If God did in fact create everything and nothing happens without his ok...Then wouldn't it stand to reason, that God created the devil and sin as well? This seems to say that all the sin in the world comes from God.
All creation lies within God, yet he himself created nothing. That he has left unto men and they are doing exactly as he expected...they do according as they see, and the eyes of men primarily see to create and indulge in sin.....this they do to accomplish their own end ......and mote importantly to lay a foundation for the Sons of God so that they may establish themselves above and beyond sin just as their father.
A very interesting thought. If humans created all the good and evil in the world...Who created the tree of good and evil, that was in the garden prior to man being created? This would lead one to think good and evil was around before man was created. Or, is it the fact that man ate from the tree and thus released the good and evil (Like a pandora's box)?
Man is the embodiment of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.They were created by the devil to serve his purpose.
The devil is He that created this world including man that.they may serve him this he is able to do by the will of the Father who allows these thing not.for.the sake of the devil but for the sake of his son who are going to recognise their identity as Sons of God while in the still living as men.
This is the.coming of the tree of Life.
Good is that.which is from the beginning and that which alone will remain at the end...so longas there is a.mixture of.both good and evil that mixture will be as evil thus temporary ,this is why men are destined to death...unless .............
of course they come to the understanding of the Father who is pure Goodness and they will realize that they Are one with Him.
Evil is that which never existed from beginning and will never ever exist except when good ostensibly joined with it....and it is from this unity the devil got his identity and this world came into being with its present nature..
My opinion (since you classified this under Religion and Philosophy, and not Christianity, even though questions about Satan and sin are almost always related to Christianity):
We don't know. Something created or caused the creation of our universe in violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Either there was some creative force that we don't understand, or something about the creation of the universe violated basic laws of thermodynamics in ways that we can not yet comprehend.
I’ll take a quick go at answering that, as it makes sense to me.
Yes, [The Most High] God did create everything (for us). Yes, that means the Father of lies, the Devil himself. He also created His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:7)
“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels”. (Isaiah 14:12) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
So, for us He has created both our Lord, the messiah Jesus Christ, as well as Lucifer (aka the Devil, aka Satan). Each party has its own followers, whether they immediately know it or not.
Now, because God loves His offspring (Acts 17:28), who were not cast out from heaven (see Revelation 12:9), He has provided several “dispensations” of the Gospel, beginning from Day One. This gospel did not evolve, but it was set straight (restored) and increased incrementally, as part of God’s plan. It is provided for us to be victorious in our quest to Atone with God, so that we may always be acceptable to Him.
In human point of view duality exist like sin and merit. God is the creator of the Universe and myriads of beings which include birds, reptiles, animals and insects. It is he who created both the tiger and deer. Outwardly, it may seem that the tiger is cruel in killing the deer. But in the overall picture of the Universe, creation, sustenance and dissolution are must, otherwise there won't be any space even to stand. What is created has to be sustained for some time and ultimately it has to be destroyed too. Another example: There is intense heat in summer and severe cold in winter and seasons change. We can not say that one season is bad and another one is good. The scorching rays of sun prepare the earth for cultivation when the rain falls. Hence nothing is bad in God's creation. The night glorify the day. The sinners glorify the saints. This is natural in creation. Without duality, creation can not sustain.
Oh foolish One! God did create the devil. He created him as an angel but this angel believed he was as smart as God and could do a better job sitting in God's chair. He created such a furor that God kicked him out of heaven. Satan came to earth with a number of other "fallen angels". God did not create sin. Man created sin. The devil IS sin and he roams the earth stealthily convincing people to follow his ways. BTW, his ways look pretty good to many worldly people. If you decide that you would prefer to follow God, not Satan, and declare believing that Jesus died to save you from the punishment of sin, God protects you. If ever you are tempted by Satan you may remind him who you belong to and tell him to leave. He will. He has to.
So watch how you "reason". Worldly logic is not necessarily logical logic. If you have further questions go ask God himself. Just ask him. If you are sincere in your question (and I mean this) he will answer you. You will be surprised and awe struck by what God will tell you.
God Bless You.
You said man created sin and Satan is sin. So, are you saying man created Satan? That's confusing because you already said God created Satan.
Hmm...I pose a question for debate, and this is a problem how? Please explain to me in the bible where it says that Satan was an angel and fell from heaven. And Isaiah' story of lucifer is about the king not the devil and people would like to believe. And exactly how did man create sin? Let me guess, he disobeyed and eat from the tree of good and evil/right and wrong...If disobedience was the first sin...How could the tree be the tree of right and wrong/good and evil...This would mean the evil or wrong was around before man was made, as God created the garden and everything in it before he created man. If man did create sin, then God didn't create everything. And if he didn't create everything, then how can we be sure he created anything?
And I can reason anyway I choose...The last time I checked, I thought Christian's weren't to judge. Please tend to your back porch and I'll worry about mine.
If you don't wish to discuss or debate the topic at hand, there are many other topics to choose from.
LOL! You contradict yourself and tell others to watch how they "reason"
You can find him in your heart. You can find him in the Bible. Truly, just be quiet, as if you were meditating (prayer is a form of meditation) and if you really want to hear from him you will. He promises this to all who seek him. But don't mock God. You can mock me and you can mock this thread. But, if you are not sincere you will not receive an answer from God.
How are you sure that the "God" you hear is really God and not actually satan tricking you...He is the prince of deceivers after all...
I mock myself more than anything else, Maralexa. Sometimes I wish what you were saying was the truth...it would make life far less confusing.
Where? Somewhere between the left pulmonary artery and the right ventricle?
