Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 313
  1. fubka's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    40 Global Posts
    #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by boyo3221 View Post
    too tired to address every concern...lol but as far as bd things happening.. short version. God created the Earth and gave ALL power and dominion over the earth, Adam basically handed over the keys to that dominion ( see numerous scriptures) so all the Bad stuff that happens is the Devil, God has to follow the laws he set in motion, ie: man having dominion who gave it to satan. so satan still rules the physical earth and its ways, though jesus we can overcome these laws and bad things see (psalm 91) desribes our benefits through God. God set the "law" that man was to rule the earth, he adam gave over the keys, so God cannot lie and say oops wait Adam screwed up and i want a redo, no he made a way for man to be redeemed. so rapes and murders etc are all evil an God gave us a way to be safe from them ( Jesus) many, many , many scriptures that show us all that we are promised in the inheritance that comes by faith through Jesus ( protection, blessings, health etc....) so that is why God has to follow the rules he set up. otherwise he would be a liar.
    Thats sad that you really need to change everything you know about the world and twist logic to re-rationalize explanations to soot your feelings. This all powerful and ever knowing god cant even create properly. God = fail
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    OK but it contradicts the Bible. Genesis 1:28 commands man to have children, obviously he intended them to have them naturally. 1 Cor 15:45 refers to Jesus as the "last Adam". Whole concept of ransom is to buy back what Adam lost... perfect human life on earth without sin.
    Genesis does say that God commands them to multiply and replentish the Earth, but how would innocent children respond to that command?

    There was no sin in the Garden, because they knew not good nor evil.

    The first commandment was to forbid Adam to eat of the tree.

    16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
    17 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.

    They had not partaken of the forbidden fruit and thus their eyes were not opened to the possibility of opposites. They were as children, and as it states in verse 25-

    25 And they were both naked the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    Sin was introduced when Adam transgressed the law and partook of the tree. He then saw that everything had its opposite, and that a punishment was affixed to transgression. He was cast out of the Garden.

    Knowing good and evil was a necessary first step for mankind or else the plan of God would have been frustrated. For how does one exercise their free will without knowing that there are consequences, good and bad, affixed to their decisions?

    Because Adam fell, he was cut off from the presence of God. Also, another consequence was that he would experience death. Which is where your scripture about Jesus comes in. Through Jesus, the dead would be quickened -- see resurrected.
    Last edited by pogeypre; 05/11/2010 at 11:59 AM.
    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by pogeypre View Post
    Genesis does say that God commands them to multiply and replentish the Earth, but how would innocent children respond to that command?
    Respectfully, one can be innocent without being child-like. Sex is only "sinful" now, because we have decided it is. Sex within a marriage never should be.

    There was no sin in the Garden, because they knew not good nor evil.
    No, they knew... they didn't know the difference. Ie, all was good.

    The first commandment was to forbid Adam to eat of the tree.
    Nope. It was the second. See your own source:

    16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
    17 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.
    Firstly... is that King James? Ew.

    Secondly, verse 16 is it's own commandment - to eat the fruits of the garden. The Oral Tradition is that this was a commandment to enjoy the world HaShem created, and each other.

    The second commandment , to not eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is to say that you should be sated and not be a glutton.

    Also, the tenses in verse 17 are a lot more interesting in Ancient Hebrew.

    They had not partaken of the forbidden fruit and thus their eyes were not opened to the possibility of opposites. They were as children, and as it states in verse 25-

    25 And they were both naked the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
    No, they weren't. But that doesn't mean nudity is shameful. It means we decide it is, because we lack control. Once they gave into the gluttony for the fruit, they were open to other forms of gluttony, including sexual.

    Sin was introduced when Adam transgressed the law and partook of the tree.

    No. "Sin" was introduced the moment G-d gave a commandment. "Sin" is a transgression of a commandment, or the refusal to abide by a positive one.

    He then saw that everything had its opposite, and that a punishment was affixed to transgression. He was cast out of the Garden.
    I don't know where you're getting this "opposite" stuff. M<an and woman aren't "opposites". They're "compliments".

