Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Sign in to follow this  
Warrior381

God? Part 2

Recommended Posts

It is also a very old email attachment that made the rounds oh yonks ago. As most people see pictures of the jesus around them most times, they will associate the piccy with him. When I first did this experiment I thought it looked like Santa Claus :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In view of Roel's posts, I've always seem to noticed his stressing on the contradictions in the Bible. May you, kind sir, note down all the contradictions that you know about in the Bible and post them out?

 

 

"Mighty potentates have raged against the book, and sought to destroy and uproot it --- Alexander the Great and princes of Egypt and Babylon, the monarchs of Persia, of Greece and of Rome, the Emperors Julius and Augustus --- but they prevailed nothing.

 

 

To accept that God exists out of time and space framework as we know renders any question of where He came from and what He was doing before He created what we know as the universe totally meaningless.

 

 

How do you know Jesus ever existed?

 

 

The New Testament contains 27 seperate documents which were all written in the first century A.D. These writings contain the life of Jesus Christ and the beginnings of Christian church from about 4 B.C until the decade of the A.D nineties.

 

 

These facts were all recorded by eyewitnesses, who gave firsthand testimony to what they had see and heard. Moreover, the existence of Jesus was recorded by Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who was born in A.D 37.

 

 

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D 112), a Roman historian, wrote about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus Christ and the existence of Chritians in Rome. (Annals, XV, 44). He also wrote elsewhere in his Histories, refers to Christianity when alluding to the burning of the temple of Jerusalem in A.D 70. This has been preserved by Sulpicius Severus. (Chronicles, 30:6)

 

 

These testimonies, both Christian and non-Christian, is sufficient to know the fact that Jesus, did exist, especially in the light of evidence of recorded history. We know about the life of Jesus than just about any other ancient figure in the world. His birth, life and death were all vividly recorded in much detail in the Bible.

 

 

Atheism isn't real. Why?

 

 

An agnostic is someone who does not know whether God exists. The agnostic has not made up his mind on God. He is a doubter, a skeptic. A true agnostic would be a person who would be aggressive in his search for God. Which unfortunately, most agnostics do not make a real effort. Agnosticism is not the grounds for rejecting Christianity or other religions, but to examine it in detail.

 

 

An atheist, however, is someone who affirms that there is no God. Yet, they cannot hold this position dogmatically. For us to understand this statement with authority, we would have to know the universe in its entirety and to possess all knowledge. If anyone had such credentials, then by definition would he be God.

 

 

Thus, unless the atheist is all knowing, he cannot make a dogmatic statement on God's existence. Therefore, he can only state that he is uncertain about the existence of God, and this view is agnosticism.

 

 

"Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14, KJV)

 

 

Why does a Good God allow Evil to exist?

 

 

Christian writers have wrote "Evils have encompassed me without number" (Psalm 40:12, RSV) "Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed?" (Jeramiah 15:18, RSV). "The whole creation has been groaning in travail until now." (Romans 8:22, RSV).

 

 

Thus we admit that the world today is so full of evil and it is certainly a problem and we also admit that if God created the world this way. He would not be a God of Love, but a God of Evil.

 

 

However, in the Scriptures, it indicates plainly that God did not create the world as it is today, but, evil came as a result of the selfishness of Man. The Bible says that God is a God of Love and he desired to create a person and eventually a race to love him. But as we know it, genunine love cannot exist unless freely given free will. Hence, Man was given the free choice to accept God's love or reject it. The choice of possibility made evil very real. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they did not choose something God created, but, by their own choice, they brought evil into the world. Man brought evil upon himself by selfishly choosing his own way apart from God's way.

 

 

In question of why God allows evil and its reality here, it is, however, temporary. Surprisingly, because evil has prevailed for many thousand years over. But this is temporary in contrast to things like a formation of a Star which consists of millions of years. Evil will be destroyed. This is the hope that ever believer has. There is a new world coming in which there will be no more tears or pain because all things will be made new. (Revelation 21:5). Paradise lost will be paradise regained. God will right every wrong and put evil once and for all, in His time.

 

 

The Bible tells us that God's purposes are sometimes beyond our understanding. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, My thoughts higher than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8, 9, NASB)

 

 

Adapted by: Answers to tough questions about the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you also look into other cultures, you will find many references to Jesus. As an example, the following is from a Native American Tribe written long ago...

