

You answered yourself. He knows everything and can do everything. You don't, I don't. Adam and Eve didn't - but it didn't stop them thinking they knew better than Him. You should be grateful you can learn from them in the comfort of your home, rather than the hard way - as Job did.

 

[Silivren]

Now you've confused me. I definately didn't answer myself, because if he knew everything, that meant that he knew they would eat the apple and knew the serpent would get them too. Which means.. he took no action to stop it, even though he knew it would happen. :bugeye:

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by heart
Babies and animals are guilty??? How so?

Maybe "guilty" is the wrong word to describe it. Paul says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned". Rather think about it as "sinful fallout" from the fall. We inherited the world that came to be because of Adam's sin. People aren't guilty of something they didn't do, but everybody is born with the seed the grows to become sin. It is this seed that contaminates our actions, whether they bear fruit as sin or not.

Guilt is like a weed, we can only see the part that grows to be visible, and then we consider someone "guilty". But God recognizes the seed that will eventually cause our guilt, which was planted by Adam when he gained knowledge about evil.

Babies and animals aren't guilty of sin, but they bear its seed like everybody does. The ability to sin doesn't come out of nowhere when you turn 12 or 16 or 21. God salvation was to free us from its burden, to graft our dying lives to a living vine.

If you don't know "him" how come you have based your beliefs on "him"?

Saying I know Jesus would hardly satisfy you, but that's the only way I can put it. I know about God, and I know He knows me. His presence is real and immediate, but the distance between us and God is undeniable.

According to the Bible he has [killed]

Maybe you should define what you mean by "killing", and how God would define "killing". God is not a man that He would take something he did not give or could give not back.

What has this got to do with the fact that he killed innocent children and animals? Are you going to honestly tell me that a baby is guilty? Surely you have had the opportunity to witness a newborn in your lifetime. How could a baby that goes "goo goo" and sleep, eat, poop be guilty enough to kill?

You know all criminals were innocent babies once. I read recently about three boys aged between 10 and 15, who raped a 10 year old girl. At which age did they become "guilty enough" to rape or kill? Not to mention infants under 3 who get raped. Their parents are probably asking the opposite than you, why would God let them live? The short answer is that God doesn't "let" everybody who lives, live or everybody who dies, die. We don't and will never know why people either live or die. Sometimes a murderer dies and people thank God, sometimes a baby dies and people blame God. You can't get past the fact that you are a human looking at something you don't understand from a human perspective.

You don't believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, or that God raised Jesus from the dead. It's a bit dishonest to believe He killed everybody the Bible says were smitten by God. Either you believe both or you believe neither. Is that unreasonable to ask - or am I still the one being selective?

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Silivren
Now you've confused me. I definately didn't answer myself, because if he knew everything, that meant that he knew they would eat the apple and knew the serpent would get them too. Which means.. he took no action to stop it, even though he knew it would happen. :bugeye:

God knew they knew Him, and therefore have the opportunity and ability to listen to Him and accept his authority. God knew and expected this. He also knew that if they stepped out of these bounds their lives would be forfeit, so He warned them not to. His knowledge was the reason He warned them. And on their part, Adam and Eve had no reason to doubt God.

You assume that God knew what would happen was inevitable. But all indications are that it wasn't inevitable. God's knowldege does not make it inevitable either, since that would mean listening to Him was also inevitable. The consequences were inevitable, but God showed them mercy. Instead of being sceptic (= not trusting) their ability to listen to Him, God gave them a chance to have a life and make decisions. Instead of letting their sin take their lives, God took them out of Eden and let them have what life was left in them, and still have a chance to trust God with it. God showed mercy upon mercy. You are prejudiced not to see it.

Remember this: God's had equal knowledge of good and evil. We knew only good, but desired evil. When we got it, we got to know suffering and death as well. God did not deny us this knowledge, but warned us that we shouldn't take part in (eat&touch) it. Evil was not God's plan - it was Adam's choice, and is still our choice.