    Knowing good and evil was a necessary first step for mankind or else the plan of God would have been frustrated. For how does one exercise their free will without knowing that there are consequences, good and bad, affixed to their decisions?
    I'm wary of anyone who claims to have certain, firsthand knowledge of G-d's plan. However, it's possible to exercise Free Will and not do the act. Doubly so when you have a Direct Line to G-d. Imagine the hubris involved in Adam's choice.

    Here's G-d. He's created everything, including you. The world is new, you've just achieved sentience. You've met this nice other you who makes your parts feel funny in a good way, and you're pretty happy, all in all. Then G-d says "Oh by the way, rock on all you like, but stay away from that one tree."

    I don't care what some metaphor for my own Id says, I'm gonna rock on and ignore the damn tree.

    Adam and Chava [Eve] were perfectly aware of what the consequences would be, to the point that Chava tells the Nachash ["snake" sigh] that she's not even allowed to touch the tree. They're hyper aware of the issue.

    But they do it anyway, because the natural condition of man is to be a *******. Because G-d created us with baser natures to overcome and we failed doing it in the simplest test ever, and now we get more complex tests every day.

    It's no wonder people opt out of the exam.
  4. #124  
    These four things cannot co-exist, 3 of them can but all four is a contradiction and impossible.
    God is:

    All good
    All Powerful
    All knowing

    Evil Exists

    Theists, please acknowledge the contradiction and that you are an unreasonable person, because there is nothing anyone could ever say or show you to make you believe that their is no God. People like that are dangerous.
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by Typo Lad View Post
    Respectfully, one can be innocent without being child-like. Sex is only "sinful" now, because we have decided it is. Sex within a marriage never should be.
    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say sex was a sin. What would a 3 year old do with Advanced Calculus?

    No, they knew... they didn't know the difference. Ie, all was good.
    I think you illustrated my point by disagreeing with me. One has to know the difference between good and evil in order to do good or evil. One cannot be held liable for sin until they know the difference.

    Nope. It was the second. See your own source:
    Semantics. They are both part of the same commandment.

    Firstly... is that King James? Ew.
    We all deal with what we are familiar with.

    Secondly, verse 16 is it's own commandment - to eat the fruits of the garden. The Oral Tradition is that this was a commandment to enjoy the world HaShem created, and each other.

    The second commandment , to not eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is to say that you should be sated and not be a glutton.
    Well, this is where Christian philosphy and Jewish philosophy differ and why this is such a fun topic. The story of Adam and Eve is told by Christians, J e w s, and Muslims. All have differen points that they take away.

    Also, the tenses in verse 17 are a lot more interesting in Ancient Hebrew.
    Having studied a little of the book of Genesis in Hebrew (with help of course), I would have to agree with you. The closer to the source the writing is, the less that is lost to spurious translations.

    No, they weren't. But that doesn't mean nudity is shameful. It means we decide it is, because we lack control. Once they gave into the gluttony for the fruit, they were open to other forms of gluttony, including sexual.
    Again, I wasn't indicating nudity is sinfull. I was merely illustrating that they were as little children. Without regard for clothes, for they knew no reason for clothes. Once they were forced from the garden, they were aware of their nakedness... again, not a sin to be naked, but being aware of what should be private between husband and wife is part of being a responsible adult.

    No. "Sin" was introduced the moment G-d gave a commandment. "Sin" is a transgression of a commandment, or the refusal to abide by a positive one.
    One cannot sin unless they do something that is against God's will. The Garden was free from sin until a law was transgressed.

    I don't know where you're getting this "opposite" stuff. M<an and woman aren't "opposites". They're "compliments".
    .... I think that your comment is due to misunderstanding my points above. I was referring to Good and Evil, Virtue and Vice, Pleasure and Pain... that kind of thing. Not male and female.

    I'm wary of anyone who claims to have certain, firsthand knowledge of G-d's plan. However, it's possible to exercise Free Will and not do the act. Doubly so when you have a Direct Line to G-d. Imagine the hubris involved in Adam's choice.

    Here's G-d. He's created everything, including you. The world is new, you've just achieved sentience. You've met this nice other you who makes your parts feel funny in a good way, and you're pretty happy, all in all. Then G-d says "Oh by the way, rock on all you like, but stay away from that one tree."

