What was god expecting to happen when he put the tree of knowledge with an obviously ignorant and naive adam and eve in the garden of eden? Telling them not to touch it and punishing them so harshly when they did. It's like putting your children up for adoption for eating a cake you left on the table after you told them not to.
This is one of those "Ahhh - so it is all BS" points. The religious people will avoid it like a plague of locusts.
Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil or between "right" and "wrong" - so were incapable of determining what they were doing was "wrong."
Which means - what they (and we apparently) are actually being punished for is not doing wot god sed.
This is the root of their religion.
No, they won't avoid the question. I think the point of the story is that, with self awareness comes a host of problems. Ignorance is bliss, but not the fate of man. We were destined to have or eyes opened, unlike the other animals. No way around our curiosity.
I could, of course, be wrong.
I'm with just_curious. It was the fate of man, it was - in my opinion - what God knew would happen. He had this plan figured out - but man had to make the choice to get it all started - to bring hurt, difficulty, and real joy in the world. There were actual, natural consequences to their choices, not some unnatural application of some unnatural punishment. So here we all are with a knowledge of good and evil with many of us wishing they didn't know any better than what they're choosing.
Unfortunately, any that deny God's existence will scoff at your statement. The sad thing is, since they throw Him out of the equation they fail to accept that it is by our actions, as a species, that the consequences are looming precariously before us. They blame religion for all the bad on the world, when the simply fact is; the problem is man. Woman, of course, is not included in this indictment.
To me it is a story told to children and adults around he camp fire which like so many other stories of myth, a metaphor. Natives tell tales of how the snake lost it's legs or how the loon got it's white collar. But this one was a metaphor about how man kind became a conscious self aware being.
It also told us how the snake lost it's legs, but didn't tell us how it lost it's ability to speak. Never mind.
It also tells us of the double edged sword awareness is. Particularly that of good and evil. In a sense telling us ignorance is bliss, and if had remained ignorant we could have stayed in paradise, blissfully unaware of our impending death.
The punishments dealt out are the facts of life so no stretch there. Woman have hard labors, and traditionally men break their backs in toil and often die young. Oh yes, and snakes no longer have legs and slither on ground.
The story isn't very uplifting and paints a bleak picture for man kind. Had we not been so stupid as to forget to eat of that tree of ever lasting life first, none of this would happening. According to the god of that time we would have been gods, to know good and evil AND to be immortal.
What a sniveling fool Adam was to blame his wife. What an idiot to not have eaten from the tree that was not forbidden before took both away.
But it very clear that the god in this case did not want us to be like him even though he was the one who planted the trees there. And it all seems to come as a shock to him. It's a very different god than the one Christians believe in today.
But what bothers me a bit is that Christianity takes this all to mean god gave us free will. It appears that if free will is the knowledge of good and evil, that he didn't give it to us. We took it.
And yet I can't help noticing that free will is never mentioned in the old testament as something given by god. I also don't see how just the knowledge of good and evil could give you free will.
Calvinists don't believe in free will, and they are Christians too.
It is certain that we all have will. But the word free seems to be an illogical concept in that context.
Still, it's a fun old myth. If nothing else it tells us about the minds of our primitive ancestors.
Yes. Primitive ancestors attempting to put creation and humanity into perspective. Of course the story seems simplistic to us. To them it probably explained it all quite nicely.
The point I was so poorly trying to make is that the lesson is a good one, but when the word God is used when pointing anything out people tend to shut out anything of value the person speaking might have said.
I'm sure you can make it very well. So in what way is it a good lesson?
I thought he made it in the post I replied to. There are consequences to our actions. Natural consequences. Not supernatural ones. You reap what you sow, so to speak.
I was thinking on a world wide level though. when I replied to his post. Say God and everyone stops talking and pointing fingers. We're going to reap what we've all sown together.
Hey, I thought we were in agreement, but just to clarify; do you understand that man is responsible for this, as a group; or are you pointing a finger too.
of course. With no god, who else would be?
Hah, I see we have come to a different conclusion, when presented with the same facts. Simply because God has not been in on this, doesn't mean to me that He does not exist. It tells me man has defined His nature poorly, by misreading the intent of the text. Little more than that.
But hey, this was a woohoo moment for me. An atheist that doesn't want me drawn and quartered for our collective history. You have no idea how nice that feels.
Well I said that without a god there is no one to blame but us. With a god, it is clearly responsible for everything that happens, like it says in Isaiah. He sets the conditions for all things. He made us the way we are. So only if there is no god is man to blame.
If you see the scriptures as ' The Word of God' and infallible and unchanging I can understand this statement from Isaiah as meaning one thing only. But if we, as a nation, profess the Constitution to be a living document then we can understand the concept that the message contained within the text not only can be fluid, but is probably meant to be. There are some truths that are little more than a history lesson. Not to say that there was a great flood, or Moses parted the Red Sea, but the symbolism is there to gain an understanding of how the world once was. We, as a species are meant to evolve to a greater understanding as time goes on and we understand out world better. Not to act as if we are children who can't be taught new lessons.
I know I'm setting myself up for a fall with this post, but I'll be honest; all the naysayers have disappeared. I like to hear people scoff. It may not change my mind, but it's an alternate view that I usually find worthy of reflection. So, give it your best shot.
I have no reason to scoff at this. You already told me you do not take the bible as the literal word. I agree with you completely and you are being reasonable.
That's commendable and laudable.
But are you not also saying that were there a god you do not think it is responsible for everything? I just want to clarify that.
I know a spirit exists that has a consciousness. I know little more than that. I believe we each carry a piece that can be used to connect to this consciousness. I believe everything is somehow connected and Jesus had either a much larger piece than we do, or he connected in a way we don't know how to.
I believe all cultures that have developed an ancient religion somehow found a piece of the truth and the religions that have stepped away from this message have lost their way.
Yes. I'm probably certifiable, but I like my philosophy.
Well. That's because I give what I get. If you want a rational discussion I'll give you one. If you like it rough, that can be arranged. Besides which, you aren't really a Christian in my eyes. You're a Panentheist.
Well I do see an intimate connection between all things. But I come to it from the perspective of science. I do not have any indication that the universe itself or something out there is conscious, though consciousness is an emergent property of energy/matter. As for Jesus I think he was a man that became a focal point for a whole range of ideas mankind in that era and that region was developing. Some of them very good ones like love your neighbor, charity, etc.
As such he has served his purpose. If you study the other religions of the region at that time you get a good picture of how it happened. The Greek Cynics are a good place to start, for example.
I do think all humans have an instinctive awareness of our connection with nature and the world, and that we have gotten a lot of our religions from that feeling.
No. You aren't certifiable. And as philosophies go yours is a darn sight better than most Christians, in my opinion.
According to Mark Knowles
Sorry God didnt put you on the throne.
It is wrongly understood to mean a tree of apple or anyother physical tree; tree of knowledge is never like that; knowledge is never physical so the tree of knowledge has to be a important code of revelations as to what to do and what not to do for the preservation of life and progress of human beings.
Adam & Eve were physical beings, tending to a physical garden, with physical trees.
Eve took a physical apple and ate, and gave some of the same physical apple to Adam, who also ATE.
Maybe Adam & Eve were just metaphorical imaginary people. I don't know?
You seem to know the Bible better that any Christian.
Christians mostly hear the Bible from the priest reading on the pulpit; instead of reading it themeslves and reflecting intently.
@ts you just enter no entry zone...if digged deeper the story revealed true nature of god which gets pleasure by fooling people and loves to punish...over grown child =god...dont take god too seriously...
topgunjager: God had just created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden. God's only instruction was to stay away from the one tree, and he even warned them that should they touch the fruit let alone eat the fruit that they would die.
We have to assume that they must be able to understand and reason, otherwise God would be wasting his breath telling them anything. We have to assume that they understood what the word death meant and understood that there was some serious harmful danger.
If we cannot assume any of this, then we must assume that they were totally ignorant of what God was saying, which is not evident as to how we read about how she responded to the serpent.
Lucifer the serpent, declared himself to be as knowledgable and as smart as God, this was his downfall, he used trickery to convince other angels that he was as smart as God causing their downfall, so it was easy for him to cunningly tempt one of God's new creations to doubt what God had said and go against God, by simply twisting the truth just slightly.
Had Eve not been approached by the serpent, there would have been no temptation and no disobedience.
As naïve as they were, why would god punish them so harshly for getting tricked? I am having a hard time finding the moral of this story. I like to call this story kicking your children out of your house forever for not listening. I thought god was all merciful, forgiving, just, fair and loving, where do all of these traits found in this story?
It's the 'just' part. Call it naive that they didn't really know what the consequences would be, but God commanded them - and they knew that God commanded them - and they obviously knew God. So in terms of not listening to God - like Mark likes to mention - they knew sooo much better than anybody posting on this message board does and still 'didn't do what he said'. So - I think it would be understandable and perfectly just to kick them out...
But forever... I've never thought that at all. That is why Jesus Christ was chosen and sent. So that people who actually prefer God over evil - and those who prefer evil over God - can get exactly what they want.
If people want evil - they can have it - they just can't have God at the same time. With time everybody makes their desires and priorities perfectly clear. In the end, everybody gets what they want.
He's loving, merciful, and forgiving for those who REALLY want those things from Him. If one doesn't want those things, they won't get them. If you want something other than those things then you (anyone) can pitch a fit about that God isn't fair... but the reality isn't that he doesn't want you - it'd just be that you didn't want Him, his love, his mercy, or his forgiveness.
If you want something, how is God supposed to 'save' you from it. Duh
And Sorry - that was a thorough soapbox on the general topic not solely a focused reply. Just pretty passionate about what some people expect God to be.
Tell your 2 year old not to touch the bleach bottle. Make it a command. It knows you, but if you the bleach bottle out it's gonna touch it. If god didn't know his creation was curious and didn't know that he should have baby-proofed the garden, he wasn't too bright.
Hey Slarty. That's crazy. You can't child proof a garden. Especially one as big as Eden. God appears to have been bright enough to know that.
See - if I was going to worship an Invisible Super Being - I woulda' picked a omni potent, omni present one.
Wish you had. Then we could play the my God's better than your God game. It'd be more fun than arguing over this. We could show the world how to do it without arguing about it too strongly.
Perhaps you just need to pray harder? Sorry you are incapable of understanding. Those who reject the idea of there not being an Invisible, Unfathomable Super Being will always scoff.
This is why your religion causes so many wars.
Perhaps if you told us what Jesus' message really was? You think that would help? I especially liked the turning the cheek thing that you did not like.
You are the one who said you would choose a different type of god then the one you perceive portrayed in the story. Sheesh. Why upbraid me for responding to your statement?
As to Jesus's message, I am bright enough to know that is not a serious question. Not coming from you.
Of course you are. Yes - very bright. Not from me - no. I don't understand - like wot u does.
Little wonder your religion causes so many wars.
I know. It's scary how upset people get, just when talking to a Christian..I had a joke to follow that up with, but I'm afraid it would insult you. Anyway, you talk about being a mirror. I was simply mirroring, I thought. If I got it wrong, I apologize. I do not want to start a war.
Sorry. I did not mean to upset you. I understand you cannot fathom any belief that is not the same as yours.
Perhaps it is time to stop telling us what Jesus said? IDK? Maybe that would work. Once again - my apologies - I did not mean to anger you - once again.
Perhaps if you found some fundamentalists to attack - that would make you feel better?