 

 

Long He spoke to them on the ways of His Father, as He had throughout the Broad Land, handling the language with great ease. He explained His peace religion, then He asked of them quite simply: what was the reason for their warfare? The Fire Chieftains were embarrassed, for they had long forgotten the reason, if indeed they ever had a reason. Each warrior looked upon the other and none could think of a valid answer.

 

 

"Therefore He bound them ceremonially into a never-ending alliance. To each He gave a sacred duty to perform for the alliance, and then He asked them to smoke the Peace Pipe, filled with tobacco and cedar shavings, and to blow the smoke to the four directions making the sign of the Great Cross, which is a holy symbol. Never from that time onward have the Five Nations fought each other, nor has the trust He gave them been cracked and broken.

 

 

"At this Council was a Seneca chieftain who was tall, for we are a tall nation. Like many of our people he had a lofty stature, and could easily look down on the heads of the others. Indeed the Prophet was not a short man, but neither was He as tall as the chieftain. The Seneca, seeing that he was the tallest, and could look over the light hair of the Pale God, rose and waited to speak.

 

 

"There was a shocked silence. Would he presume to question the Prophet? The chieftain looked upon the Healer.

 

 

"'I have been watching you while you were speaking, oh One whom the people call the Dawn God. It is true that you hold a most strange fascination over the minds of men. I know that the people call you the Dawn God. If it is true, then you can prove it. Meet me here in four days in the early morning before the sun has shot his first long red arrow, and we shall stand before this door together. If the first red arrow of the dawn light, touches your hair before it paints my eagle feather, then indeed you are the Dawn God. This I give to you as a challenge. Now, for this day, I have spoken.'

 

 

"Everyone turned to look at the Prophet. He sat quite still as if in deep thought. At last He arose. 'Your stand is well taken. I will meet you here before the dawning. When from the Sunrise Ocean arises the golden light of the Dawn Star, I will be standing here before the Great Lodge. I will use up the moments of waiting to talk once more with the people-all who care to hear me. For now, I too have spoken.'

 

 

"During the four days the Healer went among the tribes, and though He did not speak of His appointment, everyone knew that He would keep it, for the Great One never broke a promise. Accordingly, at the time appointed, great crowds swarmed about the small mound where the Great Lodge stood open to the eastward. First to climb the mound was the Prophet. As over the horizon arose the first golden shafts of the Dawn Star, the Pale God spoke to the assembled nations. It is said that He always charmed His listeners, but now there was almost a breathless silence. Indeed it seemed the very trees were listening and also the assembled animals of the forest, so softly He spoke and so well did they hear Him, because of the silence that had settled.

 

 

"Now the tall chieftain left the others and slowly climbed the small mound, taking his place beside the Prophet. The two eagle feathers in the hair of the chieftain projected well above the head of the Healer, but no sign except a friendly greeting was given by the Pale Heawahsah, who turned and began the Chant of the Dawning. This was a prayer chant He had taught the people, which has long since been forgotten. Everyone started to join in and then, suddenly, a miracle happened.

 

 

"Before anyone else saw the sunlight, a golden shaft of radiant beauty came down from some clouds banked high with firelight, and touched the curling hair of the Porphet, diffusing itself like a halo until He stood, a luminous creature, painting all the ground around Him with gold. The people then fell down saying: 'Behold He is indeed the Dawn God who has come to walk among us!' and 'He draws his power from the Star of the Dawning.'

 

 

From a little further south we have this story, also written in legend from long ago...

 

 

It was at this time that "Tlazoma," the Miracle Worker, came to them. It seems that He appeared to them from the sea in a sailboat type ship as they had described it being powered by the wind. This man with red lights shining from His hair and beard appeared one morning with eyes the color of the sea . He was wearing a long white toga-like garment and suddenly they took Him on as a sacred Teacher even within an hour of His arrival.

 

 

They had heard of Him through rumors and a blind man rushed to him exclaiming how he had heard of His miracle work, begging Him to heal him of his blindness. This Healer stopped what He was doing, bent over and picked up some wet sand and placed it over the eyes of the blind man. He told the man to wash out the sand in the ocean. Others gathered around to witness this event and waiting to see if there would be a miracle and if not, there would be a sacrifice to the Snake God!

 

 

The blind man went down to the waters and cried in anguish. But suddenly his cry turned into joy. He stood straight up and started running towards the people wildly. He fell at the foot of the Healer and exclaimed the miracle of his sight. The others witnessing too fell, worshipping calling out "Ahunt Azoma-the Lord Miracle Worker."