Hi Emile R, I said God created Satan as an angel. I said/implied Satan personifies sin. Also, man did not create satan but man sure strengthens satan every time they embrace his principles.
Hi Ron, God didn't create confusion, man did.
Double Scorpion, hope I haven't usurpt your position here.
I am just posing questions for debate/discussion. Peoples opinions will vary. And we each have the right to our own opinions. I pose questions for my own education. I enjoy learning other peoples "take" on things. Accusing others of not living correctly or "going to hell" for not agreeing with one's opinion of things, kinda defeats the purpose of the debate.
Then why didn't he have Noah put dinosaurs on the ark? He is one confusing little being.
I wouldn't worry about usurping DS's position. As a scholar, his words carry weight. He is a trusted source of information because, he appears to know what he's talking about and backs it up with fact, when questioned. I've never been led to believe he's making it up as he goes.
And you did not imply, you stated quite clearly. If you are now implying that your statement was wrong, that I could understand.
It's funny how Christians on one hand will tell you God created the universe and everything in it, but they will also put forth a rather lengthy list of the things God didn't create in the universe.
It would be so much easier if all they said was, "God didn't create God, man did".
God speaks the Truth through his Word. Word = Bible and Word=Jesus. If you think you might like to just have a look (I'm speaking very quietly and sincerely, here) a great place to start is by reading the book of John in the New Testament of the New Living Translation. The reason I suggest this one is because the King James Version KJV is too hard for many people to understand, me included.
Yes, really understanding all this stuff about God does make life far less confusing. As a logical adult you may find some areas hard to appreciate. I grew up having to be logical and convincing or stay silent! It was not until 8 years ago that I really truly got what this (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) is all about. So you see, I am really only 8 years old.
I don't mean to pass you off or anything, but I believe that James Watson might be able to answer a question or two.
Yes - it is easier to regress to an infantile state than face reality, you truly are 8 years old.
Well, I always respect sincerity, Maralexa, and you seem quite sincere.
Yet you appear to be totally unaware of sheer common sense! What a dumb God you serve!
Maybe that was when delusion set in...maybe!
It amazes me that people (double scorpion) say they want to learn here on these forums, and then condemn those who answer the question.
If you give an opinion, and get another one in response, don't call that "judgment" on you.
Just how open are you to learn?
And how much do you want to argeue and assert your own point of view.
PS. I suggest if you truly want to learn, do a Google search for the topic you want to learn about, and then go to the most "expert" website on that.
Why go to "amateurs" (used with caution) when you can find experts"? (Just sayin')
I got the point DS made quite clearly. There certainly are people making it up as the go and implying that the rest of us are foolish or childish, because we don't pretend that silly meanderings make sense.
It is very enlightening. Sad, but educational none the less.
I wish to learn other peoples opinions on things. And I ask follow up questions in a certain way to see what responses I get.
I have the formal education.
Some people get really sensitive, because they assume I might be "poking" at them. I am only curious in the responses I get. But if someone wishes to insult me for one reason or other, I will point out flaws based on my formal education of the subject at hand (not my opinion).
If you do not wish to participate, then don't. But please don't come in and post something, in an attempt, (in my opinion) to insult me or the methods I used to get responses from those who truly wish to discuss/debate the topic at hand.
I take it, you have never done research for a Doctorate Dissertation. And from some of the conversations we have had...Well I wonder if research or education of any type has been involved at all...
P.S. If one chooses to just insult...I feel no regrets returning the favor.
That was a tough one Scorp, but I dont believe in the all or nothing theory. I believe some sort of supreme creator energy created the physical universe, but that all of creation has its own free will within, therefore having the ability to create as well.
Interesting. Let's say that there is a singular energy/divine source. That is how the universe came about. Now we have all the planets and lifeforms. Humans are the only animal that can "reason". All other animals live by the "strong survive" type of rules. Humans, however, do not live by this rule. Other animals live for survival and continuation of the species. They kill, steal, trick or use anything within their power to survive. Humans are held above this standard, and thus we have laws for our actions, this allows all humans the best chance at survival and the ability to mate and continue their personal linage. These laws saying what is right and what is wrong, created by man, would agree with your thought.
What if this Divine source (God), did in fact pass these laws down to man? Why only man and not the other animals. God created all animals, not just humans, which means all animals were created from the dust and God breathed life into them. Why did he require only the one species to follow these rules and not all.
(This response is for others as well, not just your response)
Who is to say other animals cant reason just because we dont perceive it? And who is to say humans are the only intelligent animal? We havent left our own solar syatem so that conclusion would be extremely biased wouldnt it? Obviously Im going outside this whole biblical study topic thing but I thought it would be worth playing devil's advocate. Unless its supposed to be God's advocate or man's advocate.
Exactly. Whenever this type of thought is brought up, it normally is completely avoided or twisted into something not even remotely close to the topic, so I have never gotten a "educated" answer for these type of questioned thoughts.
Personally I think animals can reason...at least somewhat...why do I say this?
Well if my dog uses the bathroom in the house while I am not home, when I do get home, she has her tail tucked and head down in the submissive posture. While I have never hit or mistreated my dog, she understands her place in the family, and she knew she did something wrong and was displaying the submissive posture.
God is eternal, having existed forever and will exist forever from this point.
God created Satan (and thereby sin), whether in the formation of all angels or not doesn't matter.
Consider the time span that God existed before creating His creatures and companions, Satan and the angels. Whatever point that happened at, there was an eternity of time prior to that event. God had already existed forever, alone and lonely, desiring companionship.
It seems rather unlikely that an omnipotent God would suffer through an eternity of time without doing something about it and therefore one of the assumptions must be wrong.