It isn't inevitable that we commit crimes or sins, but when we do, their consequences are inevitable. The same was true for Adam and Eve.

 

[kazakhan]

We knew only good, but desired evil.

How could we desire something when we do not know of it?

...it was Adam's choice, and is still our choice.

Were we not created in his image? In which case how can our choices be wrong?

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by kazakhan
How could we desire something when we do not know of it?

I'm glad you asked. Desire itself isn't good or bad, but can be depending on what you attach it to. Adam and Eve desired something that was contrary to what God's will. That "contrariness" is what we call sin. That's at it most basic. The devil denied the consequence was death - maybe he knew God would be merciful and spare them - but he blurred its significance to increase the desire. That is the only power of temptation: to make the desire stronger than the warning, and erode the will to resist.

It's easy to desire something if you don't know whether it is good for you - but it's ignorant and rebellious when someone who knows better told you it's not, and warned you what would happen, and you still choose to act on that desire.

We desire to put a man on mars, or put people in space, but sometimes people pay with their lives. We can justify it by calling it things like "curiosity" or "adventure", but not when the consequences are known for a fact.

Were we not created in his image? In which case how can our choices be wrong?

Our ability to judge, reason and think is what defines us as human - these are what makes us unique in creation. Our resemblence to God is spiritual, since God is Spirit. Our minds are the only reason we can be spiritual or religious. "Reason" is the best indication we have of something "supernatural". It's easy to become too philophical about this, but that's the principle. At the same time, that is what makes things like morality and justice problematic for us.

The reason is taht the image is not everything it as an image of. That was the lie: that Adam could be more like God than he already was. And he overreached his potential, so to speak. God did not create us knowing or to know suffering and death. It's now obvious to us why not: we can't handle it - but in the beginning Adam had "only" his creator's word for it. Our uniqueness and our individuality makes it physically impossible to judge what is universally and absolutely good - especially when faced with natural desires and temptations, especially when we are in relationships, whether with nature or with each other.

You'll see all the classic so-called "deadly" sins are simply perversions of what is normal - an overstretching of the boundaries. To eat is natural and good, to overeat is bad. To desire is natural, to desire something that is not ours is only by extention natural, but not by our design. We weren't meant to exercise our will beyond the limits of what is good and proper. We can't even control ourselves against things we know are bad for us most of the time - if we can have such a "distance" between willpower and knowledge within ourselves, how much greater the distance caused when we don't submit to God's will?

 

[Exotic_D]

this concept of a superior being is messing with my head these days... only because my catholic upbringing is being dismantled daily by none other than - my human experience...

no way and no how could an omnipotent being be loving or hateful... these are human emotions... they are perpetuated emotions to boot... they are not innate... if there is a higher power, the ridiculous entries in the bible are truly a sin... to insinuate that our creator was stupid enough to create us in his image in the first place is one thing, he has no image if he is the creator...

but to say that he/she/it had a particular dogma or strict recipe if you will, for life, in order to prove how "great" he is and therfore worthy of worship is just plain ludicrous... how dare you say such a thing... why would a supreme being require worship? it's contradictory, a supreme being would command all and therefore would never become jealous or lonely... it's silly to say omnipotence requires human intervention in order to be justified... hogwash...

bleeding for five days and not dying permits life to be created... nothing more... and nothing less...

it's biology all the way for me now... the whole problem with this poor god if it exists is i bet we really disappointed it... we are oppressed by it and in turn oppress one another? that sounds like a bad b-movie... seriously... religion in my opinion, has no place in a sound mind, body and soul... only spiritual edification and evolution are products of a true omnipotent being...

do explain why a supreme being would decree a law which is impossible to uphold? we have to marry in a ceremony by men who molest children (stupid enough for ya?) in order to be permitted to copulate? hahaha... that is so laughable, considering if we did not, our species would have become extinct... as with every other life form that requires an ova and a spermatozoa in order to procure an extension of life...