    I don't care what some metaphor for my own Id says, I'm gonna rock on and ignore the damn tree.

    Adam and Chava [Eve] were perfectly aware of what the consequences would be, to the point that Chava tells the Nachash ["snake" sigh] that she's not even allowed to touch the tree. They're hyper aware of the issue.

    But they do it anyway, because the natural condition of man is to be a *******. Because G-d created us with baser natures to overcome and we failed doing it in the simplest test ever, and now we get more complex tests every day.

    It's no wonder people opt out of the exam.
    Again, I think this comment is due to your feeling that we disagree on this point. We do not.
    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by kill_Dano View Post
    These four things cannot co-exist, 3 of them can but all four is a contradiction and impossible.
    God is:

    All good
    All Powerful
    All knowing

    Evil Exists

    Theists, please acknowledge the contradiction and that you are an unreasonable person, because there is nothing anyone could ever say or show you to make you believe that their is no God. People like that are dangerous.
    - By your reasoning, your position that God doesn't exist is as untenable as the position that God does exist. Most people I know question everything, because it is human nature. The fact that you do not question your beliefs in this respect is also troubling.

    I reject your premise that evil cannot co-exist with God
    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by pogeypre View Post

    I reject your premise that evil cannot co-exist with God
    Exactly. Since evil is the privation of good it must exist.

    Without light, there is only darkness.
  8. chacalau's Avatar
    Posts
    62 Posts
    Global Posts
    76 Global Posts
    #128  
    do chimpanses go to hell?
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by pogeypre View Post
    I think you misunderstood. I didn't say sex was a sin. What would a 3 year old do with Advanced Calculus?
    I think there's a difference here. A big one. You don't have to be a genius to figure out how to insert slot a into tab b, with the whole of the animal kingdom around.

    I think you illustrated my point by disagreeing with me. One has to know the difference between good and evil in order to do good or evil. One cannot be held liable for sin until they know the difference.
    But then what was the point of G-d's Commandment? By that logic, it couldn't be a sin, since they didn't grasp the concept.

    It was simple - pre eating, sin was "eating the fruit of the tree". After eating it was "and now for some more rules."

    Semantics. They are both part of the same commandment.
    Not according to how the verses are parsed by just about every scholar, including Ibin Ezra and Maimonodes. When they agree, that's noteworthy.

    We all deal with what we are familiar with.
    Yeah but if you're gonna go with the English, at least go with something more accurate

    Well, this is where Christian philosphy and Jewish philosophy differ and why this is such a fun topic. The story of Adam and Eve is told by Christians, J e w s, and Muslims. All have differen points that they take away.
    Agreed on the fun. I'm enjoying the heck out of this. ANd I'd say even within the religions we take away different points.

    Having studied a little of the book of Genesis in Hebrew (with help of course), I would have to agree with you. The closer to the source the writing is, the less that is lost to spurious translations.
    There's also the cultural context issues, etc.


    Again, I wasn't indicating nudity is sinfull. I was merely illustrating that they were as little children. Without regard for clothes, for they knew no reason for clothes. Once they were forced from the garden, they were aware of their nakedness... again, not a sin to be naked, but being aware of what should be private between husband and wife is part of being a responsible adult.
    Except there was no-one to see them yet, so it was shame in just each other.

    I don't go with the "little children" metaphor. I don't think they would actually have been child-like. Just pure, like a child, and full of potential like a child.

    One cannot sin unless they do something that is against God's will. The Garden was free from sin until a law was transgressed.
    Right, but without knowing what the sin was, the concept of punishment, the response becomes:

    "Okay G-d, we'll surely die. What's... death?"

    .... I think that your comment is due to misunderstanding my points above. I was referring to Good and Evil, Virtue and Vice, Pleasure and Pain... that kind of thing. Not male and female.
    Noted.

    But I don't think even that's so binary. I mean, plenty of people's pain is another person's pleasure and vice versa.