It also seems very unlikely that an eternal God would have a beginning (what created God?) and so the second assumption must be wrong. The angels, Satan and sin have also always existed and always will. God did not create sin; it has always been here.
Of course, the same reasoning could be applied to our universe; it must be cyclical having existed forever and will exist forever - God did not create it. Perhaps He only set up the laws and initial formation this go 'round so that it would produce us? Of course that still leaves the fact that He waited for an eternity before doing that.
If it has always been here, Divinely inspired or not, Then the "good and evil" is simply an interpretation of man.
God created the universe and gave it order. He then created his children, whom he gave choice to. One of these children was Lucifer (or Satan) who chose to disobey. This ability to choose is something that separates us from other beings. While I can choose to do good or evil, a dog ,for example, is limited by its environments. If the dog is treated well and trained it is a good dog. If it is not trained, beaten etc then it is a bad dog. But that is not fair to the dog because it is only fulfilling the measure of its creation. It reacts to the way it is treated. We humans on the other hand can be poorly treated, beaten and hurt and still choose to do something other than lash out.
In relation to that, everything has its opposites. Good and evil are opposite of each other like light and darkness. Bitter and sweet. Pleasure and pain. The universe is built upon these principles. From my observations the universe follows laws and since God created the universe he follows those laws as well. I think God is a god of science and as such is constrained by the scientific laws he created. There is a lot that we still do not know about the universe and God. I look forward learning more from either scientific findings or from God. Either way, I am searching for truth and am open to it where ever it is found.
If humans are not effected by how they are treated, (in the same way you say dogs are), Then what is the purpose of psychologists or why do people commit suicide or develop PTSD? Why do some people kill others when under "attack". Example...Man catches wife cheating with another man...Husband kills both wife and other man...
It has been determined, that those who come from abusive homes, typically develop abusive relationships or actions themselves.
How a person is treated directly effects their actions. They just handle it in different ways. That same is true with say...dogs, for example. A beaten dog reacts different ways...One might turn mean...another might turn extremely timid. The results are never the same in all cases. Human or animal alike.
Good point about abusive homes. If a child is taught that life is all about violence and abuse s/he will most likely learn the lesson well and continue that violent and abusive lifestyle.
DS, it's hard to believe that I'm defending this, because I had the same initial response that you did. If you read what he wrote again, however, he said that humans have the ability to choose to respond differently to harsh environments, not that it has no effect on us. At least, I think that's his point.
I am not entirely sure that humans are capable of choosing to respond one way or another when it comes to what is instilled in us from birth on. Defensive instincts kick in. But I agree that with proper control, humans can change how they respond to certain things.
As with dogs or other animals...With time, even they can be taught to react differently to situations.
I was mainly concerned with the comparision between humans and other animals, with this particular response.
One big difference between animals and humans is that God does not impart His spirit into animals, but He does into humans and it is this spirit that allows humans, specifically, christians to be able to choose to respond one way. It is our flesh that enables us to choose another way.
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. (typed again on purpose)
Who endowed man with the weakness of being tempted by the flesh, BO? Is it the same deity which frowns upon man following basic instincts from perhaps 500,000 years ago?
Was it also the deity which commanded Thou Shalt Not Kill not long after purposely drowning almost the entire population of man and animals on planet Earth?
And was it the same guy who said not to covet your neighbor's wife and then impregnated a 13 year old betrothed virgin?
Your god can't make up his dern mind what he wants from humans. I mean, look who he chooses to speak in his behalf. He has to have a sense of humor in that though!
Humans are animals...So there is no difference between them...One is just "smarter" than the other...
Biblically, there are huge differences between animals and humans
You are correct...Biblically, they are vastly different. But then so are the Hebrew people and everyone else. Besides, God made the animals first...Biblically speaking...isn't the first "born" normally the chosen or blessed one of the offspring?
Medically, biologically, chemically and physically animals and humans are almost identical with only subtle differences.
No, the universe is not built on the principles of opposites according to the laws of science or anything else for that matter.
What is the opposite of energy? What is the opposite of charge? What is the opposite of relativity? What is the opposite of angular momentum?
The opposite of kinetic energy is potential energy. (I assume you were talking about kinetic energy) The opposite of charge is neutrality. Unless you are talking about positive charge than the opposite would be negative charge and vice versa. I assume the opposite of the theory of relativity would be quantum theory. The opposite of angular momentum would be angular momentum in the opposite direction... as exact opposite angular momentums cancel each other out.
That's not what I asked.
You assumed wrong.
No, it isn't as there is no opposite to charge, there is only positive and negative charge.
Wrong assumption again.
Nope, there is no opposite to relativity.
Those are both angular momentum. Wrong again.
Just saying wrong, then.
God created everything and all things created are within God. God did not create angels that "fell". Angels were created to serve God perfectly and they do. So forget that rubbish. God did not create a satan, forget that too. If God created a satan God would have to take a percentage of the blame for mankind sinning since he allows an arbiter of evil to plague his creation. I mean, why would God allow satan to 'fall' here on earth? So God has his hand in allowing another all powerful entity that can possess and take away peoples free choice, indeed, make victims of them, against their choice. If God allowed satan to possess a snake, then why did God not punish satan for bringing sin into the world, but adam brought sin into the world, so the bible says. The snake gets punished because it was possessed, plus it was an animal. God does not judge animals. There are so many loopholes in the satan theory that it should be common knowledge this is a catholic fear doctrine and the bible doesn't support it.
Sin is a by-product of creating humans with the ability to choose the good or the evil. Choice is the only way God gets willing people to love him. IF they choose Him. Puppets don't love. Robots don't love.