Ok. I assume you have asked me to tell you what I think Jesus said. I write that, because, I swear, every time I respond to something it appears you turn it around as if that was not the conversation. Are you asking me what I perceive the message of Christ to be?
Sorry - I did not mean to upset you. You think Christ was an actual person? K then.... My apologies - I did not mean to upset you. Again.
You do know Christ is just symbolism - right? You don't thinks it was an actual person - son of god - wot came back to life? Right?
Whatever god told you - keep it to yourself, huh? He Will Reveal Himself When He Is Good And Ready.
Did I get that right? The Capitals and Everything?
Don't scoff. I know you cannot fathom the idea that there is not an Invisible Super Being in The Sky - but that is no reason to scoff.
Sorry you are incapable of understanding. That is not the fault of the Star Goat that you deny.
Don't be angry at the Star Goat.
Is that the omnipresent and omnipotent god you said you wanted? The star goat? Very strange Mark. even for you. I would have gone for something a little more regal. Like a panther, maybe. I don't know.
But as to my posts to the fundamentalist, you do realize that is not the face of Christianity? It is simply a very vocal minority? Not all christians take the Bible literally where it suits them, or bash gays, or think God can send a tornado to punish you? If I've had enough of the philosophy that some have the keys to the candy store upstairs, sue me.
Those who deny The Star Goat will scoff.
You cannot fathom what I know.
Not really. You cannot fathom the unfathomable. Sorry.
I am working on it mark. Trust me. I have to get through step one before I can move to the next step in understanding your philosophy, but I don't care what I learn; I will never bow to the star goat. So sorry.
Well let's just say he could have left out the poison fruit. Even I could do that. Would that be so hard? There was just one thing they shouldn't touch and he put it right there for them to touch. Seems odd to me. Rather like he wanted us to disobey.
Do you leave poison plants in your yard, by the way? Probably not, eh?
Yes, there are a few poison plants in my yard. I would assume everyone has one or two. But I don't eat the shrubbery. You do realize this is just symbolism. You don't think a God hung out with a couple of naked people for a few thousand years do you?
Just_Curious, I am not picking...just pointing out something...If god created everything out of nothing...made man of dirt and breathed life into him...created the whole universe...I would think it would be a small thing for him to child proof a garden...
Ok..once again, my sense of humor has fallen short. I do know this. I actually assume we all do, so I was just wondering why it appeared to be a point to argue. Just attempting levity. I think Christians sometimes make statements that appear to others as if they think it's a fact. I'm sure no one takes the story of the Garden of Eden as fact. It's symbolism.
Ask a Baptist or Calvinist or a Born Again. Just to name a few. Ask the retards at the museum of creationism. Am I allowed to say retards here as long as I am not referring to specific people? Moderators? If not I apologize in advance.
I know, but I think what makes me sad is how many people think all Christians are like that.
The reason for that is they are the most aggressive and most vocal Christians. They are the ones that want to challenge science and bring creationism to the schools. They are also the ones atheist most enjoy challenging because we know what they believe. We can't know what moderate Christians believe because there are so many varieties of them.
I know, but I don't mind being challenged. I wish the challenges to the fundamentalists would do some good, but I fear any that believe as they do, as to the nature of the scriptures, will remain unmoved. And I do get their stand. I simply don't agree with it. And when their stand spews hatred it really gets my goat.
But I have to tell you. Having an atheist be polite to me is unsettling.
That usually means I'm being set up.
Just Curious...I'm kind to you and I'm (almost) never setting you up. I just think you need to make the final step over to the 'dark' side (which is actually the less dark side).
I'll be waiting patiently
I'll let you in on a secret. I don't believe there is a dark side. Just an opposing view. The afterlife I envision is probably more Buddhist than Christian, as the world defines it (except for the reincarnation aspect) Whatever happens to anyone, in my opinion, is the same fate for all. I believe the message of Christ supports this.
Call me crazy. I believe the fundamentalists already have. Just not that politely.
Nah. Why would I do that? My wife and my mother are both Christians. I usually get along very well with moderate people no matter what their beliefs.
My wife is like you in that she has a more Buddhist take on Christianity. She even believes in reincarnation.
Makes no difference what people believe as long as they don't try to force their belief on you. And as you know, fundamentalists of all kinds love to try to shove their beliefs on everyone.
Well, I think it's hilarious. An atheist under the same roof as a believer. She must be a good woman to put up with the unfathomable insanity of non belief.
I am, of course, kidding. I like the mind set, but then I'm a very argumentative person. I'll take an atheist over a fundamentalist any day. At least you've got a position to argue. I'm sure I'll say something, at some pont, you'll feel the need to correct me on.
Ahh..Humor... Sorry. I think mine is broke sometimes...LOL...
You think Adam and Eve had the mental capacity of 2 year-olds? Foreign thought to me really. I guess you're welcome to look at it that way - I could see why it would be an obstacle for you to make sense of the whole story/God that way.
How else would you look at mankind without self awareness or the knowledge of good and evil? Much like a small child or animal. That's all I can compare it to.
I viewed it more like a person who has no eyes and doesn't know color. They're not hindered in any other intellectual way - they just have no concept of color.
If they received their vision they'd say- hey, I see now my skin is -that color- and it is different from those colors, Adam and Eve said, Hey - I really should be wearing something here - awkward.
It has always made sense to me that way.
I understand. But I don't think it would be that simple. Think about not knowing what right and wrong would be like. Not being ashamed, having never been taught to be. Like any child. That's their world. They are innocents, and Adam and Eve couldn't have been anything else before they ate the metaphorical apple either. I don't see how they could be.
Yeah! I can see that and it has me fairly... thoughtful. Hmm... Yeah, thinking about it that way - honestly it would be hard to draw the line between how much they knew and could be held accountable for.
But I do default to the simplicity of my color analogy. I just trust that they had very astute minds, but no concept of good and evil. I think it was a conscious choice and act contrary to God's warning. And that consciousness - in my mind - minimally consisted of... God is far smarter than we are and he told us not to partake of that one tree... so we're not going to do it. So, on a logical appeal, the devil/serpent/whatever comes and says hey - doesn't it make sense that you'd want to be like God.
So with the two voices they chose one. I think it was a more logic-based decision (much more than it was a moral decision) and Eve decided she wanted to be like the Gods, knowing good and evil.
I take some liberties in saying these things. So I'll continue to be open about how I view the rest of it. God expected and hoped that it would happen. Like God, we want our children to grow, learn and take the next step. I considered the commandment more of a warning of the consequences of what they would choose.
I believe more in line with this sentiment "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" Focus on the lest.
And less in line with the "thou shalt not" line in the previous chapter. Man then became morally two-dimensional, so that we could know good and evil. God knew some people would choose to follow the rules that he follows and he knew that some people would reject them. Because God could care less about blind obedience. God knows good and evil and despite knowing both, He is good. Faith obedience is different from blind obedience.
Anyway, that is just my take on it
So - what you are saying is - they were punished for not doing wot god sed.
Little wonder your religion causes so many wars.
I thought they were innocent and unable to know about right and wrong - silly me.
That all sounds logical except for one detail. They did not know the difference between right and wrong before they ate. If they already had a self awareness then what is the point of eating a fruit that gives you that awareness?
Right after eating it "They found themselves naked and were ashamed." That indicates they became self aware, and self-conscious. They hid from god. Now they knew they had done something wrong. So gods instructions before they ate would have been like a father telling a one year old not to play with the poison pet snake he put in his room or he would die. Obviously that is not very effective in either the real world nor the world of myth.
Clearly the god of this story was testing it's creation and was surprised and terrified of the results. It wants obedience and nothing else. And he doesn't get it from humans. lol...
God told them that to disobey him and to eat the fruit would cause their death, so they knew.
Are you saying they knew the difference between right and wrong? They knew it was wrong to disobey god?
They understood what death was? In a place with no death? This is making less sense all the time.
Christians still don't know what death means to this very day. lol...
Of course they understood what death was. God is an excellent teacher. I cannot suppose that God would put words to them and not give the explanation. Its like me having a conversation and saying.. ubiquitously, so and so.. for example, then i would say do you understand ubiquitous? or if i were teaching a class on death there would be an adam and eve in the classroom. To say that God threw words around that adam and eve did not know is a bit silly.
You do know there was no death - right? And they did not know the difference between good and evil - right? Have you actually read this book?
This would be why your religion has caused 2,000 years of conflicts.
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of "ubiquitous," either - which rather makes my point. I think you mean "ambiguous," cousin.
Did i not just answer this in my post??? people like you think you know it all but in fact, you know nothing, even your guesses are so far out in left field we would have to read it through the hubble telescope.
Wayyy over your head and you don't even know it.
This would make a good chuckle if it weren't so saddening
ahhh you are so tiring.
I think i have made my point.
The fact that you do not have room for this information does not surprise me. You can apply all that i have said to beely to yourself.
This is why your statements cause years of wars in hubpages.
and since you havent read any of my prior posts on this page, all i can give you is the sound of the buzzer.
So who put the snake there and who is supposed to know all in advance? Why the surprise when they disobeyed? Why not educate them and punish the snake alone?
And by the way, the snake her is not Satan. Do you not think god would know a snake from a fallen angel? He punishes a snake with a snake's punishment.
The snake and tree story are much older than this Jewish yarn. They date back to the Sumerian stories of 5000 bce. The Jews never saw the snake as anything but a snake. Why do Christians want to make a fallen angel out of it?
And secondly, no where in the old testament does it tell of Satan becoming a fallen angel. Please show me the passages that do if you think there are any
The analogy I like to use is that God is like a bumbling Father leaving a loaded gun in the middle of his child's playroom and then telling them WHERE THEY CAN FIND IT. Then, rather than be more concerned about whether or not they're hurt he instead banishes them from the playroom forever for his incompetence.
Many things are useful in certain contexts and not useful in others. Take for instance, sex. It can be rewarding in a certain framework but damaging in others. Most things are this way.
C.S. Lewis wrote that "Wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way...badness is only spoiled goodness...It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things - resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself."
So, we can assume that there was a purpose for the tree. It had a use. It wasn't just put there to tempt man into sin. Unfortunately, we are not told that use because that is not what the story is about. The story is about sin entering into the world through taking something and using it in a way that it was not supposed to be used.
God was fininding an excuse to punish that idiot.
Adam and Eve needed to sin in order to be mortal, hence they would have lived forever without experiencing the trials of life away from God.
The wage of sin is death. They sinned, they lived, procreated, died, and will be resurected as perfect beings upon the return of Christ.
Yup - it is sounding stupider every time someone tries and explain it.
About as stupid as a monkey giving birth to a man.
Hey, that wasn't a nice thing to say. It's a difficult concept to explain. Not a stupid one. You should apologize, and spend the day in some sort of penance.
Who should I apologize to? It is a stupid concept and it causes nothing but conflicts.
The fact that you cannot understand it and need to use majik to have it make any sense is really your problem - not mine. See? This is why your beliefs always cause conflict - you have to judge others and tell them what they need to be doing.
Perhaps you might want to consider actually doing wot jezus sed instead of constantly pointing the finger at others?
IDK - couldn't hurt, could it?
Testy testy, preacher man. Lighten up. It's Friday, or does that not mean the same thing across the great divide? Maybe you need a Friday night in Glasgow (is that where you said all the bawdy women were?) to put life in perspective. Why must you always be so serious? I wasn't serious. Of course the idea of apology would be ridiculous to you.
Sorry. I have made you angry once again. You do live life on th edge - surely that is bad for your health.
But - you are right - I never apologize when I am not in the wrong. See? This is why your religion causes so many wars.