silly really... to believe in such fairy tales... but not so silly to believe in the power of knowing yourself... through a supreme being theory we can more easily understand this human existence... but with all it's restrictions, limitations and sheer rigidity, how could we possibly learn to love anything but ourselves? self-preservation is, after all, the only real desire any human being possesses... to save your own skin is natural and instinctive... but at the expense of others does not sound right, not for a christian god it doesn't... for a human being attempting to survive the elements, yes...

i also have a problem with this constant punishment notion... i really don't believe a supreme being would be insolent enough to punish anyone or anything... if he/she/it just is, simply exists, why would it desire anything at all? if you have everything and know everything, what more is there? i believe humans punish humans... due to the experiences they were either forced to live by their idiot human parents or by the wickedness they chose to revere... either way, a superior mind is called such for a reason, right? would it not be safe to assume a superior being deserves the same respect? it does not require confirmation or concurrence... it is all seeing and all knowing...

if there is a god... yes, i believe he would gravitate toward things that can be called good... not loving, because how one interprets love is relative... and love is a form of desire... a tree is not loving and neither is the earth, yet they exist in harmony and in tandem... a mama bear does not love her cubs but will die for them... it's instinctive to protect what we create... with that having been said, if there is a god, he must only want to protect us... not harm us through words (bible) and actions (death)...

in the bible, men were actually granted permission to kill a woman if she was deemed a wicked jezebel who was nothing but a loathesome temptress... just as the christians justified burning so-called witches... if all you bible thumpers agree that god made us ALL in his image, how do you explain him damning his own image? condemning his own creation to death for it's mere existence... it doesn't jive... can't be... far too contradictory and hypocritical for an all knowing being wouldn't you agree?

the bible is man's work... it's supposed to be the word of god, depicted by man and perhaps at times stresses points that can be used in our human world, but no way, no how is the bible the endeavour of a superior being... if he was so damn superior, why did he need to sacrifice his only son for us? cause he was tired of destroying us? come on... pahleeze... if he did send his son, it was too edify us not to save us, save us from ourselves perhaps and the hell we all conjure up in our minds and lives... but not so we could be dragged down to an image of hell where some fallen angel lurks waiting to ruin and possess our souls...

perhaps jesus was a man who knew of things we shall never know, maybe he was born of the very essence of life... his life force instinctively sought justice and peace in all it's forms... love, honesty, sincerity and honour... yes, this makes him the son of man, and if man is god's creation then logically we too are capable of such deep spirituality... we just have no one to teach us... because bible thumpers will be quick to tell you... you can imitate jesus but you can never like him... be god's true child... you are adopted and therefore unworthy... you are a wretched sinner and nothing but maggot food, you will eventually return to dust where you came...yada yada yada

kind of a bummer... i would have at least liked the opportunity to try.. to try and understand this human existence from a deeper spiritual perspective, but since i am not permitted to do so because i am far too worthless then i don't believe it, i guess that means i ain't no prophet... oh well... martyrdom isn't for the faint of heart... nor the weak in spirit... and i possess both...

D

 

[Nightjar]

This is good reading!

 

[heart]

Jenyar,

Maybe "guilty" is the wrong word to describe it. Paul says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

So are you saying that you feel all people are born with sin? *doing my best Jenyar impersonation* How do you know that "all" wasn't just exaggerated? That's like saying, "everyone at the soccer tournament was just sick at heart because the team lost". Obviously, not everyone was, as there were others there who just came to watch out of boredom and was not for cheering any specific team.

Regarding sin that entered the world through one man, we know they are referring to Adam. Thing is in Genesis 2:16-17 it says,

'And Yahweh commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' Genesis 2:16-17

We know Adam nor Eve died the very day they ate from the tree. So either "god" lied or the story never happened. We know it couldn't be possible that "god" changed his mind for he states in Malachi 3:6
"For I am the LORD, I change not".

But God recognizes the seed that will eventually cause our guilt, which was planted by Adam when he gained knowledge about evil.