So since there is no satan and choosing good and evil is an ability of humankind, God is clear of all charges of creating sin; to clarify; creating and being a by-product are two different things.
I think that sums things up rather nicely.
Not to belabor a point from another thread, but if there was no sin prior to eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, the concept of sin was contained in the fruit. Didn't God therefor create sin prior to Adam and Eve's knowledge of it? They didn't eat from the fruit of 'let's create sin' they ate a piece of fruit that allowed them to see and understand it. It couldn't have entered the world by the Christian theory had it not existed in the first place.
No one created sin. Sin is simply falling short of God's standards of holiness. Eve simply decided one day after an internal argument "shall I, shant I...God says no, but the fruit looks nice..." to have a taste.
Now whatever that fruit was, nobody actually knows as all we have is poetic allegory. The questions you need to ask yourself are
1) Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden in the first place?
2) After the eating incident, He said “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Now consider "Let's make man in our image". So by knowing Good and Evil, man has now become more in God's image. What's really going on here?
Personally, I don't believe that God's creation of Adam and Eve meant that they were in a state of sublime utopian perfection. Creating man in His image was not some instant event, but a process, that will take the whole of man's history to accomplish. This creation event was but a single step. - Eating fruit was another step.
- God coming to die for our sin was another step.
- Being filled with His Spirit and having the mind of Christ is the next step.
- Being raised from the dead incorruptible is the final step.
I would say I agree with that. But I don't subscribe to the belief that there was a naked woman standing in front of a tree pondering whether to eat of the fruit or not. I assume the tale was shared in this manner because people were simple and asked a basic question. 'Why are we different from the other animals?' It's a cute answer, but certainly not necessarily meant to be taken literally.
I always assumed the point of this step was to explain that the concept of original sin had run its course. Accepting Christ represents accepting the knowledge that we are not condemned by the sins of others. We are not condemned by sin through the law. Christ removed sin from the physical world. It does still exist, but in our minds. We judge what is sin by our own standards.
As much distaste as I have for Paul he does a pretty good job of explaining this on several occassions scattered throughout the New Testament. We fall short of grace by our own perception. This is not to say that if you think you are perfect; you are. It means that if you look squarely into your own soul you will know your imperfections. You will see how far you have allowed yourself to fall from the standard you percieve. It is up to the individual to strive to live up to their own standard, not to set the bar for anyone but themselves.
I think being filled with the spirit and having the mind of Christ is not a monopoly owned by Christians. The mind of Christ is achieved by all who look within and walk away from their own imperfections. Those who can remove the mote. If we can remove the mote we can see the spiritual more clearly.
I don't subscribe to the 'raised from the dead' belief, so I wouldn't argue that point.
Since you do not subscribe to the raised from the dead belief than you have mooted a very (add 15 more veries here) important part to what Christ did and you moot that God thought Christs being raised from the dead was important also. You also ignore Revelation 21 and 22, certain parts of what christ taught about spiritual bodies after ressurection and the famous jonah sign, which canonized the book of jonah, btw - just a point for those wondering about why certain books were canonized or not.
As to the mind of christ being acheived by those who look within.. Christ is not a 'self help' course. Timothy robbins in no closer to christ than any other person with this kind of philosophy. Jesus taught, reliance on God as the epitome of the christian walk. Paul exhorted "we do not walk in our own strength". We are to ask in order to receive - on this note, we cannot ask ourselves - we need to ask God, who hears us easily as he is everywhere in all places and at all times, indeed we do have our existence, breathe and have life, in Him.
But, He is not so easily tapped into especially by our human efforts for that would be works and we walk by faith in Him, not by works. There is nothing we can do to earn Gods favor, except repent and believe on Him who sent jesus.
The repentence that God is interested in is not our own 'bar', indeed, christian standards are given by God and represent Gods own standards, so the 'bar' we need to accomplish is above the 'bar' we set for ourselves - some people have very low 'bars' others slightly higher, but the bar that God has set needs to have Gods power working in the christian in order to achieve that 'bar'.
Removing the mote only helps if we are christian in the first place. Falling short of grace by our own perception means that we have realized the bar that God has set and are using that bar to assess ourselves, not the bar of tim robbins. God has said what falls short and that bar must be maintained.
I agree, genesis 3 is allegorical, not kabbalical, allegorical.
Okee dokee. I would disagree, but it's really simply one opinion vs another. Doesn't amount to anything other than that. No way to know who is right or wrong, or even if there is a right or wrong answer. It's all a matter of perception.
I think it does amount to something more than that. You deny biblical statements. I showed what the bible says and you chose to ignore what the bible said. What i said was not "my opinion" but bible truths. Since God cannot lie, what His book says, does not lie. Surely we can agree on a path of jesus being truth. So where does one get truth? Truth to humans is on a sliding scale and ecumenically speaking, changes over periods of time - truth becomes, contemporary and pertinent from todays view, which of course the today of 50, 100yrs and so on from now, will change again and again. But has God changed? There is scripture which says God does not change. If God does not change then it is not a matter of perception but a matter of knowing Gods truth, which was plainly typed above and confirmed by the scriptures, both OT and NT.
The fact that anyone would deny scripture is beyond me, when just reading the Word displays more than adequately, Godliness.
I found i made a mistake... its not timothy robbins, its tony robbins - thank google and thank God it was a secular mistake lol.
No offense intended. I am trying to be civil.
No. What you state is your opinion of Bible truths. I tell you what. Get all of Christendom to agree with you and I will agree that they are Bible truths. 2.9% agreeing doesn't really support your argument. It doesn't mean I will agree that they are truths, but I would be hard pressed to argue that they weren't biblical truths.
I would direct you back to my first response. It applies here also.