 

 

If the story of Jesus was an isolated incident, then the idea of his creation by clever writers would be harder to dis-prove. But the other legends were written ( or passed down )by peoples that had no contact with the middle east and yet are filled with the stories of a strange bearded white man that was a great healer and prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re:On finding God

 

 

On finding God, a true telling from one of the founders of Sustrand tool company:They called me in to have a look at the over-speed governors on the engines on the B-36.

 

 

They wanted to make sure that the engines would not overspeed, or the governors would freeze up at high altitude.

 

 

The old man called me on the phone and asked if I would go with the test pilots, up to altitude, to look out the blister and observe them work at extra altitude.

 

 

He asked if I had the insurance, I said yes and it was a go.

 

 

We lumbered off the runway and after a while, we a were at fivietyfive thousand, going into fifty-eight.

 

 

I think that we level somewhere around sixty three or four as we had the two little jet engines on the near ends of the underside of the 36s imence wings. I don't know how great we were in altitude, but we were told it was about fifty-eight.

 

 

The governors were functioning as they should have.

 

 

I looked through the Plexiglas blister and the sky above me, was jet black.

 

 

You could see meteors coming in from above, over Oklahoma.

 

 

>*This was from a personal conversation, a true story a relayed from one of the founders of the old Sustrand Tool and Die Company, which later divested into Sustand Woodard Limited, a very large aircraft supply company

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do you know Jesus ever existed?

 

You know, I have little doubt that Jesus existed. I have doubt that he was the son of God in the same way that I doubt that David Ike is, or David Koresh was.

 

 

Thus, unless the atheist is all knowing, he cannot make a dogmatic statement on God's existence. Therefore, he can only state that he is uncertain about the existence of God, and this view is agnosticism.

 

The same could be said about theism. Unless the theist claims to be omnicogniscent (and, seeing as God is supposed to be the only one with that qualification, I'd have thought that a fairly blasphemous idea), then they can also only claim agnosticism.

 

 

I've always maintained that I acceed a tiny margin of error for the beliefs that I label, for convenience, concrete. I would class myself as an atheist, but I'm happy to admit that there's the smallest possibility that I'm worng. Just as I admit that there's the smallest possibility that I'm wrong about walls existing when I'm not looking at them.

 

 

I count it as so unlikely, however, that defining it as anything other than "atheism" seems like splitting semantic hairs, just as disputing the idea of "theism" without infinite knowledge would be.

 

 

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they did not choose something God created, but, by their own choice, they brought evil into the world. Man brought evil upon himself by selfishly choosing his own way apart from God's way.

 

For the record, I love Lemony Snicket's description of the story of the Garden of Eden - two people put on clothes for the first time and leave a snake-infested place.

 

 

However, I often find people couch it in terms like the above. The most important details to my mind, on the other hand, are that God lied to Adam and Eve, and the serpent did not.

 

 

Here:

 

 

Genisis 2:

 

 

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

 

 

Genesis 3:

 

 

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 

 

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

 

 

Genesis 5:

 

 

5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

 

Adam would have died anyway, as God was afraid that he would live forever if he ate from the Tree Of Life. The serpent knew this, and told Eve so. The serpent also knew that the real reason he didn't want Adam to eat of the fruit was that he was to become like God. Again, the serpent knew this and said as much to Eve.

 

 

God lied. The serpent did not. Now, which one is "the father of lies?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Adam would have died anyway, as God was afraid that he would live forever if he ate from the Tree Of Life. The serpent knew this, and told Eve so. The serpent also knew that the real reason he didn't want Adam to eat of the fruit was that he was to become like God. Again, the serpent knew this and said as much to Eve.

 

Absolutely not so. Adam and Eve were created to live forever. Just as a child should not be burdened with the same tasks as an adult, so the children of God were warned not to become burdened with the knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

 

God also said that the penalty was death, and death they both got.

 

 

The story, once again, you have too see behind the literal ink on the paper, is the fact that humanity does not accept responsibility for what they do. God asked Adam.."Why did you eat from the Tree when I said not to?"

 

 

What did Adam do..." What!? Eve made me do it. It was her fault, and you were the one that made her!"

 

 

God went to Eve..."Why did you eat from the Tree when I said not to?"

 

 

What did Eve do..." What!? The Serpent made me do it, and you let the snake in here in the first place!"