To this I say, we are human- to expect perfection is unrealistic. But, in the case of killing babies and animals, this is wrong. You honestly believe every little baby and child would have done something sooooo horrible as they grew to be an accountable age that it would warrant death? Every single one? That's a bit over the top, don't you think? If what you say were to hold true..."god" would still be on a killing rampage today. What makes the "babies going to grow up and be soooo evil to warrant death" any different than the rest of us since the flood?

You know all criminals were innocent babies once. I read recently about three boys aged between 10 and 15, who raped a 10 year old girl. At which age did they become "guilty enough" to rape or kill? Not to mention infants under 3 who get raped.

I do not condone rape so don't get me wrong, but Why didn't "god" kill them like he did all the babies in the flood? Also, not all babies who grow up are rapists or murderers, etc

We don't and will never know why people either live or die

I'm not questioning people dying in general. I am questioning a "god" who would kill people because they aren't perfect. By that, I mean the stories that are in the bible, and I have given you quite a few scripture references in other threads.

You don't believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, or that God raised Jesus from the dead. It's a bit dishonest to believe He killed everybody the Bible says were smitten by God. Either you believe both or you believe neither. Is that unreasonable to ask - or am I still the one being selective?

I believe neither

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by heart
So are you saying that you feel all people are born with sin? *doing my best Jenyar impersonation* How do you know that "all" wasn't just exaggerated? That's like saying, "everyone at the soccer tournament was just sick at heart because the team lost". Obviously, not everyone was, as there were others there who just came to watch out of boredom and was not for cheering any specific team.

You can replace "all" with "some", but nothing of what Paul says would make sense then. He definetely meant everybody, since that is what his argument rests on. If there could be even one person who could save himself, everybody should able to because attaining perfection is now possible. Paul is saying that everybody has proven in their own lives at one time or another that it is in fact impossible.

My guess is that is where Exotic_D's frustration comes form. When you notice that everything is bad, it's very hard to think that God could still have a place left anywhere, even just in the imagination, but that's addressed in Job and Lamentations.

Regarding sin that entered the world through one man, we know they are referring to Adam. Thing is in Genesis 2:16-17 it says,

'And Yahweh commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' Genesis 2:16-17

We know Adam nor Eve died the very day they ate from the tree. So either "god" lied or the story never happened. We know it couldn't be possible that "god" changed his mind for he states in Malachi 3:6
"For I am the LORD, I change not".

Read Genesis 2:16-17 again: did God specify when? Why do you assume He meant immediately if it obviously wasn't? Even the strongest poison in the world doesn't kill you instantly - the poison of knowledge takes far longer to take effect. In fact, it is killing all life very slowly. It's only reproduction that ensures survival - when Noah came out of the ark, God told him to "be fruitful and multiply" so that his people could live. The rest of the Bible tells how God protects the living, in particular: those who would live eternally. He calls these people "his children".

To this I say, we are human- to expect perfection is unrealistic. But, in the case of killing babies and animals, this is wrong. You honestly believe every little baby and child would have done something sooooo horrible as they grew to be an accountable age that it would warrant death? Every single one? That's a bit over the top, don't you think? If what you say were to hold true..."god" would still be on a killing rampage today. What makes the "babies going to grow up and be soooo evil to warrant death" any different than the rest of us since the flood?

It is wrong to kill any human being. I don't know if you are a vegetarian, but you have to kill animals to eat meat. It's a case of having to live with the lesser of two evils. There aren't many sources of proteien in the desert, you are dependent on life for life. The Israelites lived in the desert for 40 years. But you still misunderstand me. Nobody dies because they have done anything horrible - very few do in any case. Everybody dies sometime whoever they were and whatever they did. You know this. It's wrong for us to kill - but what is for us is "murder" is for God taking something back which belongs to Him. Any of those babies or animals who were innocent have a much better life now than they would ever have had in a decaying and evil world.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we simply aren't in a position to judge why people die. We can't assign guilt or innocence. A sentimental argument about poor innocent babies is nothing but a half-hearted appeal to something you don't believe in anyway: absolute justice. You can't have one half of it and not the other half.