I 'spect Jesus is real proud.
Drink some coffe Mark, or maybe not. You seem wired a bit too tight already. Were it not for the warlike nature of some others outside of the mindset, Christianity would be a peaceful religion, in my opinion. But I will endeavor to persevere in my journey to discover the method behind your madness.
Sure. It is every body else's fault. This is why your religion causes so many wars - you refuse to accept personal responsibility.
Of all the logical inconsistencies in the bible, THAT'S the one you take issue with?
Adam and Eve are to be honored. They were not ignorant. God placed Adam and Eve there because of their integrity, worthiness and understanding of the eternal plan of the human species. They knew that they HAD to transgress the law in order for the perpetuation of the human family. Without this transgression none of us would be here. It's a transgression and not a sin. There is a big difference.
Do you really think that God didn't know that they would eat from the tree. The serpent (Satan) didn't do anything that God didn't allow. If that were the case why did Satan have to get God's o.k. before messing with Job? Same God and Same Satan, Same rules
Life is all about choices.
Would we all be happier walking around like clones and robots,not excercising free will?
I chose to do y best to obey,but if I dont I accept the consequences.
Sadly some people expect that life should have none,or blame God when they screw up.
kiwi, Agreed. God allowed everyone to make right or wrong choices everyday. Maybe some would be happier walking around like robots. I am happy God gives us a choice to be obedient or disobedient.
Dogs can be trained to be obedient but they sometimes choose not to be.
Did god give them free will too or is it just nature?
God gave man the animals to rule over.
Yes dogs can be trained by man.
Never before have I seen so much writing without a single answer to any of the questions I asked.
People being greedy does not answer the question "where is a childs free will".
Being able to train dogs does not answer the question "did god give them free will too".
God can think???
Because all evidence points to the absence of thinking.
The mind of the false will ask but will not understand and is expected to reach false conclusions.....
....otherwise it cannot remain false.
The mind of Truth understands all things...the mind of God is the mind of Truth.
Isn't that the point that is being made? That Adam and Eve did NOT have the mind of God?
How can the false stand in judgement would it not reach a false conclusion?
So it then obvious that the one who passes judgment on a person's action.. must first understand the original purpose intended by that actions......
Adam understood exactly the Mind of God thus he did what he did.....
I have a simple answer for this conundrum.
Evolution dun it. Das y wee lie dis !
Old Testament God was a huge troll. Remember that time he told a man to murder his own son and when the guy went "it breaks my heart, but I'll do it because you say so" God was just like "lol just kidding!"?
Yeah, but I think after that he changed it to Screw You God.
You need to read up on this.
That's not how the story ends.
I'm writing a hub on it at the moment.
Not sure you are really in the right frame of mind to read it though.
Bit cynical, it seems to me.
The story where Jephthah really DOES make a burnt offering of his daughter to the "lord" in exchange for battle success is even more heartbreaking and not as well known. (Judges, chapter 11). Yes, a fulfilled blood sacrifice to God, right there in the Bible.
Ok, I read it.
Slight difference, but a significant one.
God did NOT ask for this sacrifice. Jephtha made a foolish vow. STUPID vow, actually, because in the Law, it was expected of men of honour to keep their vows (No mantter what). He essentially walked right into it. It's in the Bible, just like a lot of dumb things men do.
Just FYI, John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod in the same "foolish" way.
As an important side issue, though VERY relevant. God would have given the Israelites victory in battle, knowing one child will die. Allowing them defeat would see hundreds/thousands dead. (among the Isrealites).
You would think that an almighty god could find a way to avoid one or even, both tragedies?
He made a Vow to God...and if you read Numbers 30:2. Any Vow made to God must be fulfilled...If God didn't want the daughter...God could have prevented her from coming out of the door first and had a Goat or Sheep come out instead...But he didn't...So it would appear that God did want the daughter...Just a thought...seeing how God is all powerful and nothing happens unless he allows it...
Maybe his dog was ALWAYS the first thing through the door.
He figured, what the heck, it's only a dog, right.
What do you recon the lesson is for us, who have the benefit of hindsight?
Never make a Vow on a whim. Know and understand what you are asking for and know and understand the price you are willing to pay to get what you are asking for.
"What do you recon the lesson is for us, who have the benefit of hindsight?"
Don't believe everything you read
It's the same lesson I take away from all the bible stories.
Eve was tricked by the serpent, not Adam. God placed Adam as the head over his wife, and it was Adam responsibility to say no to Eve and not eat the forbidden fruit. They both knew right from wrong. It's not God's fault when they chose to sin and go against God's word. Temptation exist, but it's no excuse for anyone to give in to it. God always makes a way for a person to flee from temptation.
So how was god loving, forgiving, merciful, just and fair in this story?
He made them clothes and allowed them to live and even made a way to redeem them back to their former glory.
topgunjager, SirDent has given a great answer to your question. I hope you have a good night.
I thought the chinese make the clothes? So punish adam and eve and the rest of humanity for something they had nothing to do with and give them a chance to redeem themselves? And why did god even put the tree in the garden? That just shows how he doesn't trust his own work, and if god was supposed to be perfect, this story alone proves he isn't real=)
its not a question of punishment its a question of location. All was fine inside the garden but outside the garden is a different matter entirely. In the garden was limited opportunity to sin but outside the garden, well, recall the reason for the flood. As to location.. adam and eve had babies who had babies who had babies who had babies right up to modern day.. babies born into sinful environments.
As to the perfection of God, i think that giving us a choice is far better than being puppets or programmed robots. Indeed if God had made us different than what we are he would just be making more angels. Angels serve God perfectly but they do not love and are incapable of free choice. When an angel of the Lord was ordered to slay 180,000 humans it might have been a good time to exercise choice.. but the angel did just what he was commanded to do. God wanted something to love him and this is what has come about through choice. No parent can force his child to love them, love comes from a willing heart.
if the so called bible-know-all there cannot answer, let me try. lol!
adam and eve were given 2 commands before sin entered the scene - (1) fill the earth and subdue it. (2) do not eat or even touch the tree of knowledge. [the first command would just come as it is if humans were not to die, greatly being dependent on the second command; 2nd command was rather easier to obey because the said eden was supposedly filled with fruit-bearing trees]
since adam and eve were not able to keep the command, jesus had to redeem the life they lost (the son of god, the perfect jesus - because no one else from the humanity was perfect, none can give the value of what was lost except the christ). the sacrifice of giving his son as ransom and means of forgiveness of sins should answer the love, forgiving, merciful thingy
just and fair - this is a little hard. so adam and eve are gonna die, died... whatever you call it. to be fair and just with all of adam's offspring, god decided to give them chance to be able to choose not the same course that their parents have chosen (showing them what kind of calamity those people will get if they choose not to obey) - the obedient ones will in turn gain everlasting life. (whew!) of course, i'm not sure of any of these.
Yeah but having your son murdered for you so you can forgive the sin of people who basically had nothing to with what Adam and Eve did, even though they did what you wanted them to sounds a bit sick to me. Doesn't it seem sick to you?
it's unacceptable. i can't even get my eyes on somebody being beaten in a movie. but since god is said to be all powerful - he can bring his son back to life - he can take that kind of sick thing.
can we call on jesus to tell whether he gave his consent to this murder thingy, just so we can conclude a little close to what they really have in mind. and if he did, you might probably call jesus' act as sick as well. i'm afraid forefathers who gave their lives for some kinda liberty would stand up again to protest.
Yes but a god that is all powerful doesn't need theatrics and blood sacrifice in order to forgive. You and I can do that without the need for that kind of thing.
If Jesus consented, which it seems according to the story he reluctantly did in the garden, then it isn't the one that is sick. He's a good son doing what his father wants.
But most Christians think he was god himself. So if he had himself murdered then it isn't as much sick as just plain theatrics and shenanigans since he never died. But then there was no sacrifice and the better part of what Christianity is about is a lie.
If Jesus was a man who died for a cause then there was a sacrifice even if he didn't rise from the dead and there is no god. But then Christianity is a lie.
And finally, if he was the son of god he might have suffered a bit but didn't really sacrifice anything either. After all, he didn't die. For a god raising the dead isn't that hard. Jesus was back with dad in no time and by now he is joined by his earthly family as well. Nothing lost. But with no sacrifice the basis of Christianity is a lie.
It just seems to me that looking at from the sacrifice perspective it makes no sense, and looking at it from the shear act itself it is cruel and a bit sick.
Then there is the other aspect. Christians profit from this murder. To accept the so called gift is to condone the act. To rely on it, in fact. It's one thing for our forefathers to fight and die for freedom, it is another to needlessly make someone suffer so you can forgive someone else. I'd say that is immoral. If consulted I'd have to say: no, don't you dare do that and say you did it for me.
And isn't it like putting blood on our hands? Adding more guilt and sin to us? Did he not say thou shalt not kill? Did we not kill a god that day? lol...
It's like we had to sin in order to be forgiven for another sin.
The entire thing doesn't add up. Christianity views this in two distinct ways. One that it was planned, some say from the beginning of time, and the other that Judas, Pilot and the Jews were to blame.
How can they be to blame if god wanted them to do it? God is to blame. They should be sainted, shouldn't they? Jesus wasn't going to nail himself to a tree. They needed props and a mechanism. If it was planned then they were all pawns in a game. If it wasn't planned, then again, Christianity all but falls apart.
There are a lot of aspects and layers to this story. But I can't see the Christian perspective on it being the right one. To me it is the sick and sad story of an egomaniac that needs blood and death so he can forgive.
Jesus comes out smelling like a rose unless he is god. But god comes out looking like a monster.
not sick. A perfect solution. The death of animals was procedure for Gods people (because there is life in the blood - this is meat and not milk so good luck with this) The death of flesh.. we as christians die to our fleshly desires and wants - see the parallel. As a final sacrifice and to end all sacrifices, God wrapped himself in flesh and killed that flesh at the same time the covering in the temple between gods place of presence, in the holy of holies and the inner court was torn from top to bottom signifying God reaching out to mankind and allowing everyone access to God directly.
He gave us free will.
All choices have consequences.
Loving -because he offered them everything else except that tree.
Merciful ,because He made a way for them to survive.
Just ,for Satan will be judged for all time ,in Gods time (not mans)
Dear me. How could they know right from wrong? They had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Have you even read this book?
good point ... If they didn't have any knowledge YET .. how can their poor choice be held against them ?
Precisely. Doesn't make sense.
They were punished for not obeying god - not for sin. This is why I despise this religion. At the root the message is - punishment for disobedience.
And people like WOC swallow it and fight for it without any understanding at all. Just fear of punishment.
BUT .... If and when all truth is revealed ....
EVERYBODY is goina feel foolish.
No Jerami - I don't think so. All truth? Don't kid yourself this will be revealed.
But - great job avoiding what I said and defending your religion despite this obvious flaw.
great job at not seeing what I said and keeping in your normal reterich.
There is a truth that all other "little" truth s must fit within ... or it aint any part of it.
Well done. Let's not talk about what the thread was about and instead concentrate on this. Good job. I saw exactly what you said. You are defending your religion and claiming an unseen truth.
Why not stick to the discussion at hand instead?
Hey Jerami, I don't think Mark believes there is an absolute, such as truth.
There is a such thing as absolute truth.
No one recognized it when and if they see it cause of all the other BS that we have become accostumed to.
Been there, said that.
In many ways, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that "no one" recognized it. There are plenty of people who recognize it, just not many from the religious population, because their truth lies with lies, for which, came from religious rulers who were in power originally and wanted to control(full) over people.
Religion was stablished in 326 AD.
Before that ? it was all about something else
I said good night on another thread but felt like bidding you a good night as well.
Interesting statement. Ironic, all truth could already be known, and almost everyone wouldn't believe it anyways.
The crime and punishment thing came up recently among "friends". They were stating that even if the bible wasn't literal, it contained good lessons about actions and consequenses. They were horrified when I told the story of Elisha and the bears (and of course, I then wrote a hub about it today).
Children were making fun of the prophet Elisha for being bald, calling names and being mean. The 42 children were punished by being savagely torn apart by two bears.
I will teach my children not to tease anyone, but I will not tell them that they will be dismboweled by savage animals sent by god for doing so, or that once upon a time, this was considered a reasonable punishment for this 'crime'.
(oops sorry, off topic for the Adam & Eve discussion - apologies for interjecting my 'stream of consciousness'- wrong thread)
Making fun of a bald guy is a crime? And speaking of crimes, you might want to check out the book of numbers chapter 15 and tell me if the punishment fit the so called crime=)
verses 32-36? Well, they did tell him not to work on the Sabbath...
Pick up sticks on the sabbath, get stoned to death. What's the problem?
Mark, The sin was in disobeying God. By eating the fruit is an act of disobedient. I am not perfect but choose to obey God's as close as possible. I do this because I love God, not because of fear of punishment as you wrongfully stated about me.
If you like obeying god all the time, I would like to invite you to join me every sunday and stone to death everyone we see working on that day.
That would be considered work topgunjager. In which case, I suppose, we would have to stone you on Monday for your transgression Somewhere around lunchtime would suit my scheudle.
According to the bible which I'm sure you read frequently, it's not work when I'm looking to punish those who doesn't obey god's will=) so let the stoning begin!!!
OK. I'll take your word for it, but I can't help. Something about letting him without sin cast the first one. Rules me out. Anyway, I sleep in on Sundays. But, I know a couple of prominent nay sayers that might think it's loads of fun. Where are those guys when you need'em?
Oh and don't forget to bring your god hates fa-gs sign.
Hi Mark, It's quite obvious that you have not read the bible, just making assumptions as usual. They did not need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to know right from wrong. Adam and Eve knew by God's word it was wrong to eat from that one particular tree. God said they could eat of every tree of the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve chose to disobey. They decided themselves what is right and wrong instead of obeying God's word. I encourage you to read Genesis chapter 2 and chapter 3. This is where I recieved my answer in the bible. Take care.
God told Adam not to eat from the Tree...Eve hadn't been created yet.
I agree that Eve was not created yet. When you get a chance, read Genesis Ch: 3 verse 2-3. Eve told the serpent that they may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest you die. This revealed to me that Adam told her what God said to him concerning that specific tree.
You will notice that it wasn't until after "Adam" ate of the tree that they realized they were naked and that they had done wrong...And I have read Genesis many times...I am reading it again now as it pertains to part of a story line that I am writing.
Double Scorpion, I have noticed it was not until Adam ate of the tree when both of their eyes were opened. They were immediately aware and ashamed of being naked. This scripture does not state Adam and Eve wasn't aware before eating the fruit it was wrong to disobey God's word.They both made a choice to sin.
God never said it was a sin...he said not to eat of the tree or you would die...How did Adam or Eve even know what death was for that to even be something of a fear factor for them? Eve was not in the wrong...She was not told by God not to eat of the tree...She was told by Adam that "God said if you ate of the tree you would die" ( in theory... as this is assumed since it is not mentioned) And Eve was not placed "under" Adam until after the fact so she was not bound to obey him... Mankind was punished because Adam didn't listen to God. And Mankind was not put to death...he was given the knowledge of what death was and thus we have "Fear" being added to the mix. Also you will notice that Adam and Eve wasn't kicked out of the Garden for "sin" but because if they ate from the tree of life they would live forever.(Meaning that in Gods plan, Man was always destined to die)
Take care yourself. Watch out those contradictions don't get ya.
So - they did know good from evil - even though they had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
You sure it is me that has not read this book?
Oh my goodness, you are truly a master of twisting words as usual. I stated above that Adam and Eve knew it wrong before eating the forbidden fruit because of God's word. They both knew it was sinning when they disobeyed God, but they did it anyway. I am not going to waste my time repeating this while you play games.
Of course. How did they know the difference between good and evil if they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Makes no sense. Why waste your time? LOLOLO How brave you are.
Obey or Die!
Of course they knew right from wrong. Even though they had not eaten from the tree.
You sure you read this book?
Yeah - it can be read either way - quite clever really.
No - it can only be read one way. Either they knew right from wrong already - in which case it would not matter if they ate from the tree, or they did not know right from wrong (which is what the book says) in which case this god thing is a psychopath who wants blind obedience.
Odd how obedience keeps coming into the discussion from the religionists like WoC.
I disagree completely - the beauty of it - the cleverness of it is that we will see what we expect to see. It then becomes an open door to the willing and people who choose to believe and an invisible door to everybody else. Rage that you don't see it, laugh at the people who believe they do, and the people who walk through it will care less.
If you don't want to see it, that is the point. If you do want to see it, you - at your intelligence level - won't need anybody to explain it to you. It is all just a matter of spirituality and the temperament of one's soul (obedience does play a role here).
To give the somewhat willing a place to start at from your question - the tree was placed and Adam was allowed to partake - because God doesn't want blind obedience.
And again - you're smart enough to figure it out or you don't want to figure it out - so if I were to explain it, it would be a waste of my effort and your intellect.
And I believe I know what you're seeing, your point of view is perfectly understandable and sensible.
Yes - I was pretty certain you would eschew logic and common sense in favor of "you wouldn't understand." Obviously I am not smart enough to figure it out - despite using perfectly sensible and logical reasoning.
That is the standard religious approach. This is why your religion causes so many wars.
No... I really meant to communicate that you have a huge role to play on whether or not you understand it. You can step up to that and figure it out... or you won't - it's all you. Your intellect is very vibrant and very appropriately applied to what you are willing/able to see. Your smarts would process a different angle equally as well as they have your current one.
Yeah, faith before evidence is actually built into my religion. Again - you can rage that you don't see it... or... do something about it by genuinely changing your attitude and choosing to believe differently.
It's all available to you, but nobody can do it for you.
And - it seems that a lot of people posting here have the same obstacle - there is plenty of information already posted to make the concept transparent. Its all just a hum of people complaining that they can't see it.
Yes - I get it. You think you know something that I do not because you have the majik juju. It is actually funny. Or - it would be if this was not such a condescending attitude.
I see it just fine thank you. It is a massive contradiction that proves your religion is nonsense.
You have swallowed the pill that allows you to ignore that because you are so scared. I understand. The Invisible Super Daddy is a scary concept. I don't blame you for being this scared. I expect you think you are doing me a favor by warning me and telling me my juju is too weak to see what you see.
But - you do not need to be afraid any more - we know it is irrational nonsense written to instill a fear of God into people. I very much doubt I can convince myself to ignore reality in favor of your fairy tail. I am simply not scared enough. Perhaps when I am old and frail? Who knows? I understand a lot of old people - after a lifetime of threats from people like you - succumb. Maybe I will? You can hope if it makes you feel better about yourself.
It is OK - eventually you will see it - if you can conquer the fear you exude. This is why your religion causes so many wars, unfortunately. Here is hoping you will get over your fear and see reality.
Fire, Agreed. We can explain, but if one refuses to see, it's a waste of time.
Mark, The discussion is about Adam and Eve. That is why I keep bringing obedience into the discussion. Odd how obedience really gets under your skin.
Ah - Are you getting it? At last? Nothing about sin or free will. Nothing about choice. Nothing. Just doing wot god sed. It wants obedience. Innit? Like wot u sed god sed. Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. Did you poison your children the same? Don't drink the bleach - it will kill you?
This is why your religion causes so many wars.
Adam and Eve were not little children. They were adults. Example: If someone has a food disposal in their sink and you was told not to put your fingers in it when it is operating, would you stubbornly do it anyway? Maybe you would and later ask that person " Why don't you remove the food disposal out of your sink?" This person does not have to remove it because you refuse to listen and cause harm to yourself. God would not have instructed Adam and Eve not to touch the tree if they could not reason and understand. They knew it was wrong to disobey God. You can't see this with your eyes slam shut and ears close.
I see. So - it was not the tree of knowledge of good and evil then? They already knew the difference between right and wrong?
What knowledge was it that they got from this tree in that case?
How did they know what death was? I thought there was no death?
Well done. Very brave.
The garden of eden is full of trees. Is your house full of food disposals?
Don't think shoving your hand in a food disposal is as tempting as gaining knowledge of good and evil. Also, is there a snake in your sink?
If adults, then they would have the knowledge and experience of adults, but instead they didn't even know right from wrong, hence they may have had the bodies of adults, but the minds of small children.
How does that relate to learning about what is right and wrong? We are not talking about placing ourselves in some danger, we are talking about behavior, right vs. wrong, morals, ethics, etc.
All they learned from that is to not touch something placed in front of them, the same kind of lesson a small child is taught about not touching things.
No, they learned how to lie. God said they would die if they ate the fruit of the tree, but they didn't die, so god lied to them. Of course, religionists are quick to attempt to explain this contradiction, but have yet to come up with anything substantial.
How many Christians don't eat apples?
tree of knowledge of good and evil... man that musta been some tree. Can you imagine a tree that contains the knowledge of good and evil... it must just zap the brain and stimulate dormant parts or increase IQ or just whoosh in a bunch of information.... The problem with this story is interpretation. Its a literal snake in a literal tree with literal fruit to bite. I think we can see the obvious flaws here.
Adam where are you? is what God said... God must have been away for a while.. of course God knew where adam was but this shows separation from adam. Why would God be separated from adam? because adam was sinning more and more as time went by. Little sins at first and then bigger sins, adam was choosing to live life the way He wanted not the way God wanted. God wanted someone to delight in Him but adam loved eve more and eve loved eve most. She made her own decision to do what she wanted and adam flowed right along. Until one day God had enough. There was too much sin and too much separation.
Knowing good from evil is not knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of good and evil indicates experience.
It seems we agree cousin. This book is meaningless gibberish and it seems you have not actually read it because there is none of this stuff in there. Maybe the Mormon has got it right with the stuff he made up to add?
I thought all sins were equal. Silly me.
Can you give me a list of little sins progressing to big sins?
Where is homo sexuality on this list? Is it a little sin or a big sin?
First adam was just happy to spend time with eve, thus putting God on a shelf so to speak.. Then eve started to 'rule the roost' so to speak taking adam from his appointed position as head of the household.. then we will end our list with outright disobedience. This is what i meant. I hoped the little to bigger sins would spin some intellectual thinking within the context and framework of my post; adam, eve the garden, yknow. But as usual you have given no thought at all and just reacted.. such a little sin but equal to other sins in Gods eyes.
sorry that is all you gleaned from the text but according to your style it is what i expected. Shallow indeed. I will hope you put some thought into other posts you read maybe you will find the answers you need without trying to seem like the be all and end of all wisdom.
well lets open the can of worms shall we.
lets correct a few wrongs first.
Adam had a full working language and vocabulary. God told him to name the animals and he did. This is not an ignorant person nor is it a club wielding half man half ape. Adam had knowledge of fire also. He was an excellent gardener and God taught him many others things as well.
God did not say "do not touch the tree", eve said that. God told adam not to eat (partake) of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When adam told eve not to eat of the tree she added the bit about touching it.. adam and eves version differ a bit because eve got a second hand message of what God said to adam and adam probably emphasised the importance of not partaking of the tree when he passed on Gods message to her.
The tree was in the midst of the garden.. why didn't God put the tree in a far off corner? out of the way? Or why did not adam kill the snake one day or interrupt eve as she was having this discussion with the serpent. The secret to this lay in the language used at the time, pictographs.
enjoy this hub http://hubpages.com/hub/Tet-shtn-and-the-garden. In it you will find some pretty amazing answers to this most puzzling part of the holy bible.
I have a few responses for you.
1. Adam had a full working language and vocabulary? Where does it state this?
2. This is not an ignorant person nor is it a club wielding half man half ape? Read the definition of ignorance – lack of knowledge. He didn’t know right or wrong, good or evil, and even what death was.
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever ADAM CALLED every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave NAMES to ALL cattle, AND to the fowl of the air, AND to EVERY beast of the field; (No small chore)
kinda hard to name animals without a working vocabulary and an understanding of some sort of phonetics. Adam discussed things with eve and God talked with adam. Kinda hard to converse with someone who doesn't understand a language or can't speak.
Are you saying because Adam did not have nuclear fusion knowledge he was ignorant. Adam was instructed of God and had all the knowledge adam needed. This included the use of fire and he was a horticulturalist and more.
Sounds to me like your book is making less and less sense cousin. Where do you make the jump from Adam naming Goats to knowing good and evil?
And - if Adam knew good from evil - why did he need to eat the fruit to learn it? Why wasn't he already ashamed of his nakedness?
Makes utterly no sense. They were punished for not doing wot god sed. The root of your religion.
Have you even read this book?
naming goats.. lol.. perhaps the limited function of your thoughts is what has caused you to evolve like an unsavory melon. Adam did so much more than just name goats. You must be all the way to christianity 001 by now huh. To name all the animals that God brought is a large list.
so are you saying that inside a fruit was the knowledge of good and evil. Is this like tinkerbell shaking her magic fairy dust on children and they can fly? Adam did not NEED to eat the fruit to LEARN it.. eating the fruit means: to participate. take part in, (in extreme)enjoy. Of course Adam knew what was good already. The ability to choose the good from the evil is displayed in the fact that evil was chosen. The information is there you just have to look outside the box and read in between the lines because colloquialisms and idioms and allegories and mythopoetic phrases abound in this supernatural book, but then supernatural is something you don't have room for in your limited thought patterns of laws and reality.
better luck next time round? lol.. i guess this is like what God offers.. a one shot deal. You do or dont believe. and atheism is less than that.. you dont and cant.. one trip.. see ya... how despondant.
I am sorry bro, but my 2 year old can name animals. it doesn't state anywhere in the bible that ADAM has a full vocabulary. Also even if he did, it doesn't mean he wasn't ignorant. FYI the bible is clear that he was ignorant of good and evil.
you miss the simple point that your 2 year old is not naming the animals for the first time but repeating the names already given to the animals. After 50 or so animals the naming process becomes more difficult as we dont want to repeat their names.
Believe what you will
even use common sense
A full vocabulary is needed.
The bible is not clear that adam was ignorant.
If i tell you not to choose the fruit on that tree.. from that point onward you are not ignorant of what i have told you. Adam partook of the way eve was going because he loved eve more than God. A conscious decision on his part to cling to eve and seperate from God.
i hope this helped.
So, how long did it take Adam to name the millions of species on the planet? How did he name the animals in Australia? How did he name all the fish and mammals living in the ocean? How did he name all the insects?
Did he name all the dinosaurs, too?
Have you any idea how long such a task would take?
Common sense, indeed.
it doesnt say the animals of the whole world. God brought the animals to adam while he was IN the Garden.
doh... guess ya missed that one huh.
common sense INDEED
sound of the buzzer again
but keep trying... see how many buzzer sounds you can collect
One wrong and one right.
"So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field..."
You really should read the bible some day.
So, how long did it take Adam to name millions of species?
so out of the ground (of the garden of eden) God formed every beast (out of the ground of the FIELD (garden of eden) You think God formed a beast in america and then transported it to eden for adam to name? Did you also notice that sea creatures are not included. Do you think animals could wander into eden from outside and vice versa? You know little about eden.
you really should read the bible some day.
So how long did it take adam to name the beasts of the garden?
You really look foolish trying to opinionate about the bible.
sound of the buZZZZZZZZer.
now go and find a life for yourself
I'm somewhat puzzled where you would come up with such a ridiculous notion. The words are right there in front of you:
"So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them"
Where does it say America or the Garden of Eden?
Then, how did Adam name them? Did they too come from "out of the ground"?
Again, from where do you get those ridiculous notions?
Yes, I can see the foolishness now. Thanks for pointing it out and thanks for sending me on my way to find a life.
See the spirit of god is not in you and you cannot discern the words of the bible.
You are in so very wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy over your head.
That post showed your complete and full ineptitude for anything biblical.
im bettin i am not the only one either laughing or shaking their head at that threadfailure.
sorry beely and not about your postings.
Adam lived in the garden while these animals were being named
do you ever read this book or just cut and paste little snippets without thinking?
Ah yes, the superiority ploy, you are vastly superior in being able to read words out of a book while I am not, because I haven't received the "spirit of god" - seriously, that's the best you can do?
All I did was ask some logical questions about what was written there, and instead you come up with a childish kindergarten playground retort. Or, did you answer the questions? Let's see.
LOL! Nope, didn't answer them.
Yes, we can see who actually read the book and who was filled with spirit, or filled with something else.
1) 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2) Hebrews 5:14 But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (check the context on this one if you can)
3) John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but ye know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.
4) John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth
5) 2 Timothy 3
The reason you get the sound of the buzzer again is because when a logical answer, as u put it, comes to, you just dismiss it and carry on with your wrongness.
You said "one wrong and one right" and i told you again i was not wrong and then you stormed through like a drunken sailor and blurted out a condescending report of typical stubborn misinformation.
If you are gonna ask a question you should at least expect to hear an answer and not be of the destructive mind to ridicule and dis every response you get, which is typical of you. You have never said, "oh well i guess that's possible" you just jump right in and start punching. I know you don't like me and i could care less but when an answer comes your way, at least do the high moral thing and accept it.
Ground is not the word used for world. Field is a much smaller territory than world btw. And having some insight into Eden life might help you also when you say things like:
You really should read the bible some day.
So, how long did it take Adam to name millions of species?
Or this absolute winner of insanity
Where does it say America or the Garden of Eden?
Then, how did Adam name them? Did they too come from "out of the ground"?
Were you now talking about adam naming america? Dis this answer if you can. Adam did not name america.
waste of time, space and energy. This is why God snuffs like a candle spirits of this nature, the constant nattering would be real downer
Yes, I see how you move from the subject matter to fallacies when you are unable to respond to the subject matter and must resort to other tactics.
Seems more like just a very unhealthy obsession with buzzers on your part, but if it makes you feel superior to make the sound of a buzzer, feel free.
When your answer is pure nonsense that has little to no thought associated, you should expect at the very least, ridicule.
I never said that or alluded to it in any way, shape or form. That is your own opinion that I do not share.
I would suspect that since you have claimed to be the arbiter of biblical interpretation, you have gleaned those definitions from the bible or somewhere else?
I can see that there is no honesty whatsoever in your response. YOU brought up America, not me.
And, I noticed that you have still not answered the questions.
Funny how you claimed you would no longer engage me, but you still do. Honesty does not follow you around, does it?
Dont forget the minor discrepancy in the bible as to wether man was created before animals or the other way around. The bible seems to get confused about that when rehashing the whole creation story in genesis.
What bible do you read? The bible is CLEAR that ADAM and STEVE were ignorant. They had no knowledge of right/wrong or good/ evil.
I can only assume that when God put the fruit of life there and told Adam and Eve not to eat its fruit, He was thinking that both of them will do as told.After all they are creations far superior than the lesser animals. They have the mental faculties to guide them and let them think of the consequences that would befall them should they disobey.
It i slike telling a child to not put a fork in a wall socket. It will hurt you or even kill you. Warnings are good no matter how everyone else takes them.
Adam and Eve were warned of the conesequences and they did it anyway.
Exactly, When God prohibits something, it is for our own good. He knows what is best for us.
Nice to know that you apparently don't. Thank you for the insight into your life.
You talk of the morality of man. What man says is good to do. We talk of Gods morality, what God says is good to do. There is a huge difference between the two.
As we well know mans morality is the LESSER of the two, becoming more and more liberal each decade with a swipe of a pen by a politician or a new show on TV. There is nothing steadfast about mans morality. As in biblical days there were countries looking to the middle east and saying.. what a lot of fighting is happening there. The same is goin on today, lots of fighting but not just in the middle east. Mankind has had two world wars, used nukes in battle and as we know the usa has made war a business. So just because your ivory tower is in perfect array please dont think that the world revolves around you. Gods rules are for everybody: the maniac killer, the politician, the general and the egotistically elite who sh_t doesnt stink.
Thankyou for the insight into your life
in in the latter years man shall raise himself above God and laugh at the king of heaven and say "where is this God? I can govern my own self and all the things that i do shall seem pleasing in my sight".
pharoah of egypt
walls of jericho
to name a few.
If he knows what's best for us, why did he even put that tree in the garden?
God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden to give Adam and Eve a choice to obey him or disobey him. If God had not given Adam and Eve the choice, they would have been like robots simply doing what they are programmed to do. God created Adam and Eve to be free beings, able to make their own decisions. In order for Adam and Eve to truly be free, they had to have a choice.
Don't you think it would have been a good idea to teach them right from wrong? Instead of asking for blind obedience from peopel who did not understand death?
How do you come to the conclusion that adam and eve did not how to choose right from wrong? And how do you support your claim that adam and eve did not understand death.
Because they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong.
There was no death - how could they understand this concept?
They were punished for not obeying.
Have you even read this book?
did you even read my post?
God said ye shall die. Adam raised his hand... "whats death?" God told him.
do you think that God is going to put words in front of his creation without telling him the meaning? lol of course you do but this is not what happened. Genesis is an account of the garden. If you want word for word what was said and a full textual revealing, you will never have enough time to read it all.
rest of your post sucks too
GOD wants to control us as like other creature.But we want independent function.Then the problem starts sweetly.Till date we are blaming god smoothly.
God expected Adam and Eve to hear and listen to him. This was before sin entered the world- they were as innocent as children. They didn't have a sin nature, they didn't know right from wrong. They didn't even know they were walking around buck naked in broad daylight. They were innocent- but Satan used his words to twist what God said, and Eve- not understanding what a liar was- fell for it hook, line and sinker. But God had given her another choice- the tree of life. It's like our current choice: do we listen to Satan as he touts the "good" in the world, or do we listen to God and accept his Son as our savior, to gain eternal life?
Surely you think the snake was a mistake thought?! I mean, you'd think god would know better than that!
God didn't put the snake there. The snake was Satan- like humans, Satan has a will of his own. Satan was once Lucifer- an angel of music, and one of the most important angels in heaven. Long story short, he got too big for his britches and decided he should be god instead. A two thirds of heaven's angels fell to Hell with him when God proved him wrong. Satan does everything he can to get in God's way, because that is his individual will. God wanted us to love and worship him of our own volition- not just "not know any better" or "not know any other way." He loves us, so he gave us a choice. Just like a man who loves a woman will give her up if she loves someone else. It's a choice. We make them every day, because God created us with that inherent ability.
So, the choices are heaven if you love god and hell if you don't? Is there an option for "None of the Above"? If not, then it really isn't a choice at all.
Notice that in your example, if a man does not love a woman, he does not burn for an eternity as a result. Big difference?
Notice you're being nit picky and avoiding the subject? T_T God created the universe, and everything in it down to the most minuscule grain of sand. He deserves our worship and praise. Everything was his from the beginning. But Satan fell away from his side because of ridiculous, unsubstantiated pride. God has given us a will that allows us the same thing. He had his son, a literal part of himself, come to this earth and die for us when he hadn't committed a single sin from the day he was born-- all for the sake of saving us. For the sake of giving us the option to be saved after the fall of Eden.
It is our decision-- available because God gave us a will-- whether we accept his sacrifice or trample it under our feet. Most people don't believe in the choice we have before us at all, or the think of God as "the man upstairs" or some such thing. God is so holy that he considers hate as murder, and lust as adultery. That God loves us, so much that he would have his son die for us-- but he still gives us the ability to choose whether or not to come to his side.
Yes, I understand you believe in one of the many creation stories amongst the many religions that offer them.
Gods can die? Since when? I thought they were all-powerful and all-knowing.
What sacrifice? Gods can't die, hence there was never any sacrifice.
That isn't holy, that's insane.
Your god couldn't have died unless you believe gods can die, if not, you must be very angry to know that.
The creation story I believe in, as you put it, can be backed up by science if the scientists wouldn't continue turning a blind eye to the facts. Ask around, and you'll find that creationist scientists are more accurate than those that believe in evolution, no matter what you're discussing.
No, God-- emphasis on the singular, please-- cannot die. But his son was born of a human woman-- he came to this earth both fully God and fully man. He was mortal, had a sin nature, etc. He was human. At the same time, he was still God. The flesh he was born with on this earth, however, could be killed.
It is holy-- the fact that you think it's insane is what proves how different it is between God and man. God who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient sees things very differently from the finite man, who lives barely eighty years, only fills up a tenth of his brain or so in that lifetime, and doesn't usually take the time to look beyond the end of his own nose.
Scientists ignore facts? Interesting. So these so called creationist scientists are right about the world being 6000 years old?
There are different formulas that try to calculate how old things are in the universe, but these formulas have to do a lot of guesswork. To get the right answers, non-creationist scientists have to pretty well fudge facts. Creantion Scientists have the most accurate formulae, but no one uses them because they're based on the "young earth" theory, which isn't possible if they want to believe in their billions-of-years evolution hypothesis. ^^ Ken Ham is an amazing creation scientist, and I had the privilege of attending one of his seminars last summer. I really recommend looking him up! (if you're near Ohio, he has a creation museum up there- they say it's so big it'll take you three days to see the whole thing~ )
Ok, I guess the bible is also right about the world being flat, it makes sense to me now.
Should scientists only focus on your particular creation story or should they give all creations stories the same opportunity?
What facts do you refer that scientists are ignoring?
Creation scientists claim that dinosaurs walked around with men, yet science shows from the mountains of evidence that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before men walked the earth. How do you explain that?
But, as you say, "God-- emphasis on the singular, please-- cannot die" and "fully God" so you appear to have a contradiction on your hands. The flesh was obviously just a "suit of flesh" worn by a god and when the flesh died, god removed the suit. In other words, god never died and everyone was fooled into believing he did. God fooled you.
Yet, even though we live barely eighty years (many live longer than that) we have the intelligence to understand that hate is not murder and lust is not adultery. In fact, hate is hate, murder is murder, lust is lust and adultery is adultery. Clearly, your god never heard of a dictionary.
And, while you continue to perpetuate myths, please note that it is also a myth that we only use one tenth of our brains.
As far as creationist science goes, since I'm not an expert and can't argue it extensively with you, I give you a dare- test your guts, please, if you have the will to do so- to attend an conference on it, or go to one of the creationist museums, such as the one built by Ken Ham in Ohio. There's also the "Answers" set of three books written by Ken Ham that can thoroughly and in essay format answer all your questions.
I'm terrible at science, so please don't shoot my brain this early in the morning. (I just woke up. XD )
There is ONE theory that you mentioned specifically that I know I don't like- the dinosaurs and men thing. THEY DID walk with men. However, this world is barely over 6,000 years old, not millions. (the "young earth" theory is one of the main ones scientists have to ignore if they want to continue with the *hypothesis* of evolution) Creation was approx. 4000 BC, and then the world-wide Flood (have you heard of this story? There's a flood story in every single culture around the world, you know.) occurred c. 2300 BC. Soon after, the oldest culture in the world emerged- the culture of the Sumerians, surrounding the Tower of Babel. According to creation scientists, just after the flood was the ice age, in which the dinosaurs died. In other words, we lived together, humans were killed in the world-wide flood, and whatever dinosaurs were saved on Noah's ark (you should see a realistic depiction of it's dimensions- it's ridiculously huge) died in the Ice Age soon after.
(And I'm thinking about it right now, so I'm answering- a tenth of our available memory storage space.)
I don't have a contradiction on my hands at all- I said it before. He sent his son down to this earth, born of a virgin (also physically impossible, but with God all things are possible), both fully God AND fully man. He took on all the aspects of man, including our sin nature- and with our sin nature comes death, because they were inherited together in the Garden. As far as him dying, have you ever heard that God is a trinity? Father- God, Son- Jesus, and the Holy Spirit- also commonly called the Holy Ghost. They are three completely different entities, but all are of one mind. The book "God and the Nations" had a very different and interesting way to illustrate this concept, if you care to research it.
God the Son- Jesus- was born of Mary- a virgin. He lived approximately 33 years on this earth, walking among men as one of them. He lived in the same flesh, had the same struggles, was tempted as man was tempted, hurt as man hurt, and was accused of crimes he never committed by the jealous Jewish leaders, who thought his miracles and teachings a threat to their own. Through this way, even though Christ could have denied it and proved his innocence, he allowed himself to be put in trial in a kangaroo court and convicted- simply because the crowds demanded him be crucified. His judge, Pontius Pilate, didn't even see anything wrong about him- he merely submitted to the demands of the rioters. He was beaten with a cat-o-ninetails (research it, and just imagine the pain) until he was barely recognizable, they mocked him as "King of the Jews", spit on him and plucked his beard out (painful and HUMILIATING of a man of this age), and still they attempted to make him carry his own cross to the hill outside of the city. He didn't have the strength, and collapsed- a man named Simon, a Cyrenian, was beckoned to carry it for him. Upon the hill called Golgotha- Place of a Skull, translated- he was crucified. The miracles that happened at his very death were proof enough for at least one centurion- he's the only one who is mentioned, but I'm sure there were others- to say "Truly this man was the Son of God." The temple veil- a montrous, ceiling-to-floor 6-8 inch thick curtain between the temple for regular worship and the "Holy of Holies"- rent in two from top to bottom. Here is the description as penned by Matthew, a tax collector:
"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graces after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Matt. 27:50-53
The reason as it was mentioned in Revelation 1:18- "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for ever more, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." Jesus died as a price for all sin, and redeemed us; and he gained power over death and Hell when he took the keys from Satan in those three days he was dead.
And this has gotten very far away from your original topic, but I'm amused. ^^ Did I satisfy that topic already?
Why would I want to visit that museum when it is well known Ken Ham gets all his information from biblical scriptures, hence all we need is the bible to support the views of the museum?
Bill Mayer exposed this charlatan in his movie, "Religulous"
The "Young Earth Theory" is easily blown to dust with the knowledge that civilizations existed more than 6000 years ago. Surely, you can't expect anyone to believe the earth is only 6000 years old when our history shows otherwise?
That is a myth, we use all of our brains, not just one-tenth.
Then, it would appear there is no debate here as you can always invoke this statement at any time. In other words, your world is based on magic and not reality.
Notice how your answer does not explain the question. If gods can't die, whether they are in a trinity or not, then Jesus never died.
Upon researching, we find that there are no records whatsoever of Pilate having been involved in anything remotely similar to the story of the Crucifixion. Nada, ziltch, nothing. Just the bible.
So what? People of that time were all steeped in myths and superstitions. Is that the same way you choose to live your life?
Not in the least.
And where are your references? I used the bible, my college text book, and the books I bought from a seminar. No, Ken Ham isn't JUST using the Bible- that's why his museum is so big. The reason scientists say they have civilizations from so far back in history is because of carbon dating- a theory that has a discrepancy which they overlook for the sake of NOT disproving evolution (which is thoroughly reviewed, all scientific facts in order, in "The New Answers Book" vol. 1, which was generally edited by Ken Ham; the original section was written by Mike Riddle). Who says Pilate had no involvement in the crucifixion? History says otherwise. As for death, it's because there is an afterlife- the after life is either Heaven or Hell. The reason for an afterlife is because we have an eternal soul- the flesh doesn't live forever, but the soul does. It has to go somewhere when the flesh dies, and we get to make that choice ourselves.
As far as I can see, you're pulling an ostrich- you've got your head in the sand. You've read your sources that fall in well with your opinion, and ignore everything that states something contradictory. I've read some on both sides of the argument- I've just seen more sense on the creationist side. When scientists have to say that they "don't know" because they're simply not looking, I tend to despair their ability to research.
No "myth" in the history of mankind has ever had this much evidence to stand on.
My references are reality and science.
Sorry, I don't follow that logic. Kens ideals that encapsulate the fundamental concepts in the museum are primarily scriptural. The only real added feature to his presentations are derived from his degree in environmental biology.
Could you please tell me what are the discrepancies of carbon dating you refer? Perhaps, I should write a Hub explaining why carbon dating works and you can refute it?
Ouch! Not a very good claim to make. You see, this question has had many years of research and controversy, conducted and debated by scholars far more expert within those fields than you or I.
From what appears to still be a controversy for some, it isn't for anyone else, simply because there are no historic records of Pilate and Jesus to verify the Crucifixion ever occurred as the event described by scriptures.
Did Pilate have people crucified? Yup, that can be verified. But, that is the extent of verification from the various sources, and not much else that would support scriptures.
If you can produce that historical documentation, you would be the first.
Sorry, but again, beyond scriptural claims, souls and the afterlife have never been shown to exist and would violate the physical of the universe if they could exist.
That's odd, you already admitted to not knowing much about creationist science and it's obvious some knowledge of science is out of the question, I could only conclude then that any "sense" you might have achieved in your decision making process is entirely faith driven, and not based on rational thought.
From where would you get that notion?
All religious myths have pretty much equal amount of evidence to stand on: scriptures.
... I'd love to type up the WHOLE ARTICLE on carbon dating for you, but that seems far too annoying, so I'll summarize as best I can the critical assumption: Dr. Willard Libby, the originator of the "carbon dating" science, made an assumption which he has no evidence for. The assumption is that the ratio of 12^C to 14^C was constant. That reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes (another assumption, wow...) the earth to be billions of years old. However, at the same time, Libby noted the atmosphere to NOT be in equilibrium, which is a problem since, by the basic assumption of carbon dating (that the ratio is a constant), enough time should have passed for the atmosphere to achieve equilibrium. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy and write it off as experimental error. However, the ratio of 14^C/12^C is NOT constant.
"The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16. 1 disintegrations per gram per minute." -- D. R. Humphreys
The estimated amount of time for 14^C to reach equilibrium in the atmosphere is 30,000 years. Since we aren't there yet (it is still in imbalance), that means the earth must NOT really be that old.
Best summary I can manage without typing two pages worth. T_T; I also have an article on Radiometric Dating right here in front of me, if you're curious. Various teams (that have nothing to do with creation science) did some experiments and found fault with this theory, too.
As for my faith, we can conclude it's more than what you hold on to. You purposely cling to the belief that you came from apes, and what does it give you? Hopelessness, pointlessness. I'm not saying I cling to religion as a purpose for living, but I find things make more sense when I look through this scope. For the afterlife, there are people who have died briefly and were then revived. It happens all the time. And many have written books on what they saw. Take a gander- maybe you'll hear something you haven't heard before.
For anything I haven't answered, please restate your questions in the next post, if you post again. For your best answers, make a list of questions- I'll answer them to the best of my ability.
I may be younger, and I may be less educated (who knows?), but you haven't made me waver. I only see cynicism and sarcasm and disdain in your conversation, and I feel much better off that you appear to be. You put as much faith into your scientific assumptions that leave you with nothing as I do into my faith that gives me everything I need.
Yes, and there have been a number of creationist coming up with similar arguments.
All it shows is there is a small fluctuation over time, a margin of error, which scientists HAVE taken into consideration. However, the problems are not what creationists asserted in regards to the atmosphere, it was actually the earths magnetic dipoles that caused these fluctuations to occur.
That is why they scientists needed collaborative sources to validate carbon dating, which they found in tree rings dating back almost ten thousand years and lake bed sediments going back some twenty-two thousand years, all of them validating carbon dating to within a certain degree of error. And, with the error, it means that although many artifacts have not been dated dead on, they are very close.
Your creationist scientists really have no idea what they're talking about and are just poking a stick at science, once again.
I hold no such belief, we did not come from apes, whatever gave you that notion?
But, the scope is filled with magic and not reality.
So what? That doesn't mean there's an afterlife. All it means is that while those who "died" briefly, their brains underwent trauma and they hallucinated.
Good for you. I understand that criticism of your magical belief system will make you feel that way. That is your conscience struggling with your indoctrination and reality.
Yes, I understand and read about believers who love to diss science even though it is science that has brought them everything they have today, your computer, internet connection, these forums, your health, etc. etc. etc. - the list goes on and on and separates your current world from that of living in a cave.
I would love to reply directly to the most recent post, but apparently there is a limit to how many indents you can get in a tree of these things. How irritating. T_T;
As for the belief that you come from apes, if you believe in evolution you're agreeing with that theory. Ah, well, I suppose you evolved from a germ of some sort if you go back far enough, but the general strand is apparently from the ape family.
For the rest of your argument, I find myself tired. You run in the same circles and come back to the same conclusion. "It's a myth."
I find myself looking at this screen and thinking "I'm sorry you're so determined to see God this way." It makes one wonder what's happened to make you stop having faith. You've given up, and it's sad. You're determined there's nothing else, and it's scary; because I know differently.
A little over 2000 years ago, a man named Jesus of Nazarene walked this earth. He was the Son of God, yet fully man; and he fulfilled all of 700+ prophecies concerning himself in the Old Testament. Beginning his ministry at about the age of 30, he caused miracles the likes of which none had ever seen- he healed the deaf, blind, dumb, lame, the diseased and demon-possessed. He lived his life from the moment of birth with man's sin nature, and yet even until death he never sinned. Perfect and sinless, he took on our sins- past, present and future- and died for us, that we may live.
You're a sinner. I'm a sinner. I'm by no means the best Christian out there- I have all sorts of things wrong with me. But God loves me, and he sent his son to die for me. Sent him to die for you, whom he loves also. All you have to do is believe.
You step out on faith with man; why not with God?
I won't continue to argue with you. I can't satisfy all your arguments, because you refused to be satisfied. Anything you post here again I will not respond to, but I will leave you with this:
Where will you go when you die?
I have no idea what you're talking about and I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution never claimed we came from apes, that is entirely false. Where did you get that ridiculous notion?
Evidently, and not apparently, you are entirely wrong about evolution. Perhaps, you are getting this false information from the creation museum folks?
Yes, I understand your childhood religious indoctrination will make you believe you know differently and that it is quite impossible for you to understand others don't share your faith. But, I need not wonder why you believe as you do. It is quite understandable.
Yes, I've heard a plethora of versions of this mythical and magical tale. I don't see how repeating it here will have any relevance.
No, I'm not a sinner as I don't share your beliefs that people are sinners. My understanding of the human condition is that people are compassionate and good by nature, that they are altruistic as the day is long.
It is only religions that give mankind a bad name.
If I stopped thinking altogether and wanted to do nothing for the rest of my life that had any value, and I didn't want to take responsibility for myself or the world around me, I might then take up your religion.
Perhaps not, but you will continue to tell me I'm a sinner and that I need to believe in Jesus. This is why your religion has caused and continues to cause conflict and wars in the world. It has done so for centuries.
Nowhere, I'll be dead. You won't be going anywhere either.
Helpful hint. If you click on chronological view, you will always have access to the reply button.
You know everything you said about jesus happened to horus as well. He lived 1000 years before the story of jesus, an exact copy of the story.
Well, let's see...the choice to have no blame, be treated like royalty, have no bad anything, and be totally oblivious to good and evil...kind of like being in a luxurious limo being toured around the most gorgeous place on the face of the Earth, with continuous perfect weather, the best of food, and no illness, no storms, no disasters, no cranky, mean, crazy people versus..."ok, you do it, you go ahead and be blamed, be poor, work for it all yourself, you know the differece so expect the natural consequences, no matter how heart breaking they are, ride in your beat up vehicle or walk, in the hurricaines and snow storms of life, get sick,starve, die, suffer,....ummm, let me see...Do I want a 5 star resort or a cardboard box I have to find to sleep in ? God's intentions were for us to be loved and lavished in luxury, to enjoy life with Him, but if anyone prefers the "now you know good from evil.." well, that is your perogative, since choice was his way of saying, "I love and trust you" . Yet, even when we did do what He warned us not to do...He made a way out of it for us, even now. How many of you take the punishment for your child's disobedience, after you gave them explicit instructions and warnings ? And that is my interpretation.
My point is the opinion of the Bible. You can argue if you want, but I choose to believe all of the Bible. It is the only publication that makes since to me. We don't believe in it because we reason only through human physical terms.
God is only understood in spiritual terms.
Interesting, It might be a good subject indeed. Many people should need to be aware of it...
God turned himself into his own son and then sacrificed himself to himself because that was the only way he could forgive the sins of his creation that he designed them to commit.
It makes perfect sense. What is so hard to understand?
That is definitely oversimplified, which of course makes it sound rather silly. Tradition and rituals had to be overturned by a radical act. To the cultures and people of that time it was revolutionary and the idea so worthy of believing on that they were willing to face heinous death instead of recanting. I can't imagine a world where sacrifice was still a part of it, or the old view of God's ways. Galatians 3: 28 sums up the vision behind the message quite nicely. Substitute the word spirit for Christ and you might find it more palatable.
Ahh the old twist the stories in the bible to make it look less stupid=)
It isn't a twist. If you don't put things into historical perspective you can't learn the lessons of the past. Think about our secular past. There are horrible mistakes we couldn't imagine repeating today. We, hopefully, have learned lessons from history that will help us make better decisions. That's one of the messages I get from the symbolism in the scriptures. I do realize that it is not the same message being preached by the televangelists. But this does not negate the bottom line message, it simply hides it from people.
Funny how the smartest and most brilliant minds on the planet are atheists. I guess they got it wrong too. They can learn a lot from you.
maybe happiness, because it always seems in short supply for an atheist. What's your beef with people believing? I don't go around bashing other beliefs or lack there of. I don't even check out the atheist threads. Life and let life keeps me pretty happy..
And arrogance doesn't equate to being the best and brightest. It simply makes one arrogant, and usually miserable in the process, or so it comes off to me.
That was supposed to be live and let live. I swype. It happens. Sue me.
Science is not arrogant enough to believe that it is all there is of value in this world. Most people would agree with that statement. Can a scientist paint a work of art? Can they play a violin so eloquently that it brings you to tears? Do you not consider these types of genius worthy of praise? There are geniuses in every walk of life. They are the best and brightest at what they do. I consider the statement you made previously an insult to anyone who strives to better the quality of our lives, as I'm sure you would agree with if you stopped to think about it.
Ahh the old make it all dramatic to capture the attention of the ignorant ploy. Of course science can, look up daniel tammet van gogh so it cann all make sense to you. You probably won't because scientific evidence scares believers=) I'm gonna go pray for a million dollars now without having to do anything else because you know what the bible said, ask and ye shall receive.
Well, side I don't believe you get what you pray for, I'm pretty sure you'll remain empty handed.
You're obviously spoiling for a fight. I'm not in the mood. Trust me, I'm not a fundamentalist so you couldn't win. I haven't been beaten by an atheist yet, and I've been up against what I perceive as the best. It's always ended a draw. Go pick on somebody else. Your avatar and your posts don't give me the impression we're going to be able to move to a point of humor, or finish this politely.
Nice ego, I'm not trying to get into an argument. And you believing in god alone just made you lose. Faith will only takes you so far and justifying evil desert shi-t is a step backwards towards scientific advancement.
Well, you are nothing if not tenacious. Who is justifying evil? Broad stroke statements such as that one are difficult to respond to, since I have no idea what it is exactly you are talking about.
Oh, and you are right.I can come off as a bit of a snotty twit. It's just that I'm usually brutally honest.
Did you really just ask the initial question to argue and not hear what people who really believe in it had to say about it?
Yes, it's atheist posts like the one you reference that I rarely respond to. It's one thing to voice a different view, but another to simply post hatred. If I wasn't interested in dialogue I would think I would come off as little more than some type of a schoolyard bully shoving my hatred around. I guess everyone uses these forums to vent at times though, so that's a good thing too, maybe.
One of the most important of lifes lessons is
The When we are not careful, we become as bad or worse than the thing that we hate the most, ... Hummmmmm
We do it and never realize it. Hummmmmm
You are exactly right. But, I appreciate the ones who do it from an intelectual viewpoint. I am, at this moment, somewhat exhilarated that I have moved to the point that I realize I've been in stasis too long. If it wasn't for the irritating nature of some of their comments I wouldn't be here.
But, I do understand why some, at both extremes, have their feet firmly planted in the sand. As long as people are happy, and they let others be happy (because honestly Jerami, what's the point of this part of our journey if we don't have that) I'll live and let live.
Bottom line, what I've learned thus far;
Mad atheist = bad atheist
Fundamental Christian = bad Christian
There's more than that, but I deplore long posts. They always sound preachy.
how would god have fun if HE doesnot play games with human...after all HE created universe , since he was getting bored and had nothing to do...
You've got it wrong. Adam and Eve were innocent, but I don't think they were necessarily naive. Remember, this happened before the fall of man. Man's mind was still in a perfect state. Adam was probably smarter than the greatest philosopher or scientist of history. His mind and body were perfectly created and they were not yet tainted with sin.
It is out of God's love that he gave man a choice. If he didn't love us he wouldn't give us a choice. Love is tough.
Not sure I agree.
Adam was told what will happen if he partook of the tree. He did it anyway. It goes to show, that all the education in the world will not prevent people from acting on impulse, emotion and poor reasoning.
I wouldn't call (the fall) tough love, but casting them out of the garden, yes, it was!
I totally agree that all the education in the world will not prevent people from acting on impulse, emotion, and poor reasoning.
I was merely defending the point that it was out of love that God gave man a choice.
Yes, that would be the view from those who have little to no education.
It isn't my view, it is the view of logic and reason in that the more education one has, the less likely they are to act on impulse, emotion, and poor reasoning.
yeah, I don't agree with that. I'm not trying to be difficult or sassy, but I just don't agree
You confirmed it from the position of not having the education to understand, rationalize or explain your disagreement. And, if you did have the education that would warrant possessing critical thinking skills to understand why it is less likely, you would not disagree.
What evidence, may I ask, do you have to support that?
So youre also saying that educated people dont commit crime?
You may actually notice having read through my posts that I said nothing of the sort.
Of course, we can look at criminal statistics if you wish and see if your question merits value?
Unfortunately, you may very well find out that only a small percentage of criminals have any brains.
I know often people confuse education, with intelligence.
They are not the same thing.
Many people recieve an education and still know very little.
Before adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil am I right to assume he had no knowledge of good and evil?
If so, then how was he to know that disobeying god was a sin? He didnt even know what evil was.
Would you punish a child for doing something that he didnt know was wrong? Thats what god did.
He was told, that if he ate, "in the same day, he would die".
He may not have known what die was, but it was obviously and undesirable.
Your analogy of a child is poor. People today are warned all the time not to smoke, take drugs etc. Do they?
It's not punishment, it's consequence!
And, did Adam die? You did say it was pretty clear what would happen to him, right?
Saying that it is consequence and not punishment does not make it sound any better.
He didnt know he was doing wrong, and god knew that yet he still punished him / imposed "consequences" upon him
"on that day, shall surely die"
God lied there didnt he? He lived for 900 years after.
Adam hid from God ,why if he didnt know he did wrong?
(We are more familiar with the word conscience).
Adam and Eve now felt embarassed over their nakedness, why?
(because they had lost their innocence)..
They disobeyed, and to simplify it somewhat, God instigated Plan B. A plan that would discipline the sin AND provide a way back for mankind restore the trust and relationship with God.
Adam hid and felt ashamed of being naked AFTER he ate from the tree. I am talking about before he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he had no knowledge of good and evil and therefore did not know it was wrong to disobey god because he had no knowledge of evil or sin.
God told Adam not to do something.
Adam had always trusted God until then.
Adam decided to listen to Satan (serpent),disregard the earlier conversation he'd had with God and found out the consequences.
Im guessing here ,but Id say Adam felt it was unfair too ,but he knew God ,and he accepted the consequences.
Yes but he didnt know that disobeying god was wrong so why punish him?
Oh wow,how would that excuse go down in the law courts today
If a guy didnt know it was illegal to jaywalk and wandered across a road, would YOU punish him or educate him?
But we (Christians)trust that God loves and we either believe he was the perfect Father or not.
So,based on that scenerio God was satisfied Adam had been educated enough.
Educated or not, he didnt have the knowledge of good or evil. You seem to be ignoring this and saying that god told him.
If he already knew what good and evil was, then what was the tree for? The bible says it opened his eyes and gave him knowledge. If you're saying he already had this knowledge then why wasnt he embarrased to be naked before?
Funny how you bring up the courts, when it is obvious the courts would not curse and banish a person from his homeland just for eating an apple.
That's a good question kiwi. God would not have told them to not eat of the tree if they didn't know right from wrong.
If they already knew right from wrong then what did they gain from eating from the tree of knowledge?
Are you saying they had the knowledge all along?
The greatest gift God offered man was the gift of 'free will'
If he only offered Himself and insisted man serve Him like robots,never questioning anything ,mindlessly nodding 'yes' to every instance..where is the free will in that.
Everyday we make choices.
To lie or not lie
To love or hate
To curse or bless
To yell insults or turn away
To serve God or serve ourselves
To follow God or follow man.
To obey or disobey
( I cant wait to meet Adam,and ask him what was it really like to walk and talk with God then lose it all)...Reckon he's say
Im surprised you never came up with the free will argument earlier. Of course there are many questions to counter that.
Where was the free will of all the people god drowned in the flood? Im sure it wasnt their will to be drowned.
Where is the free will if a rape or murder victim?
Where is the free will of a baby born with terminal cancer?
Where is the free will of an ethiopian child born into poverty who doesnt get enough food to live past his first birthday?
Where is the free will of free willy?
Ok well I dont know everything but Ill give it my best shot.
Free will was offered. Adam used his free will to NOT chose God way.
God called it Sin
Sin corrupts everything it touches. That is the nature of Sin.
The seed to continue from Adam and Eve would now be corrupted-
hence our limited life span,disease,sickness,deformaties etc.
Where was the free will of all the people god drowned in the flood? Im sure it wasnt their will to be drowned.
No,but they laughed and mocked when Noah tried to warn and invite them aboard.
Where is the free will if a rape or murder victim?
Rape and murder is the consquence of sin. The sin of anger!
Satan is always going to choose evil(therefore present evil choices)
God is good ,who will present good choices.
Where is the free will of an ethiopian child born into poverty who doesnt get enough food to live past his first birthday?
Mankind is greedy becaue there is enough food in the world for everyone-
We see when mankind chooses well,and we see wthe results when he chooses badly...
That isn't free will at all, neither is telling man to do those things or else burn for an eternity. Hence, god commands you to be those robots, or else. That is not a choice, that is a threat, by definition.
Fortunately, it is all a load of old cobblers anyway.
I'm going to make myself very unpopular with the fundies here, so hey pour on the petrol and light the match, I don't care.
Why does God present Himself as our Father? Earthly fathers understand their relationships with their children, and so we can then understand how God deals with man. Simples. Unfortunatley, the church has largely ignored this profound parable.
God creates Adam and Eve, and though they have adult bodies, they have the minds of children (they have just been created = born). My small children are totally incapable of looking after themselves so I have to attend to their every need and largely think for them. So God places A&E in a garden where everything is provided for them, and they don't have to think or worry about anything. It's my job to train up my kids over the years to think for themselves, to make their own way in life, and to carry the responsibilities of their own actions. They need to grow up. A&E also needed in time to grow up. My children for the first 3 years had no concept of right and wrong, good and evil. A&E had no concept of right and wrong, good and evil.
I will tell my kids not to do something and at some point they will start to think for themselves, have an inner conversation about whether to do what I say or do what they want to do. This is a good thing. So God sets A&E a test, don't eat from that tree. At some point Eve thinks for herself, has an inner conflict. The bible calls it a talking snake, Jews call it Yetzer Hara (evil inclination), the church calls it Satan. Now they eat the fruit and become aware of good and evil. They have reached a new level of maturity just as God expected.
A&E could never have stayed in the Garden for an eternity. They would never have matured, grown up, reached their potential, become like God. They would have become indolent and lazy, just like twenty something adults still living with mum and dad in the familly home. The aledged snake (read Eve having an inner conversation with herself) said "you will be like God". Well hello, isn't that what God wanted all along? "Let's make man in our image", "now man is like us knowing good and evil", "we are to have the mind of Christ" - as Paul puts it. So God throws them out of the garden as good parents must throw their adult children out of the familly home, and tells Adam to work the soil, etc. Why because hard work is good for man, it builds character, maturity and responsibility.
Fall of man? No. The term doesn't appear anywhere in scripture. A&E growing up as our children must, yes.
What about the sin then? Sin is disobedience, and so they did sin yes. However this was always a hazard that God was prepared for. It was inevitable that A&E with their own free wills would one day choose to disobey. But the reward for God was mankind would now love Him out of choice, knowing good and evil might choose good. Man was not created perfectly in God's image. To be in His image takes time and growth and is not possilbe without knowledge of good and evil, and is not possible as long as we remain like children.
God gave us a "FREE WILL" which means we have a choice to make to do the right or wrong. Adam & Eve committed the sin because a satan deceived them, and because of that we all sin and we are the one that brought sin to this world. God has nothing to with whole playing games/manipulating people on earth.
When something bad happens, we all blame God. God isn't the blame here.
Adam and Eve did sin yes, but there was no satanic deception. This character the church called satan doesn't even appear in the story. You think the snake was satan because some 4th century Catholic doctrine tells you it was.
We all sin because we all grow up, begin to think for ourselves, and will ultimately choose to do that which is contrary to God's expectations.
If as the psalmist says that God has knit us together in the womb and we are fearfully and wonderfully made, where exactly does the sin come in? If children are a gift from god, are made by Him, how can that which comes from God be sinful or born in sin?
God has a conversation with Cain who is bemoaning his unacceptable sacrifice. God tells him sin is crouching at the door but he must rule over it. So there you are, sin has no innate power over man, man can choose to sin or not to sin, there is no original sin.
A child is pure and holy until it becomes corrupted by the world.
Look at it this way:
Apple has bad seed.
Apple reproduces more delicious looking apples,but the seed is still bad and passed on and on and on ...
Apple still looks good ,tastes good, appears to be good.
The outside is good looking.
The inside contains seed of bad seed....
Man looks on the outside of everything
God looks on the inside of everything.
Continuing with the apple metaphor, let's say the most perfect gardener plants an apple tree. As this gardener is perfect, it makes sense that his apple tree will be perfect, and all the apples on it will be perfect too.
A perfect apple does not have a bad seed. So how can this perfect apple tree produce an apple with a bad seed?
The perfect seed was indeed perfect, until sin entered ,which always had the potential since the law of 'free will' was always an option.
Enjoyed your reply and courteous manner.
Can't agree with your analogy Eaglekiwi. A child inherits genetic material from both parents, and that's it. Where is the sin in genetic material? God breathes the life and does the kniting. Where is the sin?
For the seed to be somehow bad, then it could only be in the genetic material. Which then leads to the conclusion that man's behaviour and tendency to sin in in his genes which determines the structure of the brain, and therefore the will and the soul. Now we have a loophole, a get out of judgment free card, because anyone can say that their genes are the fault. Oh dear, we've also overturned the apple cart of criminal justice systems too. We've also drop a bombshell on the sexual orientation debate and the church will no longer be able to tell the gay community that they are going to bun in hell.
The more you think about it, the church does not want to go down the rabbit hole of inherited sin in the genes. Better then to scrap the whole idea of original and inherited sin then.
...okay....one more time...at the original post....
...he wasn't thinkin'...it's a story to make some kind of point....you know sumthin' about wimen ruling and things like that....cuz wimen rule!
by Dave Mathews 8 years ago
If Adam and Eve did not disobey God's one and only rule, command, about the fruit of that one tree, the tree of "Knowledge of good and evil", the way I see it, we would all still be living in Eden. We could pretty much do what we wanted, go where we wanted, eat what we wanted. There would...
by sandra rinck 11 years ago
So GOD tells Adam and Eve to eat from whatever tree they want to except the one in the middle cause it is the tree of good and bad...So then the Serpent comes along and convinces Eve that it is ok to eat it and that God is lying, so she eats and then Adams eats it.God says that if you eat the from...
by DK 8 years ago
Considering God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient, he would have known before he even made Adam & Eve, that if he made them the way he did, they would have been too weak to resist the temptation.My question is, what is the point of making that happen? It's been said that God is incapable...
by jerami 8 years ago
I read that question earlier and have been thinking about it while trying to go to sleep .... Well? Here I am ??? I was wondering what life would be like if it hadn't been? Had we not received knowledge we wouldn’t have anything to fear or anticipate. We enjoy the quest much...
by Roger A Sanchez Jr 7 years ago
What's the difference between the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life?
by Der Meister 8 years ago
Did Adam and Eve have navels?
Copyright © 2021 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. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|