    Again, I think this comment is due to your feeling that we disagree on this point. We do not.
    Cookies and tethering for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by kill_Dano View Post
    These four things cannot co-exist, 3 of them can but all four is a contradiction and impossible.
    God is:

    All good
    All Powerful
    All knowing

    Evil Exists

    Theists, please acknowledge the contradiction and that you are an unreasonable person, because there is nothing anyone could ever say or show you to make you believe that their is no God. People like that are dangerous.
    If everything comes from G-d, then everything is "good" in the sense that it must have a purpose. It doesn't mean It's pleasant or nice to see, per se. It just.. is. I think "good" is too subjective a concept anyway. If G-d is all things, then evil has to come from G-d as well as good. Period.
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by chacalau View Post
    do chimpanses go to hell?
    Well, being that they lack free will, doubt it.

    But hey, what am I worried about? I'm Jewish. No hell in my religion. YAY!

    Oh wait... reincarnation. Damn. I'll be good.
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by chacalau View Post
    do chimpanses go to hell?
    Yes... they are bad....

    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  12. #132  
    We can't Know G-d. No matter what your personal text says, it's been translated, filtered, edited, and twisted.
    Two things; first, the scriptures repeatedly state that we CAN know God, in fact, He invites us too. Not in the absolute and complete sense, since he is infinite, but know Him as a friend and understand his purpose, yes. (Prov 2:1-5; Acts 17:27; James 4:8 just for a few)

    Second, if you believe that the Bible is inspired, there is no real worry about language and translation. (not that some bad translations don't exist) He is the originator of language, and he made sure for centuries that His Word was recorded, collected, maintained, protected... Why would an omnipotent Creator that says He loves us and wrote a book inviting us to know and understand Him, then not take care to see that it remained reliable and available?

    Comparing a handful of translations is good to notice flagrant errors in many modern versions, but good scholarly translations from the original languages based on reliable, proven texts are available.

    And you're right, the KJV is not necessarily one of them
  13. #133  
    Right, but without knowing what the sin was, the concept of punishment, the response becomes:

    "Okay G-d, we'll surely die. What's... death?"
    Actually, they would have known about death as a concept... Nothing indicates that animals did not die. Death among animals as a natural process was evidently already in effect, since they are passed over completely in the Biblical presentation of the introduction of death into the human family. (Compare 2Pe 2:12.)
  14. #134  
    As to "hell", as a place of eternal torment... It's a concept found in almost every culture's philosophy and religion... with the exception of the Bible. Neither the hebrew nor the greek scriptures describe such a thing. It contradicts both the Bible's description of God and the condition of the dead. (Ecc 9:5,10; Eze 18:4, 1 John 4:8, Ro 6:7) The two or three "proof texts" that are typically used are simply poorly translated or taken out of context.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    As to "hell", as a place of eternal torment... It's a concept found in almost every culture's philosophy and religion... with the exception of the Bible. Neither the hebrew nor the greek scriptures describe such a thing. It contradicts both the Bible's description of God and the condition of the dead. (Ecc 9:5,10; Eze 18:4, 1 John 4:8, Ro 6:7) The two or three "proof texts" that are typically used are simply poorly translated or taken out of context.
    When you view the Catholic version of Hell, it is fire and brimstone...

    Perhaps a better view of hell would be damnation, meaning no more progress. Cut off from God forever. Certainly that will not be fun, and this does have scriptural backing.

    John 5: 29

    29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done cevil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

    Matthew 23:33

    33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

    I think the common view of Hell is based on scare tactics used to keep adherants from leaving certain churches.
    Last edited by pogeypre; 05/11/2010 at 02:21 PM.
    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Two things; first, the scriptures repeatedly state that we CAN know God, in fact, He invites us too. Not in the absolute and complete sense, since he is infinite, but know Him as a friend and understand his purpose, yes. (Prov 2:1-5; Acts 17:27; James 4:8 just for a few)
    Metaphors aren't the same thing as Knowing, knowing. Understanding the infinite when one is finite is impossible. Not saying one should not try, but one should be aware.