I do not condone rape so don't get me wrong, but Why didn't "god" kill them like he did all the babies in the flood? Also, not all babies who grow up are rapists or murderers, etc

God showed them mercy. He could have taken the lives of Adam and Eve straight away and it would have been exactly as you expected - but evidently God regards life much more important than immediate justice. If we knew which babies would commit crimes and which wouldn't, and aborted them before they were wrong - it would make us murderers. God is not such a murderer, and ironically that is what you blame Him for. The flood was something He promised never to let happen again. But that it happened is a matter of faith, as I'm sure you know.

I'm not questioning people dying in general. I am questioning a "god" who would kill people because they aren't perfect. By that, I mean the stories that are in the bible, and I have given you quite a few scripture references in other threads.

God saves people because they are not perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need saving, as I've said. The following scripture might be useful as illustration. It is a blueprint that is repeated over and over again throughout the Bible. You find it in every book:

the warning (compare with the warning in Eden):
18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

the choice (seems simple enough)
19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

the reason (this is probably where you stopped listening)
20 and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
(Deuteronomy 30)

The reason we have life at all is because God gave it to us. More than that, He is our life. We die because we forget this. God doesn't "punish" a millionth as often as you think. Most of the time we punish ourselves. What people don't realize though, is that justice is only postponed for those who are guilty, it's a promise, like mercy is a promise and a given for those who are willing to accept they are in the wrong before God.

I believe neither

Then what is your argument. If God doesn't give life, He doesn't kill either. If He gives life, then what is death but a hiccup?

 

[heart]

Jenyar,

Read Genesis 2:16-17 again: did God specify when? Why do you assume He meant immediately if it obviously wasn't?

I'm sorry, I thought when it said "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" that it meant IN THE DAY ..What day? THE day you EAT of it... but sorry..my bad. Weren't you the one who believes God created the world in 6 literal days? But..ah never mind

Nobody dies because they have done anything horrible - very few do in any case.

What was the reason for the Flood and god killing everyone but Noah and his family? Perhaps I misunderstood, but I could have sworn it was because the rest of the world was evil. Then there is the story of the children that were cursed by Elisha because they made fun of the man for not having any hair- due to this "god" sent out 2 she bears and they killed the children. There are many more examples.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we simply aren't in a position to judge why people die. We can't assign guilt or innocence. A sentimental argument about poor innocent babies is nothing but a half-hearted appeal to something you don't believe in anyway: absolute justice. You can't have one half of it and not the other half

You talk about not accepting things blindly.. but, this is what this seems to me. You are expecting people to just take the stories of the bible and believe them. Not to question why "god" does something, because we are in no position to judge why etc... How the heck can one do that if "god" doesn't reveal why he killed, what very much appears to be, unjustly. To me this is would be a HUGE HUGE factor in why someone would even decide to follow such a god (that is if they believed in him). If he can't even give a good enough answer as to why, how the heck can he sincerely expect others to accept what he is doing is right. I would think everyone would have a right to know, otherwise you'd be BLINDLY accepting what he does.

Let me ask you this, if there were a story in the Bible where god raped a woman, would you think it was okay because god did it? See, what I'm getting from you is that it's not right to judge what god does.. so what is one to base their decision on if they decide to "follow" him? You're saying to overlook all the violence god displayed and just believe... That just doesn't seem to fly. It's like your an ostrich that wants to burry his head in the sand and not talk about it- your easy answer out is, "it's not for us to judge".

but evidently God regards life much more important than immediate justice.

Huh? There are many stories where there was "immediate justice". i.e. Ananias and Sapphira
So I guess in the other examples god doesn't regard life more important than immediate justice

The flood was something He promised never to let happen again

Oh yeah, that makes it okay. "I'm sorry...I promise I won't kill off any more people via flood" *forcing self not to do an eye roll here*

God saves people because they are not perfect

Then why did he off the people in the Flood and other various stories of the Bible- I'd hardly call killing people saving them.