Christianity, really?

I see them as children that didn't know exactly what they were getting into. They were curious ignorant of the ramifications of the simple act.

..but their perspective was changed. Their eyes were opened. I don't think the serpent was lieing about this. I think the evil came from false perception that never would have happen if Adam trusted God, but ultimately the poison came from the fruit not the disobedience. So God's not punishing humanity for disobedience. He's trying to save humanity from the fruit that is like a cancer to the soul.

Limited predestination. I don't think God knew exactly what was going to happen. In order to have freewill God had to take some chances that we might get into trouble, but that's part of the journey and part of learning.

I take it as seeing things in duality which gives us the ability to create which I believe was God's plan since he created us in his image, but this power was also very dangerous.

Agree.

Right on.

So since Adam and Eve didn't obey this request it deserved punishment and death. This sounds selfish to me.

Hit the nail on the head.

 

Hey Def Zep. Since I brought up having a less literal view, I'd like to make it clear that I believe that every miracle that Jesus performed actually happened. Water was turned into actual wine. Jesus actually walked on water. etc. All of the miracle accounts actually happened - God is not bound by the laws of nature.

I don't see them ever talking under the inspiration of God. Actually God says at the very end that they did not speak correctly of God and I take that to be literal. His friends were self-righteous and their words prideful. Their statements mix truth with error, but overall their message to Job is that Job deserved the calamity - not true. Again there is a deeper message under their words. They basically told Job that He sinned to deserve calamity. God said at the beginning of the book that Job was blameless and upright, and that there was no one else like him on earth. So, did the calamity come upon Job because of Job sinnning? The calamity was not brought on Job because of sin as his judgemental and self righteous "friends" said. The same thing happens today and sadly by many believers. Self-righteous people sometimes seem to think that when another believer experiences calamity, it's because they sinned or are sinning. Yes, calamity can be brought on a believer's life because of sin, but not always as his friends assume in Job's case. Calamity can be brought on a believer at times, not because of sin, but so that God is glorified - but that would take a while to expand on and that would take up a whole thread in and of itself.

The Book of job can teach us many different lessons. One of them being how not to be by studyng Job's friends and their words.

 

Hey Lostthoughts. It's not the prayer that saves someone - it's the Saviour. One places their trust in the finished work of the Saviour. One can pray a prayer till their blue in the face, but it means nothing if they are not truly trusting. Here's a link to my testimony. http://www.ramblingsofatimetraveler.blogspot.com/ It's the third article titled "Something More". You also have alot of questions etc. regarding Roman Catholicism, so you might benefit from reading the article "An Enemy In My Own Mind" which is after the first one I referred you to. Also, scroll down to the bottom for some verses that I've compiled regarding salvation and the cross - it is best if you pray before reading them and read them slowly with an open heart and mind.

 

This is the most sensible post on the thread. Most of the "stories" are myths and allegories that point to deeper truths about reality. All of Scripture needs to be considered in historical perspective. What the words meant then, and what they seem to mean to us now are often two different things. But Jesus' message of active love and acceptance of even society's rejects is true and eternal. Unfortunately, the message too often gets lost in the dogma. What passes for Christianity today too often resembles the beliefs of the Pharisees whom Jesus disputed than the teachings of the Lord.

 

I was just at the bookstore in the Physics section, I picked up a book called "Physics and Philosophy". Also the "The God Theory". Although the last book is similar to it, I found a book that focused on how physics relates to Christianity. Rather it uses examples from the scripture that relate to many truths found in physics. Forgot what it was called. "The Mind of God" I think.

 

OlderWaterBrother, I'm giving up on doing quotes, it takes too much time. The posts are back there to refer to if you need to.

Yes, the Bible does say that the tree Adam and Eve ate from was the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9), and that THE DAY that they eat from it they will die (Genesis 2:16-17). Your statement that they died eventually is a reach. Are you saying they wouldn't have died if they hadn't ate the fruit/left the garden? Well, regardless, God said that day. He lied.

Genesis 2: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=NASB


And yes, eating from the tree gives knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:5 the serpent says "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened ... knowing good and evil", and it is confirmed after they've eaten (Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew"). They did not have knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit. "THEN" they knew. Until they eat the fruit, they are only told by God that they should not eat it because it would kill them that day, and they say they shouldn't do it because it will kill them. There is no evidence that they "knew it was wrong" as you claim. It is not stated, an argument of self-preservation is the only one that was made and understood, not one of right and wrong. It's just logic that they couldn't know right from wrong until after they ate from the tree. That's what eating from it did, after all. Gave this knowledge that was not previously there.

Genesis 3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=NASB

You're splitting hairs when you say God didn't punish all of mankind by throwing them out of the Garden, he only threw Adam and Eve out so naturally their children would be out, too. Why not let the children return? But regardless, he makes specific statements that he was condeming the future generations for their actions. (Genesis 3:16-19)

I really can't believe you're making me argue the concept of original sin, so basic a concept. And also asking me what's so bad about the commandments in Leviticus. That this chapter's commands are widely considered to be unreasonable, and are mostly not followed any more is something that's been talked about ad infinitum. I won't waste time listing them all, you know what they are. Commandments to kill people for offenses that we don't kill people for today, and pointless minutia like poly-blend clothing and touching pork on the sabbath. You know what they are.

I'm also baffled to be arguing what "almighty" means with you, too. If there's something God can't do, he's not ALL mighty. This is not a difficult concept. Being "kinda" almightly is like being "a little bit" pregnant. You argue that he can't change his mind, something even a mortal can do.

And you tell me that the Bible does not squelch questions, and did provide Acts 17:11, in which the Breans are spoken of favorably for "examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so". This sounds really more like repetition than questioning. And in fact Proverbs 3:5 tackles the issue of striving for personal understanding directly. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding". And in practice, you continually tell me when I criticize God's supposed loving nature that I do not know better than Him. That shuts down taking a critical approach to scripture. You can't honestly question the Bible if any question can be answered "He moves in mysterious ways". No more than a child can argue with a parent who resorts to "because I said so".

Acts 17: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17&version=NASB
Proverbs 3: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs 3&version=NASB

Even worse, when I talk about how the canon was pared down by the powerful, who would naturally wish to maintain their power, you come back at me with saying it's hypocritical for me to say that God is almighty, but can't control which books man put into the canon. I don't believe in God. I talk to you about the Bible on the Bible's terms, becasue that's how it has to be done. I go to the Bible only to discuss what's in the Bible. As for what happens in the real world, like the councils and synods that established the canon... since I don't believe in God I don't consider how he could have effected these real events. There's no incongruency on my part, here.

 

Paul Davies The Mind of God? Great book!

 

I think you've discovered the futility in arguing with a True Believer. A determined believer can defend a flat earth, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., and it isn't really possible to disprove them. I actually had a go-around with OWB over the talking snake, and was told the snake was Satan and therefore could talk if he wanted to. Most of us reject these things based on judgment--and yes, "faith", in Santayana's minimal sense of "animal faith". But there comes a point where argument is futile.

 

Exactly, that's the point you will eventualy get to with most Christians. They arnt going to change even if you show them how ridiculous they're being. Some of them do know their stuff and I respect those, it's the ones like candykid who say they KNOW the truth, but like candykid, don't argue with logic, or even bible verses.

I myself currently believe in invisible pink unicorns. This beleif is based on both logic, and faith. I have faith that they are pink, and know through logic that they are invisible because I can't see them.

 

Yes it does.

There has already been a long discussion about the meaning of the word “day” in the Bible and basically it means time period and it‘s length can vary from 12 hours to thousands of years depending on context. Even in English the word “day’ does not always mean 24 hours.

So there can be two ways to look at this so that God did not “lie” about this.

One, on the “day” (24 hours) that they ate of the tree, they were sentenced to death and thus at that time they were as dead to God.

And two, the Bible says that a thousand years is but a day to God, (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8) and so seeing as Adam and Eve both lived less than a thousand years, they did die that very “day”.

Yes, that is what I’m saying, they would not have died if they haven’t eaten the fruit. It was God's original purpose for mankind to live forever on a paradise Earth and that is still his purpose for mankind.

The first human pair were not devoid of knowledge of good and bad. God had told them that it would be wrong or bad to eat of the fruit of one designated tree; conversely, to obey God was good. (Gen. 2:16, 17) So the particular “knowledge” indicated by the “tree of the knowledge of good and bad” involved a self-determining of what is good and bad. By disregarding the divine will, and deciding and acting on his own, man chose to know for himself what is good and evil. Yes, Adam and Eve rejected God’s determination and chose to set up their own standard of what was good and what was bad.

At Genesis 3:16-19 future generations are not condemned, at most it is merely a statement of what will happen because of their choosing to eat of the tree.

As for letting the children return, that is what God has been working on all these years.

The laws in Leviticus may be widely considered to be unreasonable but that does not make them unreasonable. As for not being followed anymore, ask the Jews about that. As for Christians and Gentiles they were never under the Mosaic Law.

As for the things you mention, there are principles behind those things that are still valid today.

I understand the concept, it is just not a Biblical one.

When talking about how the Universe works do you really think you have a better understanding of how it works than God?

But yet you keep saying that God is doing it wrong, again how would you know?

You throw out one Scripture and say see the Bible squelches questioning but does it? Is that what Pro. 3:5 is really saying?

(Proverbs 18:15) The heart of the understanding one acquires knowledge, and the ear of wise ones seeks to find knowledge.
(Proverbs 2:2-4) so as to pay attention to wisdom with your ear, that you may incline your heart to discernment; if, moreover, you call out for understanding itself and you give forth your voice for discernment itself, if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it,

And these are just two more of the many Scriptures that tell us to keeping seeking for wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

I know you don’t believe in God and I appreciate your attempt to discuss the Bible on the Bible's terms.

But either the Bible is God’s word and he controls what it says to mankind or it isn’t. I didn’t say there was an incongruency on your part but you must understand that saying that “the canon was pared down by the powerful, who would naturally wish to maintain their power” is only true if there is no God and the Bible is not his Word and that it would hardly be convincing evidence to one who believes there is a God and that the Bible is his Word.

 

Actually, I just told you what the Bible said on the matter, (Revelation 12:9-10) So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth . . ., and you chose to believe that the Bible doesn't mean what it says.

 

And you choose to take it literally and miss the point.

 

Actually, you, as usual, choose not to take it literally and miss the point.

 

This would be like a parent telling his children not to touch his favorite vase. Then after the children break the vase throwing them out on the street to fend for themselves. If the tree was just an ordinary tree it would mean God punishes us solely because of our disobedience. God would be acting out of selfishness. "It's my way or the highway" so to speak.

However, if eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was actually harmfull to them, then God's punishment would be like slapping a child's wrist before touching a hot stove. It would be a righteousness based in his selfless love for us. I think this fits better with who God is. That's why I think the tree wasn't just an ordinary tree.

 

Yes Adam and Eve were God's children but do not forget that Adam and Eve were both adults with perfect thinking abilities, uncorrupted by the sin and imperfection we have to deal with.

Also please realize that they didn't accidentally "break" the "vase" they intentionally stole the "vase" and just like some parents that have adult children that have stolen from them, God threw them out on the street to fend for themselves. Why would parents do that? Do they do it just because they are missing material possessions? Do they do it because they don't love them? No. They do it because more is involved, which is the case here.

The eating was harmful to them, not because it was poisonous but because the eating of it separated them from God, which is much worse. By doing so they "unplugged" themselves, not only from the source of true wisdom and knowledge but also from the source of everlasting life and thus their children were "unplugged" as well. Death was not so much a punishment from God as it was a direct result of their actions.

 

What I chose not to believe is that the Bible is talking about an actual physical serpent or dragon. They're symbols. When Jesus is called the Lamb of God, it doesn't mean he was a four footed wooly creature of the kind that followed Mary to school.

 

The "knowledge of good and evil" is not knowledge, it is evaluation, judgment.

Because you say I see, your sin remains.

None of you see the world as God has created it, but see only the world that we have fashioned from our own judgments.

 

Very Good, and when Satan is called the "original serpent" what would that mean, symbolically speaking?

 

Of course.

 

I'll try again.