    Second, if you believe that the Bible is inspired, there is no real worry about language and translation. (not that some bad translations don't exist) He is the originator of language, and he made sure for centuries that His Word was recorded, collected, maintained, protected... Why would an omnipotent Creator that says He loves us and wrote a book inviting us to know and understand Him, then not take care to see that it remained reliable and available?
    Because just like we have Free Will to reject Him, we have Free Will to twist, manipulate, and Subvert him. G-d is the only constant. As long as He's filtered through our lens though? There are issues.

    Take the classic "eye for an eye". In the Torah, it's part of a litany of legal damages, monetary in nature. It means the value of an eye for a damaged eye, etc etc. Yet how many times is it quoted as literal?

    Comparing a handful of translations is good to notice flagrant errors in many modern versions, but good scholarly translations from the original languages based on reliable, proven texts are available.
    Proven by whom? Accepted, maybe.

    And even then, scholars bring their own biases, as anyone in academia will tell you.

    And you're right, the KJV is not necessarily one of them
    Boy-oh-boy it ain't.

    "What's the animal here?"
    "I dunno."
    "I'll just put unicorn, then."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    Actually, they would have known about death as a concept... Nothing indicates that animals did not die. Death among animals as a natural process was evidently already in effect, since they are passed over completely in the Biblical presentation of the introduction of death into the human family. (Compare 2Pe 2:12.)
    Point conceded.
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesey View Post
    As to "hell", as a place of eternal torment... It's a concept found in almost every culture's philosophy and religion... with the exception of the Bible. Neither the hebrew nor the greek scriptures describe such a thing. It contradicts both the Bible's description of God and the condition of the dead. (Ecc 9:5,10; Eze 18:4, 1 John 4:8, Ro 6:7) The two or three "proof texts" that are typically used are simply poorly translated or taken out of context.
    Yup. Very much so. The closest thing in Jewish teachings to "Hell" is the idea that our souls can be in a "holding pattern" for up to a month after death, and what that holding pattern is like is debated.

    You have to be good enough to get into "hell". It's the last step before heaven. Otherwise, you go back.

    Most people aren't aware that reincarnation is a tenant of the faith.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by chacalau View Post
    do chimpanses go to hell?
    I dunno, but my dog is cause he chewed my new sneakers.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by R_E View Post
    First, it would seem that many of you don't correctly understand evolution (I don't mean to condescend, but some of the terms used describing evolution were troubling). Evolution has nothing to do with improvement, progression or anything of the sort. It is directly and solely related to reproduction. All living being we currently know of have DNA which codes all of our traits. Through slight differences in a species DNA through mutation and other mechanisms, different traits occur. If these differing traits lead to a higher likelihood of reproduction (say because said trait fends off death) then the DNA with this trait can proportionally increase in the gene-pool and come to be a dominant trait. That trait does not have to be better in any way. It only has to increase chances of procreation.
    I disagree with your point on evolution. I believe there is obvious evidence of physical and mental progression beyond the ability to reproduce. Some birds have evolved into fantastic flyers with 12 foot wingspans, others have evolved to the point where they cannot fly (further pointing out the logic of evolution -- why would an all-knowing God create a flightless bird?). Are you saying both of these evolutionary traits increase that particular birds ability to reproduce their species?

    Mans survival tool is his intellect. And we have recently evolved as a species to a point where we can prevent impregnation or end reproduction in mid-gestation. Does this not also contradict your point?
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by pogeypre View Post
    When you view the Catholic version of Hell, it is fire and brimstone...

    Perhaps a better view of hell would be damnation, meaning no more progress. Cut off from God forever. Certainly that will not be fun, and this does have scriptural backing.

    I think the common view of Hell is based on scare tactics used to keep adherants from leaving certain churches.
    This is what I meant, these texts don't refer to any conscious eternal suffering. The Bible says the dead are conscious of nothing (Ecc 9:5,10 e.g.)
    John 5:29 should read "resurrection of judgement"; Mat 23:33 should be "Gehenna", not "hell", Gehenna being a reference to a like named garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where dead carcasses would be thrown. Eternally destroyed and forgotten, yes... but not conscious or alive in any sense.

    I agree about the common view of hell. I'd go even further and say that it is a planned lie intended to poison people's view of God, making it hard to love him.
Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions