If hell is real?
Would it be fair to say that the sin of Adam had a greater impact on God's creation than the resurrection life of Christ?
I do not believe that hell is real. I realize that the existence of hell is a part of the faith of many people, so I do not push my beliefs on them - especially if I am wrong, I do not want to be responsible for any one else having the same problem at those pearly gates that I'll have. I am quite certain, though, that if there was ever any eternal damnation, It was completely eliminated by the resurrection. That's the power. Have a nice day.
Really? And why is it not fair to say?
Because while Adam's sin (and Eve's sin as well) was the Fall of humankind, it's Jesus' Sacrifice that allows us to be with God forever, and that also pertains to everyone.
It is an unfair way to look at creation anyway, because Adam did not sin.
Actually, Adam did sin. He was told not to eat the fruit from the tree. He ate the fruit from that tree. It was Adam's disobedience that led to everything happening. Eve might have done it first, but If Adam had not followed, everything would have been ok..
It's also important to keep in mind that, in the logical continuity of the story, Eve was tricked into eating the fruit, and because she did not have knowledge of evil, she would not realize she was being tricked. All she knows is that the snake said, "Oh, no, no, it's totally fine to eat that fruit." so, in her mind, it must be totally fine to eat the fruit--why would the snake say it was if it wasn't?
Adam, however, was not tricked by the snake. Therefore, the fault was his and his alone.
Oh, and the snake could talk and was somehow described as being the most intelligent animal (Monkeys? Dolphins? Rats? Nothin' but idiots.).Well since you are happy to make Adam a sinner, you yourself will remain one....
Understanding my friend , understanding will gain you freedom.
Jumping on the bandwagon and accusing Adam of Sin is what makes the world the world.Bladder dash and scram is
Standing under the oak
Adam with the sin
Eating eves fruit.And since you are happy to judge me a sinner (thus sinning yourself by avoiding what the scripture says about sinning) you will be one right with me..
Understanding will also gain you freedom from passing judgment against others (especially other believers) too quickly.. Passing judgment on what others read is also what makes the world the world as well as keeps some Christians in a position of judgment by God for their judgment of others..I wish you were being funny....
You sin because you do not understand what sin is.
I cannot sin when I call a sinner a sinner.
I will sin when I call a righteous man a sinner.
Adam was and always is righteous...
You do doubt this.....and sin is the reason behind your doubtAnd what gives you the right to judge me as a sinner while you hold yourself as being righteous? I mean since you are casting stones at me, I can only assume that you are without sin and as such are not a sinner?
Ok.. What is the definition of sin since I do not understand what it is?You are a little bit slow today...
The reason why I can rightly determine you as a sinner,
Is because you have determined Adam a sinner.
And my judgement is correct because your own words confirms it.
Since I have not made Adam a sinner, I myself is without sin.
And I cannot excuse your sin because you insist on making Adam a sinner.
So then to you, Adam Sin, I sin, and everyone else sins...
And with that Idea you feet is caught up in a web of sin.
To me Adam did not sin and no one else sins,
except those who insist on making Adam a sinner.
And With that My Judgement is righteous.
Now you ask me what is sin?
Sin is that which you use to ensnare every man including yourself.
So if you believe me, then you would not make Adam a sinner and yourself will be righteous also.
But when you disbelieve me...what else is left for you?So now you resort to personal attacks and insults to continue to make yourself seem superior.. Ok then.
So you're without sin? Totally? And all because you did not make Adam a sinner? Last time I checked, According to the bible, There is only one person who was born into this world and lived without sin
.Romans 3:23 (though this scripture might not be in YOUR Bible) states that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.. Soooo, in case you aren't clear on this (which I am assuming you aren't since, according to you, you are without sin), Unless you are proclaiming yourself to be the second coming of Christ, then you have also sinned. And what is the term for someone who has sinned? A sinner. Now the fact that you are stating that you are without sin, then you are contradicting that this scripture is stating. This would mean that wither the Bible is lying about all having sinned and fallen short, or that you are lying about being without sin (which lying, in itself is a Sin according to the bible)
No, your judgment is condemnation and a prideful attempt to elevate yourself to being higher and better than everyone else.. now, your judgment of me contradicts Matthew 7:1-5 (Which since you are able to judge then this muse not be in your bible either), so let me help you out..