 

 

How different things would have been if they both fell to their knees and wept for forgiveness and took their own responsibility for doing what God told them not to do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Absolutely not so. Adam and Eve were created to live forever. Just as a child should not be burdened with the same tasks as an adult, so the children of God were warned not to become burdened with the knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

 

God also said that the penalty was death, and death they both got.

 

God said they would die when they ate of the fruit. Adam lived for at least another 800 years (he had Cain when he was 130).

 

 

If God had created Adam and Eve to live forever, then why was he concerned about them eating from the Tree Of Life and therefore living forever? Wouldn't that be their default state?

 

 

Besides, does it really count as the actions of a benevolent creator if it's true that they would have lived forever, but God took that away from them? "Don't do that, because you'll die if you do" "Ooops, sorry, I did it anyway, but I'm still alive" "Not any more you're not" *Zap*. It's not quite along the same lines as "Don't eat poisonsous mushrooms because you'll surely die", is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

God said they would die when they ate of the fruit. Adam lived for at least another 800 years (he had Cain when he was 130).

 

That is a common mistake. The result of disobiedience was death. Adam and Eve recieved just that, death. You assumed it meant instant death?

 

 

God is God, and as God, God can really do what ever He pleases. We hope that He is as merciful as He says He can be, and loves us as Jesus said He does, but bottom line is that if He decided this was all a waste we could be gone tomorrow, and there is nothing anyone could do to stop Him.

 

 

Besides, does it really count as the actions of a benevolent creator if it's true that they would have lived forever, but God took that away from them? "

 

He gave them a choice. They were told not to disobey God. They disobeyed. They were punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You know, I have little doubt that Jesus existed. I have doubt that he was the son of God in the same way that I doubt that David Ike is, or David Koresh was.

 

Yes, I am sure you do. He obviously was just a liar, and a conman. He didnt teach anything that was of any significance at all, now did He?

 

 

And those Indians! All those different tribes that tell of a strange white man claiming to be the son of God were all smoking the same peace pipe with the same wacky tobbacy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You know, I have little doubt that Jesus existed. I have doubt that he was the son of God in the same way that I doubt that David Ike is, or David Koresh was.

 

Many historic figures are legends or even myths. There's no doubt Jesus ever existed, there are numerous recordings from historians. Now now, it can't be a conspiracy to fake his existence right? Besides what can they gain from it? YOU have your own doubt, you are simply ignorant of proof. Well, your doubt is your doubt, I can't say the same for others if they really searched for answers.

 

 

The same could be said about theism. Unless the theist claims to be omnicogniscent (and, seeing as God is supposed to be the only one with that qualification, I'd have thought that a fairly blasphemous idea), then they can also only claim agnosticism.

 

Ah, but the agnostic is looking for a GOD to believe. As a christian, not a theist, has a God in my heart, in my mind. I already believe in a God. So I should not be called an agnostic, because I already know what I believe.

 

 

I've always maintained that I acceed a tiny margin of error for the beliefs that I label, for convenience, concrete. I would class myself as an atheist, but I'm happy to admit that there's the smallest possibility that I'm worng. Just as I admit that there's the smallest possibility that I'm wrong about walls existing when I'm not looking at them.

 

In the previous posts, if everything was said to be created say by the chaos theory, it would be too much of coincidence since anyway everything was built in balance. It couldn't be the work of randomness, because nothing could be corrected if it was wrong when the universe was created. It would be more likely a work of God.

 

 

For the record, I love Lemony Snicket's description of the story of the Garden of Eden - two people put on clothes for the first time and leave a snake-infested place.

 

 

However, I often find people couch it in terms like the above. The most important details to my mind, on the other hand, are that God lied to Adam and Eve, and the serpent did not.

 

Correction. Adam and Eve did not put on any real clothes until they left the Garden of Eden. They only wore leaves and ferns to cover their naked bodies because they were embarassed. Secondly, the Garden of Eden was a paradise and it wasn't snake infested. Besides, the serpent at that time had legs, for its sins, God removed its legs to 'crawl on its body forever.'

 

 

How, in any way, did God lie to Adam and Eve? On what grounds do you say that? Adam and Eve blamed each other for eating the fruit from the Tree.

 

 

Adam would have died anyway, as God was afraid that he would live forever if he ate from the Tree Of Life. The serpent knew this, and told Eve so. The serpent also knew that the real reason he didn't want Adam to eat of the fruit was that he was to become like God. Again, the serpent knew this and said as much to Eve.

 

God gave Adam and Eve eternal life in the Garden so that they would love God forever. Why would he be afraid of that? Besides, if God were afraid, why would anyone who is omniscent, to put the Tree there for tempt them to eat. Isn't that stupid? Wouldn't it be a very dumb thing to do? In the first place, if eating the fruit meant you could be God. Why didn't the serpent eat it and become God?

 

 

God lied. The serpent did not. Now, which one is "the father of lies?"

 

Let's see, how did God lie again?

 

 

God said they would die when they ate of the fruit. Adam lived for at least another 800 years (he had Cain when he was 130).

 

Ah. God didn't say they would die instantly. Instead they would take in the consequences of Sin. Suffering, sadness and pain would be what they would have to suffer with and so would their descendents. But God isn't so bad, he has promised to deliver us. That's why he has sent Jesus Christ as a personal saviour to save us all. Only, the time has not come yet. I wouldn't complain if I had a God. What's there to complain? He provides you, he created you.

 

 

If God had created Adam and Eve to live forever, then why was he concerned about them eating from the Tree Of Life and therefore living forever? Wouldn't that be their default state?

 

God wanted to test whether his creation would betray his Love for them. In fact, he even told them of the tree and had forbidden them to eat from that tree.

 

 

Besides, does it really count as the actions of a benevolent creator if it's true that they would have lived forever, but God took that away from them? "Don't do that, because you'll die if you do" "Ooops, sorry, I did it anyway, but I'm still alive" "Not any more you're not" *Zap*. It's not quite along the same lines as "Don't eat poisonsous mushrooms because you'll surely die", is it?

 

We can't say God did not warn them, by growing the tree there was a purpose. It's like your mom warned you not to play by the marsh but one day you played around there in fell in the marsh and has warts for weeks. You can't say she didn't warn you, and you still played in the marsh and got warts anyway. By giving such reasoning would be cutting down on logical thinking on how to make the Bible seem wrong. Instead of opening your mind to embrace what may be true in the Bible, you are finding ways to make it wrong. That is not very ethnic of a skeptic. I do not simply take everything as true. If there was something wrong, I would find a contradiction. But I wouldn't simply take out any story in the Bible and say it's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Besides, does it really count as the actions of a benevolent creator if it's true that they would have lived forever, but God took that away from them? "Don't do that, because you'll die if you do" "Ooops, sorry, I did it anyway, but I'm still alive" "Not any more you're not" *Zap*. It's not quite along the same lines as "Don't eat poisonsous mushrooms because you'll surely die", is it?

 

I am going to side with you on your understanding of what the modern bible(s) contain. I find many sections to be disturbing. There are many concepts that I can't but help but to question. As when the man who collected firewood on the Sabbath was "zapped" by God for working on the day God proclaimed for rest and worship. Doesnt seem right.

 

 

And the references to daughters getting their father drunk to have sex with him, now that act should certainly result in getting zapped, but it doesnt. I feel God owes the firewood guy an apology.

 

 

And the Pharoh decided to "let His people go", but the Lord hardened his heart and caused the Pharoh to deny them freedom. Why would the Pharoh be punished for thoughts placed within his mind by God.

 

 

I just dont believe God was that way, and still dont.

 

 

Sometimes I do wonder if The Absolute and the God of the Bible are not one and the same. I know this is dangerous thinking, but how could one not question the motives of a creator that acts as the biblical God does, if you were to consider the entire collection of books as truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be the Phantom of Oprah Winfrey?

 

 

I now think it looks a little like the painting known as 'The Scream'.

 

 

Failing that I thought it looked like the english actor Robert Powell. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You assumed it meant instant death?

 

That's the way that modern English translations would have it, certainly, although I'll conceed that it's not exactly crystal-clear and can be seen as ambiguous.

 

 

However, the Bible does not say that man was created immortal. It does say, however, that God was worried that Adam and Eve would eat of the Tree Of Life and would therefore become immortal. Genesis 3:22. Adam and Eve were not created immortal, according to the Bible itself.

 

 

I think the whole idea that Adam and Eve were created immortal was actually concieved to explain away the fact that God lied and the serpent did not.

 

 

We hope that He is as merciful as He says He can be[...]

 

It is interesting that people base their faith that God loves them on the word of God, isn't it? I wonder if God sold anyone any bridges?

 

 

He gave them a choice. They were told not to disobey God. They disobeyed. They were punished.

 

And do you think the punishment was fair, loving and proportionate to the crime? Is it fair to kill your child because s/he looked in the attic when you've told them not to (not to mention inflicting untold pain and torture on them and all their children for thousands of years)?

 

 

Yes, I am sure you do. He obviously was just a liar, and a conman.

 

Actually, I think he believed what he was saying. I also think that David Ike believes what he is saying and that David Koresh believed what he was saying. That doesn't make it true.

 

 

for that matter, Mohammed believed what he was saying, and there are millions who believe him to this day. He said that Jesus was a Prophet but not the son of God. Why do you assume that Mohammed was a liar and a conman?

 

 

He didnt teach anything that was of any significance at all, now did He?

 

I think Jesus was an amazingly forward thinker for his time and has been an amazing power of good in the world, and it's a shame that people have twisted his words to evil ends. But that hardly makes him the son of God, now, does it?

 

 

And those Indians! All those different tribes that tell of a strange white man claiming to be the son of God were all smoking the same peace pipe with the same wacky tobbacy!

 

You do realise that, other than the Mormons, pretty much nobody believes that, including the Cherokees themselves? http://www.cherokeeeldersociety.org/about.html

 

 

There is no archeological or reliable documented evidence for it, certainly (depending on your view of the Book of Mormon).

 

 

nicknack said:

 

 

Many historic figures are legends or even myths. There's no doubt Jesus ever existed, there are numerous recordings from historians. Now now, it can't be a conspiracy to fake his existence right? Besides what can they gain from it? YOU have your own doubt, you are simply ignorant of proof. Well, your doubt is your doubt, I can't say the same for others if they really searched for answers.

 

Did you even read what I said, or was this a knee-jerk reaction to seeing me reply? I said that I believe that Jesus existed.

 

 

As a christian, not a theist[...]

 

I think you need to look up the definition of the word "theist".

 

 

I already believe in a God. So I should not be called an agnostic, because I already know what I believe.

 

I already disbelieve in a God. So I should not be called an agnostic, because I already know what I believe.

 

 

In the previous posts, if everything was said to be created say by the chaos theory, it would be too much of coincidence since anyway everything was built in balance. It couldn't be the work of randomness, because nothing could be corrected if it was wrong when the universe was created. It would be more likely a work of God.

 

What has this to do with anything I've said in this thread? what has it got to do with the quote of mine you were replying to?

 

 

Correction. Adam and Eve did not put on any real clothes until they left the Garden of Eden. They only wore leaves and ferns to cover their naked bodies because they were embarassed. Secondly, the Garden of Eden was a paradise and it wasn't snake infested.

 

Lemony Snicket is the fictional author of a series of comedic children's books. I wouldn't put too much effort into trying to prove him wrong. I just found it to be an amusing spin on the story. He also claims that "The Incy-Wincy Spider" is one of the saddest songs ever written.

 

 

How, in any way, did God lie to Adam and Eve?

 

Well, read the bits of the post where I explained just that. Good Lord, why reply to my posts if you've not even taken the time to read them?

 

 

God gave Adam and Eve eternal life in the Garden so that they would love God forever.

 

Can you quote me the bit of scripture that says this?

 

 

Besides, if God were afraid, why would anyone who is omniscent, to put the Tree there for tempt them to eat. Isn't that stupid?

 

I'd have said so, yes. But that's what Genesis says. I've quoted it in detail. I suggest you go back and actually read it.

 

 

Why didn't the serpent eat it and become God?

 

Maybe he knew the consequences? Maybe he already knew the difference between good and evil?

 

 

I wouldn't complain if I had a God.

 

I don't have a God and can therefore act exacly as I please.

 

 

It's like your mom warned you not to play by the marsh but one day you played around there in fell in the marsh and has warts for weeks.

 

No, it's like your mother warning you to stay away from the marsh but you play there anyway and when you get home she tortures you and then kills you.

 

 

That is not very ethnic of a skeptic.

 

I also think you need to look up the word "ethnic" in the dictionary.

 

 

But I wouldn't simply take out any story in the Bible and say it's wrong.

 

I didn't say it was wrong, I said that the way that the Bible tells that particular story, God comes accross as the bad guy, and the Serpent as the good guy.

 

 

I just dont believe God was that way, and still dont.

 

There's many more examples than the ones you gave, particularly in the Old Testament, where God comes accross very badly. He seems petty, quick to anger, bigoted, egocentric and downright irrationl at times. I often find some people's image of God to be hard to reconcile with their belief in the Old Testament. Look how He treated poor Job.

 

 

I know this is dangerous thinking[...]

 

But why? Is it because you've already determined what is true and you find that questioning it makes you uncomfortable? How can it be dangerous to look at something as objectively and as rationally as possible? Especially the Bible. The Bible was written by man. Most religions that base their teachings off of it wholly or partially do not claim it to be the inerrant word of God, unlike, say, Moslems with the Koran. That man could have got somthing wrong or put his own spin on it for whatever political reasons is not unreasonable, is it? After all, it's not like man has never twisted religious teachings for their own ends, is it? And, if you were to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then what is your opinion on the Apocripha? Which Church do you allow to tell you which books are valid and which aren't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But why?

 

That is an easy question to answer, my friend. I grew up in the Russian Orthodox Chruch.

 

 

You do realise that, other than the Mormons, pretty much nobody believes that, including the Cherokees themselves?

 

I hope you would know by now that I actually do read what you place in here as a link, very interesting by the way, but that site says nothing about NOT being visited by a strange white man.

 

 

They only are saying that they were not "the" white indians visited by Jesus.

 

 

There is more than one account from many tribes regarding the "healer"

 

 

I think Jesus was an amazingly forward thinker for his time and has been an amazing power of good in the world, and it's a shame that people have twisted his words to evil ends. But that hardly makes him the son of God, now, does it?

 

I agree with the first part, I dont with the second. As if that would be a shocker!

 

 

and the Serpent as the good guy.

 

Dont know about that, but Rattlesnakes sure make good eatin', BBQ style!

 

 

There's many more examples than the ones you gave, particularly in the Old Testament, where God comes accross very badly. He seems petty, quick to anger, bigoted, egocentric and downright irrationl at times. I often find some people's image of God to be hard to reconcile with their belief in the Old Testament. Look how He treated poor Job.

 

I agree with you on that score. As I mentioned before, I have pretty much assembled my own beleif system, and this includes ideals from many systems of faith. This is why I am almost of the mind that The Absolute and the biblical God of Christianity are two seperate "entities". The Absolute with no real motives nor cares as to any reference in time, good, evil, the whole thing. Aware, but as in the same type of our awareness of our individual cells . To this Absolute, things just are, or are not. God to me would be a being that evolved beyond our level of understanding and knows how to utilize the essences of the Absolute to "build" what He wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have doubt that he was the son of God in the same way that I doubt that David Ike is, or David Koresh was."

 

 

You are wrong about several things, this being the one most unfortunate for you. All beings are "sons" of God. Awareness is all that separates us from being another Jesus, or another Koresh. You do know the primary difference between these two, don't you? Choose wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is an easy question to answer, my friend. I grew up in the Russian Orthodox Chruch.

 

But then, surely, any non-Christian thinking on your part, up to and including the Kabbalah would be "dangerous"? I think you have it right when you say that you assess what you see and have drawn your own conclusions.

 

 

They only are saying that they were not "the" white indians visited by Jesus.

 

Well, okay, but the cherokee were just the first example that came to hand. Can you find one cite from an Indian tribe that affirms that they are the decendents of the Lamanites? Or that Jesus preached to them?

 

 

I agree with the first part, I dont with the second. As if that would be a shocker!

 

Is that really what you take as proof of his divinity? That he did good and had followers? Would that not also make, say, Ghandi the son of God?

 

 

Dont know about that, but Rattlesnakes sure make good eatin', BBQ style!

 

Well, I'm vegetarian, so I wouldn't know.

 

 

This is why I am almost of the mind that The Absolute and the biblical God of Christianity are two seperate "entities".

 

Have you considered the possibility that the God as described in the Bible simply doesn't exist?

 

 

Azkaban said:

 

 

All beings are "sons" of God.

 

I don't believe that this is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't believe that this is true."

 

 

Only because you do not believe in, and therefore do not understand, God. Thus, you are unaware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, bercause I'd say that because I do not believe in God, I understand Him better than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nice story you wrote there Nick Nack :)

 

 

But the picture is still an optical illusion ;)

 

 

There are numerous contradictions in the Bible. If I point them out to you, you'll probably say that I'm not interpreting them right or that the real meaning of the text was lost in translation.

 

 

However, if you still want to know the contradictions in the bible, go here

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You assumed it meant instant death?

 

 

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...