You say God does not change. Tell me this. Why is the universe itself constantly changing? Why is the world you live in evolving? Why does society change?
Why did the message change from one of retribution to one of Love?
Could it simply be that your God is trying to get it through Man's thick skulls that things change? That understanding of the spiritual is meant to change and evolve?
I have absolutely no idea what you are refering to on this one. So you made a mistake. Everyone does.
I'll tell you what when you get people to agree with your truths we will then call it even. Now i will explain why there are differences. Some people are content with thinking of a literal snake in a literal tree. I was not. I did not, and do not believe in a literal snake in a literal tree, so i sought and sought hard to find an interpretation i can live with. It did not come from left field. Any scripture that is not a fundamental doctrine of salvation is unimportant, that is to say, that right or wrong does not enter into the picture UNLESS salvation is involved. Christendom agrees with salvation and other basic doctrine. Believing in satan or not does not affect ones salvation. My walk with God is not dependent upon whether i believe in satan, evil spirits or a literal snake. When others seek to find revelation in areas they need too, it will be given to them. The point of your being hard pressed to believe what i say are not biblical truths doesn't worry me at all, i've read what you believe and also, scoff.
God does not change, that is scriptural.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
God did not change, his system of doing things did, but jesus said, Go and sin no more... sin is still important to God, Gods people are still important, etc..etc. God just ended the Old system and brought in a new one. Does the introduction of the hst prove that our government changed.. no their system did, obviously the government has not changed, the system has... and this was according to prophecies.
Why does the universe change.. really, i thought jupiter looked pretty much the same as usual. I guess you might have to define what you mean by change.. forget it.. this is a moot point.
Debating Christian and biblicalities with you is really a moot point. You can't even discover God in the bible. Even jesus said:
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
If you have no idea, do not be so presumptuous as to assume any type of conclusion that would be a rational thing to do.
have a nice day
Interesting how you have played both sides of the fence. You say a fruit allowed them to see.. but you don't think it was a fruit. Peace.
Could fruit then be, by bible definition, what is the result of how people live? A good tree bears good fruit. Judge a tree by its fruit and the fruit of righteousness is love, peace, joy etc. Fruit is then, allegorically, the evidence of a persons lifestyle.
To eat, is to partake?! Could not then eves sin been gradual, building up until adam became a partaker of that same fruit (lifestyle) eve was endulging in? Do we have the liberty to then assume that adams sin was not eating a fruit but being subject to eve and following her path and not Gods'? Was Gods statement, 'not to eat of the fruit' (partake of the lifestyle) just a warning of other consequences? and not a literal warning to an allegorical passage?
sometimes the bible gives ones head a real good workout, to go with the eyestrain
That can be explained quite simply.There was never an Adam and Eve. This is a story. I think I've been quite clear in previous conversations. If you don't understand, there is nothing I can do about it. If you do and are pretending to raise an eyebrow, again, there is nothing I can do about it.
I doubt anyone argues that point. But, that has nothing to do with the 'fruit' in the story.
Sure, women are just plain evil then, by your definition? Is that why the evangelicals insist that women are to be subjugated to a man's authority? Because to listen to a woman makes you evil? If that's what you're saying (which I hope it isn't) you're scaring me.
I don't get the impression you've had much of work out. I would also suggest reading glasses to cut down on the strain.
Emile I posted that link to Yale in that other thread.
Thanks. I saw it. I'm going to sit down this afternoon and take a look.
I recommend starting the NT. The OT can be a little dry.
try a parallel bible, that way all the gospels can be read at one time
I was referring to the Free Yale courses on the bible. And I do have a copy (facimile) of the 1841 English Hexapla of the New Testament...Thanks... And this site: http://onlineparallelbible.com/ is a good source for a parallel bible as well as study guides and commentaries.
Too bad you are like this.
I did not appreciate your incorrect assumption about how i view women although you, apparently need to be in subjection to something other than your own ego. I think Women are wonderful, sorry to disappoint you; although some can be such b*tch*s.
I'm not even going to comment about the work out.. It must have been difficult to conjure a defense to my post sorry it was lost on you.
but i wish you luck in the future.
As I stated in the post, I hoped I had misunderstood you. Since you chose to become angry, instead of clarifying, I am left to assume I did not misunderstand. This does not make me nasty (or a b*tch), as you would like to imply.
Your refusal to consider alternative points of view are, in my opinion, the largest obstacle to our communication; but I believe that is not unique to our conversations. I wish you luck with that in the future.
You must have borrowed earnest blinders
Nice to know I get so far up your nose that you have to harp on about me brothery........ speaks volumes, thanks!
Nope. I'm not aware of any blinders on ernest, but I call them as I see them. I don't resort to personal insults when I get called out either. I apologize when I'm wrong. I try to avoid stamping a little foot. It ensures I have one less thing to look the fool over. You should certainly try it. I highly recommend it.
Sort of says it all really.
I did not appreciate your incorrect assumption about how i view women ...some can be such b*tch*s.
Ah yes, Some women can be such b*tches...
I wonder, is that because God made us that way... Or is it a byproduct of all the poo we are fed by men?
If we all just shut up and made you all sammwiches when you wanted them instead of forming opinions and stuff, then wouldn't the world be a better place?
Hey Melissa, I resemble that last remark about men...... the "you all" bit at least!
I think you are a very good thinker and communicator myself, and I live in a house full of women.... 5 of em ...... and I make most of the sandwiches around here.
I apologize Earnest. The you all was supposed to be a singular. I'm Southern (American) and we make "You" plural instinctively.
LOL and if my husband ever told me to get up and make him a sammich, I would know that he had suffered some sort of traumatic brain injury while I wasn't looking. Of course, if he ever called a woman a b*tch in my presence I would assume the same thing.
Nice! A husband that knows to respect his greater self........ sounds like a smart man.
By the way, I love real bitches!
I just let ours out for a run in the yard. She is a Labrador-cross and has the typical bitch personality.... she is a very sweet girl with few vices and very smart.
LOL, he gets treated very well because of it.
We have an implicate agreement. I am subservient as long as he doesn't make demands. As such, all demands of society and religion are met and no one gets hurt.
I only feed on command those who I have given birth to... and then only until they are of an age where they can bloody well make it themselves if they can't wait until dinner.
I can't have a real bitch in the apartment... four flights of steps carrying a two year old and holding a dog leash just aren't happening.
I can relate to the feeding thing.
When the younger tribe get back home from school they have to fend for themselves.
My daughter only feeds em till they can reach the kitchen counter! As soon as they can swipe food from the pantry it's time for them to fend for themselves. Eexcept meal times, but they have to set the table and help out then as well.
You daughter is a very wise woman. She must have had good role models.
This last one is killing me. I think four is it for me. I'm getting to old for this. My oldest is now older than I was when I had him. That means that I have officially been a mother for more than half my life. I'll likely be a *chokes* grandmother before my youngest is in her teens... By the time my youngest gets married and has children, it is possible I will be a GREAT grandmother.
The point is... I'm blood well tired of making sammiches LOL. As soon as Lily can make her own, I might never make one again.
Send your daughter my kudos on her wisdom. It took me 18 years to learn it
I'm told that being a grandmother is amazingly good fun! From the kid's grandmother. She likes it as much as I enjoy being a grandfather.
Kids should all made to go hunt for their own game as early as possible!
I was feeding my family with a shotgun when I was 11.
My gkids still think meat comes from the supermarket I reckon, and life is pretty much easier for them.
Back to the thread.
brotheryochanan, if God created everything, and by your logic he would never create an entity like Satan, why did he create evil at all? You say that human beings have the ability to choose between good and evil and it is this choice that motivates people to love God, but if he didn't introduce evil at all, wouldn't this love be a guarantee? By your own reasoning, God wouldn't risk introducing a force that could sway people so negatively, so why would he create evil to begin with?
God did not create our decisions. Couldn't it be that "evil" is a decision? Our great fall was a decision to create ego -- the great separateness, the essence of selfishness.
Evil is not some thing that is or was created. Evil has it's origins in the minds of people who choose to do that which contradicts their in built sense of right and wrong.
Again, though, if people have the option of choosing evil or "wrong," then it exists. My question was really directed at brotheryochanan, in response to what he said in his previous post.
Not true. Your built-in compass is to feed yourself over all others, and to feed your children over all others. There is nothing in our built-in instincts that shows any need to defend the life of a starving child half way around the world. Primitive man (and not-so-primitive man) killed other clans with impunity because they were competing for the same resources.
The love would not be a guarantee if there were no choice. Evil and good are the by-products of choice. It is like nuclear waste being created from nuclear energy. Its like pollution being created from an industrial society. You cannot have one without the other. Its like to choose good is to ignore the evil and to choose the evil is to ignore the good. If the evil is chosen then the good is not chosen but still it had the potential to exist. We talk about concepts, intangible but existing, like air, we cannot see it but without it, we die. The best way i can phrase this example is to say that evil is what could have happened when good was chosen and that good happens when evil is not chosen, yet both have a chance at existence and being as they are intangible concepts, they both exist and choice exists. Concepts.
By not creating a satan God did not introduce evil into this world. If God created a satan and satan remained on earth (surely God could have moved him to another planet or somewhere else but allowed him to remain on earth) then God would, as you put it, have introduced evil into the garden, via the serpent, God would not have introduced good, but again, introduced evil. In my belief i rule out a tangible serpent.
The catholic doctrine sways Gods responsibility of satan, away from God, by stating that, this highly esteemed and favored angel of God - rebelled and by his own vanity opposed God and persuaded more angels to side with him against God who, of course, cast him out of heaven. Of course you see right off the bat how incomplete this scenario is and that it is riddled with errors. So really, we need too shed this satan catholic theology which much of christianity adheres. In this light and answer to this portion of your question, God did not create satan, nor did he create a flawed angel who rebelled with many other flawed angels also, nor was there a literal snake so God did not introduce evil. God gave people a choice to choose and to bear the repercussions of those choices.
did that help?
Well, yes and no. I appreciate you taking the time to post such a thorough response, but the core of my question remains unanswered.
Earlier, you stated that God created everything. I understand that you are saying that God did not create Satan or introduce human beings directly to evil, but you still maintain that evil is a choice human beings can make. If we have the freedom to make an evil choice, then it stands to reason that evil exists, and according to your earlier post, God would have made it. I still don't understand the logic behind God's choice to create evil.
One more shot, lol, its difficult for me to explain. And i thank you for making me think of it.
I think the term 'created' is worth a closer look at. God created: the earth, mankind, planets, etc. He also created: space, gravity, air. So God created all things, but can God create good and evil? right and wrong? I think it would be closer to say that good and evil are something that God did not create. I think that once mankind was placed on the earth good and evil were a by-product of mankind. If mankind were placed on the earth with only a programmed obedience to good and because of that programming, mankind was not able to choose anything other than good, then evil would not happen. So i think we need to apply a different term to replace, create, because i think that the only way to apply 'create' into our discussion is to say that because God created man with an ability to choose, God, in fact and perhaps more precisely, created the scenario that good or evil could be chosen.
It may align with a point of animal tendancy. Animals have a tendancy to eat meat and for that, they have to kill. Did God create animals to eat meat? not originally - all animals ate "the herbs of the field". Did God create killing? Killing is a by-product wherewith one has to kill to eat meat.
Some things are not "created" they just come into being because of something created.
Semantics. God created the "scenario" for good and evil, hence he created good and evil. No one else could have created the scenario.
brotheryochanan, I have to agree with A Troubled Man on this. If it exists in this universe, then God must have made it, according to your earlier response. I don't understand picking and choosing what might have been made by God. If God gave man choice, then the choices available to man would naturally have been made by God as well.
You see though, the 'scenario' is not 'created', it is a by-product of something that was created. Did God create poo, or did poo occur because man eats? God created the scenario for the elimination of waste, but what comes out of a human, in that way, is a by-product of eating.
We really need to distinguish between what is created and what happens. Take starving children, for example, did God create 'starving children'? or are they the by-product of mans greed? Does God create starving? A rich man can put a pool in his backyard but did God create the pool? God gave us the ability to choose but did he then create the good and evil that we might utilize that choosing ability? or was the good and evil something that occurred from the choice that was made.
I don't think this is semantics at all.
I gotta be honest, i said that God created all things but i was not going overboard with the idea, i certainly wasn't including abstract concepts. Then i went to explain something that God did not create, satan, afterall the post was in reference to satan. So if said that God did not create satan and yet so many believe in satan, clearly we need to understand that my first sentence would be in contradiction to my second sentence if there were not some parameters involved, which i did not go into. The creation that i was specifically referring to were more along the lines of sun, moon, stars, earth, trees, etc. but, i enjoy thinking along the lines of your direction. Thanks again.
I thank you, too, for your responses. Please understand that I ask my questions with sincerity.
Are you saying that God created a person's complex internal system without any awareness of what that system would produce? Or how it would be maintained? That doesn't make sense to me. I do hear what you're saying, but it seems illogical. If something can occur, it exists within this universe, regardless of whether it's an outcome or an impetus. You'd agree that God created children who have the capacity to starve? That he created men who have the capacity to horde wealth? I can't follow the line of reasoning that would have God create things without any control or knowledge of what those things are capable of. That seems like an empty kind of Almighty to me (certainly not the overly emotional God depicted by so many others here and elsewhere).
Double, you assume so much that is not in evidence. Tsk, tsk!
First of all, it depends on what you mean by "everything." If God created all of physical continuity (what we term as "reality"), couldn't that be called "everything?" And yet that wouldn't include our individual decisions, now would it?
"Nothing happens without His okay?" Where did you get this from? And what happened to "free will?" Last time I checked, it was thriving quite nicely without divine intervention.
To answer your question, no, it would not stand to reason. We (you and I, and everyone else in this mortal realm) created the devil and sin. We created disharmony by our decision to create ego and to separate ourselves from the spiritual realm.
This might be simplistic but God - what ever that entity really is - could have easily created everything just by being the causative factor in the big bang. That being the event science now knows to be the start of everything, including the cosmic material that eventually became life.
This theory does not preclude "God" from providing the spark that brought material to life. It does remove the necessity of the entity humans call God from being everywhere, doing everything, at the same time.
This theory even fits with Stephen Hawking recent theory and statement that gravity caused the big bang and it required no God like entity. He overlooks the question, and from where did the force of Gravity come from.
Thus, yes "God" quite easily could have created everything, including you and me and the dust we will return to when the physical part of our being is not needed and the spiritual or life in us moves, hopefully onward and to a better place.
LMAO, you would really embarrass yourself like that to try and prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument. Just like I'm still waiting for you to post your "proof" in the education thread. Must have slipped your mind. I would get into a battle of wits with you over this, but I hate fighting an unarmed opponent.
Ah, I see, the Christian in you escaped just long enough to toss out an insult. Well done. Shall I now stoop down to your level so we both get banned?
It wasn't the Christian in me that insulted you, it was the intellectual. The Christian would have forgiven you Still waiting for that proof btw
That lack thereof would follow, an intellectual would not.
No, for the most part, the Christian will lie, just like when they say the "intellectual" insults.
"Homeschooling is a life-altering decision for many families.The reasons for the choice can range from protecting a child from bullying at school to religious or philosophical disagreements with the standard curriculum."
LMAO, that's your proof? A generalized completely true statement showing the reasons that some people homeschool, yet not specifically why I do. LMAO.... pretty lame. Try again.
I have no problem admitting I have no idea what you're exact reasons were for home schooling your children in the same way I have no idea why your children decided they wanted to go to public school. I get statistical probabilities and the fact they relate to everything, including those reasons.
The reasons you wrote in your Hub article were not that generalized but were actually pretty specific; religion and bullying. I easily found plenty of reasons with a simple search:
Parents cite numerous reasons as motivations to homeschool, including better academic test results, individualized instruction, to help the public system with fewer kids, more hands on environments, to try alternative methods, poor public school environment, religious reasons, improved character/morality development, the expense of private education, and objections to what is taught locally in public school. Homeschooling may also be a factor in the choice of parenting style. Homeschooling can be an option for families living in isolated rural locations, living temporarily abroad, and to allow for more traveling; also many young athletes and actors are taught at home. Homeschooling can be about mentorship and apprenticeship, where a tutor or teacher is with the child for many years and then knows the child very well. wiki
But, when we look at the statistics, we find religious reasons make up at least 40% with behavioral problems at about 10%, which is half the demographic for just those two reasons.
As well, reasons such as 'poor learning environment, developing character/moral, object to school teachings make up another 50%, but they too have been cited back to religious origins; morally corrupt students according to the Bible, teaching evolution, etc.
So, I can understand completely that your reasons are not at all the reasons given above and that you don't fall within those statistical boundaries, but are instead part of a fractionally small percentile of those who home school their children for completely different reasons.
Therefore, I admit I was wrong.
Yep, because that's the reason you are avoiding the proof. It couldn't possibly be because the proof doesn't exist. You accused me of something (several times) then couldn't provide proof. That's a personal attack
Like I said, the Christian will for the most part lie.
Accusations are not personal attacks. Fyi.
Here is a very good example of a personal attack:
"I would get into a battle of wits with you over this, but I hate fighting an unarmed opponent."
According to your logic, not a personal attack. LMAO, it was an accusation. Or more of an observation. I'm done here, you cant educate carrots. Have a nice Sunday.
Ah yes, dropped in for a quick insult and then it's off to church for re-affirmation of the same beliefs that had you drop in the first place.
You see, an accusation, by definition, is a charge of wrongdoing or that a person is guilty of some fault, offence, crime, imputation, etc.
Accusations are used all the time and they are in no way personal attacks (ad hominems)
Perhaps, a carrot will understand that if you can't?
God created the devil of course. The beauty about God is that He allows His creation the opportunity to choose. The devil chose his destiny. Also, we live in a universe of opposite- I opt to use the phrase "the reality of duality". Evil is a by product of good as darkness is a byproduct of light. For ex, in the absence of light we have darkness; in the absence of good evil lies.
What is considered "good" and if these things are not done, does it make someone "evil"? Who determines good from evil? What is considered Evil in the USA, is normal practice in..say...Saudi Arabia. And what those two place consider Evil, is everyday life in...say...the Papua New Guinea Islands.
If no light then darkness, and with no good then evil. That sounds as if Darkness and evil are "the norm" or baseline and anything above and beyond that is "rightous". How can something be held against a person, if it is the baseline. Every building requires a foundation or base.
Often too, there is an alternative. For example, can we also say that in the absence of evil, there is good?
Not really. The alternative to both of those is a neutral position. In other words, in the absence of good or evil, there is neither good nor evil. Existing between those realms in the alternative would be a far more stable and therefore beneficial alternative for everyone.
Say what? You do realize that another way to say 'good and evil' is 'right and wrong'. Are you seriously arguing the position that to have no definition of right and wrong would produce a more stable and therefore beneficial alternative? How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?
Unlike his creations there is no evil in God since God doesn't mind punishing evil.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If God created evil and God is trying to cast out evil then God is divided and his effort will work to tear down his own kingdom-that doesn't make sense.
Matthew 12:26 (Whole Chapter)
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Just like the Satan thought he was better then God he brought evil into Heaven just has mankind has been given the power to control this world so evil his found here on Earth not in Heaven.
Passage Genesis 1:26:
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
.... dominion over the fish, fowl, cattle and over all the earth.
before the flood
.... and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, fowl, fishes...
from dominion to fear.
If we as people are creating that fear then we are the ones to blame. Take bull fighting for example-man created that fearful sport or what about riding bucking horses for entertainment- mankind is reasonable for the fear society faces and yes there are natural disasters but man is aware of them and should avoid them unlike the animals we kill for sport.
So god obviously doesn't intervene in our daily affairs because there is no evil in him? He doesn't know what evil is so he doesn't realize that his creations are suffering on a daily basis. Now it make sense to me!!!
makes sense to you perhaps but where is this supported biblically
Perhaps you can write a hub about it
If God didn't know what evil was then he wouldn't know what or how to punish evil.
He creation has been given freedom and unlike man God doesn't say you're free to do only what I want you to do. God gave mankind freedom to do with as we will and if we choose to make planet full of greed, envy, hate and the rest then so be it. I Personally wonder why any God would come back to a world that pretty much doesn't listen to him and tries to break every commandment he's given-that's what doesn't make sense to me.
For me it all this religion stuff is a way for people to feel secure. I mean think back to the dark ages and how barbarians were sweeping across Europe completely destroying towns. If i was alive back then i guess the only safe feeling i would get is believing in the church and knowing that the wicked will be punished. Also remember in the dark ages this is when the church held the most power because only monks could really learn.
In the gospel of John 1:1 it says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word (Jesus)was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
God did make Lucifer along with the other angels and Lucifer decided to buck up against God and was thrown out of Heaven and sin was born. God gives us a free will and we decide to sin or not to sin.
I guess nobody can tell you that, maybe you`ll find out when you die. Lol
That's only the case when you consider God in terms set up by the Western Christian view of religion.
by Castlepaloma3 years ago
What if God is the “bad guy", and Satan the "good guy"? I’m very curious, that may causes some Christian to think blasphemous. I except Christian Butt they do not except me for thinking outside the...
by Haunty4 years ago
In the Biblical creation story, the world is wholly good and is governed by a wholly good God. But the ancient Israelites, who originally put the story on paper, read it in an entirely different way than Christians do...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar5 years ago
In a forum, I asked a question: Why God created atheists? Now I ask, why man created God?
by Randy Godwin18 months ago
We are always hearing about Satan tempting people to do bad things against god's wishes, but according to biblical scholars, he was once god's favorite.So, the question is: Who, or what tempted Satan to go bad? ...
by FootballNut19 months ago
No matter what way you look at it.If God created life, then Satan the devil was born through God's creation, this makes GOD responsible for Satan's existence. So blame GOD for all things bad, instead of just shouting...
by r-o-y23 months ago
The Luciferian gospel:Genesis 1:1 we read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” So, if Satan was a murderer from the beginning, then God created him that way. This gospel states that God is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.