Matthew 7:1-5
Amplified Bible (AMP)
7 Do not judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves.
2 For just as you judge and criticize and condemn others, you will be judged and criticized and condemned, and in accordance with the measure you [use to] deal out to others, it will be dealt out again to you.
3 Why do you [a]stare from without at the [b]very small particle that is in your brother’s eye but do not become aware of and consider the beam [c]of timber that is in your own eye?
4 Or how can you say to your brother, Let me get the tiny particle out of your eye, when there is the beam [d]of timber in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite, first get the beam of timber out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the tiny particle out of your brother’s eye.
Now who is the slow one? I asked you what the definition of sin is and instead of giving me the definition of sin, you took that as an opportunity to take another shot at me.. Now, I looked up the word sin in the dictionary as well as biblically and nowhere in either one did it say that the definition of sin is "what DM uses to snare every man including himself". According to websters dictionary, the definition of sin is
[b]1sin noun \ˈsin\
1. an offense against religious or moral law
2. transgression of the law of God
Now If memory serves me correctly, The bible stated that God made Adam and placed him in the Garden of Eden. He told Adam He could eat from any tree in the Garden Except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He laid down the law. Then he created Eve. Now, according to the Bible, Eve was tricked into eating the fruit. She then gave it to Adam who made the choice to eat it when he noticed that nothing happened. When God appeared, He called out "Adam, Where are you". Adam was held accountable as well because he followed Eve in eating the fruit although God told Adam (the first creation) not to.. God laid down the law, Adam went against it.. biblically as well as by dictionary, this is considered a sin.. I haven't labeled Adam anything. I merely am pointing out the fact that even by biblical standards, this is what occurred. sorry if your limited understanding renders you incapable of understanding this fact.
If I believe you would not be righteous, I would be following you into the sin of judgment and condemnation of others..
When I disbelieve you, What is left for me? to continue to walk and live in my belief in God as well as in the examples that Christ laid out. Not right now I am not walking in this because I have chosen to respond in kind to what was thrown at me, which is wrong. thankfully, I can repent and get it right..
God bless you, Kess. I hope you understand that I have nothing further to say to you because the hypocrisy you have demonstrated in your responses is so mind boggling and condescending that I would rather not continue to speak with anyone (especially a so called Christian) that would sit in this much judgment. Then again, even if you don't forgive me, God will and that's who I answer to, so you have a good dayI aghree with 96 or 71/2% of what you just said, I wuddentA said it thA way you did but I wudda been hard pressed to have explained hIT any gooder than you just die!
Jerami, If you agree with more than half of this one, then you disappoint me.. More than half of this point was little more than Kess taking personal shots at me, starting with calling me slow. For you to agree with a large majority of this, you are even agreeing with the personal shots that he has taken against me. If this is the only statement that you have read, then that's one thing, but if you have read the whole conversation between Kess and myself and agree with his attitude, I would really be disappointed (especially since I do not recall making any specific attacks against you)
*Edit: I didn't make any personal attacks against Kess either. He took the first shots at me personally simply because I disagreed with a comment he made regarding something that is in the Bible.Please excuse me , I hadn't followed the whole conversation, and I was understanding the You in his statement in a more general terms.
As far as the context of his arguement goes, I think I understood it better last night than I do now
Maye I should reduce that percentage down a bit.
My intention was not to join in on an attack. Hope you can accept my apology
was going to comment on a couple other threads but I gotta go lay back down some more.
later.Personally I can't figure out what Kess is saying.
And I think Jerami is just goofing. But I could be wrong.No, Jerami wasn't goofing. He hadn't read the whole conversation between myself and Kess and as such jumped in with a misunderstanding of what was going on. This is why I addressed him the way he did..
What kess was saying was that I am a sinner because I said Adam sinned all the while stating that he himself is without sin and as such was allowed to cast stones. I dunno if you have already done it or not, but look back at the whole discussion between me and Kess.. It was a full on attack against me simply for correcting him regarding the bible.
Jerami apologized once I explained the situation. He and I are cool..
Kess, on the other hand, I have no further reason to discuss anything with, though I forgive his attack against meAre you objecting to being called a 'sinner', or being called a sinner for the reason Kess is giving? Is being called a sinner something you consider an attack? Don't know the details of your exchange with Kess, just interested.
Neither. According to the bible, I am a sinner. The reason for this is because Adam committed a sin which brought sin into the world.
No, Him calling me a sinner is not an attack in itself. I'm not sure if you've read the whole conversation between Kess and myself but I objected to a few things that he stated.. The conversation started when I disagreed with his statement that Adam did not sin. I simply stated that according to the bible, Adam did sin.. At which point, he decided to make the conversation personal against me by passing judgment on me. Calling me a sinner was not the attack.. Telling me that I will be happy to remain one is an attack. I then reminded him that it was not his place to judge not condemn me to a specific state because the bible speaks against that. He then stated that he is without sin and as such he can judge me.. I asked him what the definition of sin was and he called me slow (another personal attack).
Him taking the conversation away from the topic at hand and making a direct statement against me is what the personal attack is..
Name calling does not always make a personal attack (depending on the context of the conversation). However, Moving the subject from a topic at hand and launching things against another person is a personal attack. Passing judgment as if you are superior to another person (especially since the bible that one claims to believe in speaks against such behavior)
When someone asks for a clarification on something (such as me asking him for a definition of sin). Instead of giving the definition of sin, he took that opportunity to still keep it personally against me.. That is an attack..
I'm not saying I'm perfect by any means, not all of my responses were the best ways to handle the situation (two wrongs do not make a right), but I did nothing to kess (other than disagree with him while staying on the topic of the forum) to warrant him making things personal against me.I wouldn't take it personally. From reading kess's comments over time, I'm pretty sure he thinks he is Christ.
Yeah, I was taken aback by Kess', well, for lack of a better term it seems a variation on "name-it-and-claim-it" only instead of naming and claiming material things he names and claims that he is not a sinner for seemingly no better reason than because he says so.
The overall term for it was simply attack. Typically, I try to rise above it and not let name calling get to me, but to get personal with me for disagreeing with a comment on subject and to keep doing it even to the point where he claims to be without sin and thus able to judge me was absolutely too much for me to ignore.
I don't blame you. I applaud your attempt to stay above it but sometimes you need to respond.
I think it bothers me more in this case because it was a fellow Christian doing the attacking and judging (especially after being corrected about the bible that he is supposed to believe in and follow). But ultimately, I'm done with it at this point. I am no longer going to engage him in conversation, but I will continue to pray for him
Deepest I hope you can now accept that it was your own misconceptions is the reason for you being offended at my first response.
Now you being offended, will obviously cause you not to accept the point which was being made...repeatedly. Thus I said you were slow, thus you add offence to offence.
Now with your mindset, you would have been absolutely correct in saying what you have said.
Although you lack a little discernment, it is understandable because christianity comes in many and varied models. But most of christianity lies on foundation that Adam is a sinner according to the scripture, and by this their doctrine of salvation becomes relevant.
Now consider a scenario in which I said that Jesus is a sinner, would it not be prudent to you as a christian, inform me that I am occupying the position of a sinner and will continue so until the day I relinquishes it?
Would you think that you or anyone doing such were being offensive or were they being informative....?
Any I am not a christian, and I do not believe the bible as christians do...
I do not use it as a standard to justify anything including my own righteousness, but yet it justifies me more that those who do.
In fact I primarily use scripture to show those who are convinced by it, their own hypocrisy.
Now to the issue concerning my righteousness...
Who within your scripture do you know who justifies their righteousness with scripture as you (christians) do? as a hint, most of them actually wrote that which you consider scripture.
So what was the basis for their righteousness?
Concerning the issue of Adam sin, dont you know that Peter himself stated in a very explicite manner, that Adam did not sin? since you are the bible believer you should be able to find the reference easily enough.
And I would ask finally, have you questioned, the other writers of the scriptures for proof of their position within their writings,....and if not Why not?
Do you wonder why a non christian can look at my response to you and question the fact that you are offended? I am sure based on the comment, that you can see we (that non christian and I) are in a position of disagreement.
And why do you seek to sway the minds of others (christians ) in order to take offence as you did?
I am not in a popularity contest therefore I do not need to be politically correct, for to do such would cause me to compromise my own integrity.There is no misconception here, Kess. You answered the question on the subject of this forum. I disagreed with you while staying on the topic of the question in the forum.. Instead of backing up your claim while staying on the topic of the question in the forum, you then took it upon yourself to make a direct point against me. Do you understand why I took exception now? it has little to nothing to do with some of your comments to me.. It was that you took this thread and made it about me..
And the fact that you even posted this comment after I stated that I had nothing else to say still shows that you are making this personal against me.. So my original positions stand..
This will be my last response to you. Any further comments from you directed toward me will only serve to justify my point and position about you making this personal against and about me instead of the forum topic of Adam's sin
Dont repond to this Deeps, as it should end, but I need to say this. I find that kess lacks both compassion and courage when he post his opinion. Yes pray for him.
I have to agree with Deeps on this one. Kess comes across as one with a religious spirit in him.
Thanks SOM. I apologize that I strayed away from your forum topic to address that, but this is one case that I could not ignore not only the biblical contradiction, but then the subsequent personal attack on me. I normally try to rise above it, but hey, I'm human..LOL
I dont know where kess gets off by saying Adam never sinned, but Romans 5:12-21 makes my mind light up.
Where do you get that Adam was always righteous? Had he always been righteous he wouldn't have been expelled from Eden.
Now Kess is going to call you a sinner and tell you how he is without sin because he doesn't hold Adam accountable for committing a sin. the only thing I can remotely think of as to why he stated Adam did not sin is because he would state that Adam was tricked by the serpent and so it wasn't his fault. "The snake made him do it by deceiving eve"
The devil made me do it, eh? Except of course that the Bible teaches quite clearly that we are responsible for our own actions, and if the story of Adam and Eve teaches us anything it's that God will not let us slide by blaming someone else.
I'm sorry to hear about your nephew, by the way.So the devil is a redundant concept then!!
I don't know. I believe that Satan really does exist. And he certainly leads people into temptation. But it is people (for the most part) who are responsible for themselves.
But aren't people just tempted by their own desires? We are what we feed our minds and those things we feed on amplify our desires in those areas. I just see no reason or requirement for an independent satan to exist.
I agree with your part about feeding our desires, and in fact the Bible pretty explicitly says the same thing. I don't know why, I just believe he does.
I am with you DH. The adversary is not some hidden entity. That looks alot pagan to me. The adversary is our adamic carnal nature.
Makes sense.. sometimes, we do reach out and want to assign blame to an outside entity for the things we truly did for ourselves. Reminds me of a humorous story that a Pastor told me once:
One Sunday, Jesus was making his rounds to various churches to observe what is being taught and see if his spirit could help out. He came up to one church who usually takes time during an altar call to give people an opportunity to verbally repent for the things that went wrong. When he got to the church, Jesus noticed the devil sitting on the steps crying his heart out bitterly. So out of compassion (even though the devil is his enemy) he approached and asked what is wrong and why he was crying.. "Are you crying because you've seen the error of your ways?" Jesus asked. "No," replied the devil "I'm crying because I'm mad. Those people in there are lying on me and I thought you were against that sort of thing".
Bottom line, The devil is given far more blame than he should be because it is our choice to do wrongI didn't say I disagree that the real enemy is our own carnal natures. I don't hold with "the devil made me do it." We are responsible for our own actions.
SOM, I agree with you. When Jesus called the Pharisees sons of the devil, the explanation that he was referring to their lifestyles and attitudes, their living in accordance with a carnal mind fits perfectly well.
That's certainly what I got from what he wrote.
Deeps, Has it occured to you the possibility that the snake is symbolic for Adam,s carnal nature? That maybe Adam was the one who put Eve up to eating the fruit first?
I've considered a lot of possibilities, SOM. I may not have worded it that way, but You should know me well enough to know that some things I speak on is pulling from different things and may not always be my specific belief.
I know that you are a very open minded person Deeps, that is why I asked.
Personally I go with the Jewish explanation of the Eve account, that is symbolic of the yetzer hara, the inner inclination to evil. Well the Jewish explanation seems much more plausible the the Christian version about literal talking snakes possessed by satan anyway.
We don't hold that satan possessed the snake.
And if you read the account you also notice that the snake didn't slither at that point.Very many Christians believe satan possessed the snake; how else could it talk?
Evangelicals believe that satan actually was the snake. I'll admit that when I think about it I can't find one simple solution to the question, they all have some problem.
Yeah, I was taught the serpent was satan in disguise.
I'll admit that I have always wondered about this but then I never did serious study on it. It's not really a central point of the faith.
I agree. none of the early stories are, IMO.
I understand the relevance of some of the stories, but the early stories are historical. I thought that following the examples that Christ led out is what's most central to the faith since that is where our label of Christian comes from
Yes but the OT and the NT are actually bound together, and I don't just mean in book form. I know you probably don't agree with the man and this is not so much of Calvinism vs. Armenian discussion as a discussion of how the OT and NT are bound together, find a speech by RC Sproul entitled "The Curse Motif of the Crucifixion." It started me thinking a lot more about how much the OT informs the NT.
You can thank John Milton for that.
Seems like believers completely write off Paradise Lost, but then turn around and accept every addition he makes as scripture.
Do believe there was literally a man called Adam, a woman called Eve, a tree of knowledge, and a talking snake? Or is it possible that those things are symbolic? Literary devices used to explain something in the simplest terms perhaps? Maybe without the original authors even understanding that's what they were.
I will not rule that possibility out Don. I have also concidered it possible that Adam and Eve are symbolic for the creation of man's carnal nature.
Sorry I didn't read through to your later post where you said that.
Is the snake symbolic of carnal desire? Are Adam and Eve symbolic of early humanity? The tree of knowledge symbolic of some kind of loss of figurative innocence? They are described as becoming self-conscious (ashamed) of their nakedness. Is that symbolic of the emergence of human self-awareness? Is it possible that the narrative symbolically describes elements of humanity's biological history in ways that an audience circa 5000 BCE could identify with? I know some people believe there was literally someone called Adam and Eve, and I don't want to patronise or denigrate anyone's beliefs, but I do wonder whether the face-value narrative was meant to convey the basics of the message to audiences that were scientifically naive, leaving later audiences (like us) to discern other layers of meaning through understanding the symbolism. Same message, but a different level of detail that can be discerned at different stages in human understanding.
SoM, this has been an awesome forum to follow. Good job on laying it out so well. I think that Genesis is a wonderful book that more folks should read. How can we even fathom the birth of our humanness. I like to think that I cannot. It is like looking at the Piet'a in St. Peter's in the Vatican. Or that funky ceiling. I just cannot imagine it's creation. How much more can I not understand a place called Hell or a garden called Eden. If someone felt a call to write this down for me, so I could have a smidgen of understanding, I thank them. Adam and Eve were cool folks, just like all of us. And all of us screw up. I do sometimes think that Adam and Eve messing up, did not create forgiveness from sin, but by example allows me to forgive myself. Heck those cool folks messed up, I messed up, now by golly goodness I will try to do better. Adam did not create a schism between me and my Lord. He led us to a place where we have a trial and error grounds upon which to learn to love.
Are Adam and I in the Grace of the Lord? Yes but not by what we have done, but by which He has done and by that which is in our heart. Any man is relieved of his burden if his actions and his heart speak of love. Adam spoke of love by joining his love Eve. So at once he sinned and at once he loved.
We are so freaking lucky and blessed to have love that the rest is damned near irrelevant.
So no, my buddy Adam did not create such a divide that cannot be crossed but instead provided us with the opportunity to achieve a small bite at overcoming trials.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
But I think Hell is real, and it's right here.In other words. Did Adams sin bring more of God's creation to eternal damnation than the cross could save?
I don't think so. I don't believe in eternal damnation though either. I believe we get a new chance with each incarnation.
That is eastern mysticism. I dont believe that to be part of God,s plan. I also dont believe in hell either. I believe we only live once in a physical body, and die once. Then comes judgment. The prodigal son is a clue to the mystery of all our judgments.
The prodigal son is the clue to the mystery of His plan. There are two sons. One who stayed the whole time with his Father and the other who went out to the world and eventually died and came back to his Father. We are the prodigal sons. This parable in my belief is Christ telling us that there were two possibilities. Many have asked if there is a God, why does He send us in this world filled with suffering instead of just keeping us in heaven? The answer is in the parable. The prodigal son was grateful to be back home with His Father and felt joy in his Fathers love for him, while the older son could not appreciate his Father or His love for him as much as his younger brother did. There are two tools created for us to have a better appreciation for our divine Father. Contrast and comparison. Sin is something we must all experience so we see the contrast. Going back to God after living in this world is the comparison. Who appreciates new wealth more when given to him. A poor child or a rich child? A father in this world feels joy when his child shows love and affection for him, this is the same for God.
Obfuscate ignorance and allow evil to exist until a vague arbitrary date?
If hell is a deep pit, and Jesus is a small fence the sheep can easily jump over. Well, yes--opening the pit is more momentous than erecting the fence.
If Adam and Eve were given free will; and If they alwayssss .. obeyed Gods instructions, How would "Anyone" Ever, ever, ever know if they had free will or not?
For free will to be proven ... disobedience is a requirement.
SOooo Adam & Eve did not commit a sin by proving their free will.But in the beginning it wasn't about free will. Free will only came about after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Thats where the free will came from.
Are you sayin that the free gift of "free WiLL was by accident ?????
No, the free will came first, then the action.
The sin was in disobeying God's direct order. The very act of having free will is not the sin, at least not the way I read the story. It was only when they committed the act of going against God's express command that they sinned.Perhaps the command not to eat was simply a test to establish between A&E and God when they were sufficiently mature in their minds to take responsibility for their own lives and actions. Rather than a fall which incidentally is a term Genesis does not use, perhaps it was one of the greatest steps in the birth of humanity.
Then why does history not ever once bear that out?
And since when did you get so aquarian?Well what happened is history. The alternative utopian life of the GofE never actually worked out in the end. Was God taken by surprise at this? No. He saw the events unfold before creation. Thus if he wanted to prevent what is popularly called the fall he could have posted the firery angel at the gates of the GofE to prevent the talking snake gaining access in the first place, which would have still retained the principle of human free will intact. The fact that God did nothing to intervene but watched from the sidelines suggests his will was accomplished.
Of course we are discussing these events here as though they were real literal reportage instead of an allegorical legend.Why don't you simply call it Eden?
Actually what you are stating is really not that different from many evangelical theologians and preachers. I'm just a little flummoxed at your previous question (I'm not sure whether it was an assertion on your part or simply a question) that somehow this was in preparation for man being able to take care of himself or something like that. Please forgive me but it's late, I just got off work and I am not ready to look for the original. Yes, I do believe it literally happened. It's not a sword I'm prepared to fall on but it is a belief I hold. Nor do I see God as particularly passive in all this.GofE is quicker to type on an iThing than Garden of Eden.
I think God did create man to take care of himself. We are not children that need his micromanagement of every detail of our lives. It's an indication of maturity to be self reliant but responsible for the decisions we take. By all means our Father is ready waiting for us to ask for direction for the big issues and ultimately he provides all our needs, but we are grown up adults and I think he just expects humanity to get on with life.
An analogy might be that I would soon get rather irritated if my children, once grown up, phoned me up every day asking for this or that, to meet this need or that need (which they could readily sort out themselves), asking for my opinion on every decision, or whining because I'm not talking to them every five minutes.
I can readily read the A&E account as an analogy of two children growing up, taking personal responsibility, working hard to make a living in order to build character, and being kicked out of the family home to make their own way in the World.I agree with this, DH. God did not create us in his image simply for visual looks. He also created us in his image so that we will have the power and ability to do some of the things for ourselves that some insist on going to him for. Some things we pray for his will to be done, but his will was already set in the beginning. There were some things he stated that were direct orders and do not require us to come back and ask him if it is ok. There is a statement that I live by and have quoted here a few times.. The more you operate in principles, the less you need miracles.. Some of us (me included) at times want the miracle but don't want to operate in the principles that will get us what we are wanting, then get upset about not getting it. This is why I have adopted another meaning to the scripture "faith without works is dead". Most of us know the meaning of the scripture is that our lives are supposed to reflect Christ and our belief in him. But I also look at that scripture as saying that we can pray to God all that we want for something, but if we aren't taking the steps (operating in principle) ourselves to get that thing, then we won't have it. I look at those parents that let their child die because they believed in faith healing and refused to get medical care. They expected the miracle of healing but did not operate in the principle of seeking medical attention.
I personally don't know where God stood in this, Chris, but it could be argued that God was passive in this particular time because he was testing Adam to see if he would disobey. Otherwise, it would beg the question of why God didn't step in and take the serpent out in order to protect Adam and Eve from messing up. It's questions like these that my mind pulls out that keeps me in a state of saying I dunno regarding some of these stories as well as look at some that give more of a basic explanation for something that could be vastly more complex than we can imagine (especially since it involves God)
Related Discussions
- 21
Is hell real to you? If so, what do you think it will be like?
by bayareagreatthing 6 years ago
Is hell real to you? If so, what do you think it will be like?I wrote a little about what I thought hell might be like (http://hubpages.com/hub/Afraid-of-the-Dark) but wondered what others would have to offer. Maybe you don't believe in hell and want to share what you believe happens...
- 262
Hell and Eternal Damnation - The Threat
by Beelzedad 13 years ago
I have been threatened, along with others, with eternal damnation from many believers here. They claim they are not threatening me, yet by definition, they most certainly are threatening, even though they are just repeating their beliefs based on their scriptures, or at least, that's what they...
- 94
Eternal damnation, Hell and Judgement Day
by Inspirepub 16 years ago
Just thought I'd see whether we have any defenders of the notion of judgement and Hell posting here ...Since today's competition topic was Religion, I thought I'd take the opportunity to post this Hub:http://hubpages.com/hub/Hell-What-HellAnd see if anyone says "what the Hell?"Jenny
- 18
The Prodigal Son - a different perspective
by Dave McClure 13 years ago
My take on the prodigal son parable, from the point of view of the fatted calf (except that I've made it a fatted pig, just for fun)The Fatted PorkerI liked the lad. He always had a smile,a whistle on his lips, and used to waitand watch us eat. Oh, you can call it swillbut I'm not proud. For if it...
- 382
Do you believe in Hell?
by A Thousand Words 13 years ago
If so, why? If not, why? (I am not only talking to Christians, because they are not the only people who believe in Hell) Do you believe it justified, if it does exist (in your opinion)? If so, why?
- 53
The Kingdom of God is not about who goes to Heaven or Hell
by Disappearinghead 12 years ago
For the very many years I was in Church attendance, the Kingdom of God was always equated with Heaven. It was a future event that only those who believed in Jesus would see either when they died or were raptured, whilst the remainder of humanity would go to hell. A Christian could be disqualified...