Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
729 online now:
Hyroglyphx, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 727 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,822 Year: 21,858/19,786 Month: 421/1,834 Week: 421/315 Day: 17/82 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 109 of 381 (186690)
02-19-2005 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by dbrennan
02-17-2005 2:44 AM


Re: Great example of GOD lying Phat, thanks.
Nowhere in Genesis does it actually say "Spiritually Die." But also nowhere in the bible do we see the word "Trinity." These are things that theologians have given a name to describe things in the bible.

they're concept designed explain away problems. THESE problems. somewhere, someone came up with the idea that god can't lie. and so they needed to invent a way to deal with this story. and better yet, while we're at it, control whole groups of religious people with guilt for something they didn't even do.

nevermind that it's blasphemous to say god can't do something, and nevermind that the bible calls some select people perfect (sometimes even after sinning, like king david). seems that god is little more caring and forgiving than the pastors let on.

The bible has a continous concern for the spiritual life as opposed to the physical. God is always concerned about what is truly in your heart. Not what you do in the physical.

oh that's bull and you know it. when jesus came about and walked around saying that god cares what you think about it and what's in your heart, it was a completetly revolutionary idea. the church of the time KILLED him for it.

Spiritual death is a penalty. It is a seperation from God. When God said "...you will die." He meant it as he will punish them.

we're making stuff again. show me spiritual death in genesis. show me that the death is punishment. he doesn't say "eat that fruit, i'll kill you." he says "eat that fruit, you'll really die"

when god punishes adam and eve and the serpent, he does it with curses. not death. and even then, most of them are more like consequences of their actions (becoming aware) than actual punishment.

Now the question of whether or not the serpent lied or not. No he just confused the situation. He said that they would not die(physically) and he was relying on the idea that Adam and Eve did not understand God about it being a spiritual death.

the serpent repeated the words of god, with the word "not" in it. where's this physical confusion? show me any indication that EITHER of them meant anything other than physical death, i bet you can't. god is even sure to indicate that he really means death, as in DEATH death. you can't just make this stuff and pretend that's what the bible says: you're wrong. i've read the story. repeatedly.

And Satan was the serpent in the Garden. He had possessed the serpent.

make up your mind.

the serpent is punished. why didn't the serpent say "satan made me do it?" while everyone else was placing the blame squarely on him? and the serpent is punished by being forced to go about on his stomach and lick the ground. it's etiology of why snakes are what they are. it CAN'T be anything but a snake.

Satan is also referred to as a serpent in Revelation

language problem and mixed metaphors: wrong serpent. see leviathan and tanniyn. there's a bunch of really cool legends there that the story in revelation is clearly drawing on.

however, that doesn't change the fact that there is no indication that leviathan or any of the tanniyn (plural) is satan. satan appears to be angelic entity, a ben'elohym if you will, and not a physical dragon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dbrennan, posted 02-17-2005 2:44 AM dbrennan has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 128 of 381 (187423)
02-22-2005 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Derrick
02-21-2005 4:28 PM


Re: Great example of GOD lying Phat, thanks.
god is being decietful and tricky (and petty and jealous), yes, but he's not lying. you can decieve with the truth

This must be the whorst reply I've read thus far.

why thank you!

To be decietful is to make someone else belive something that is not true.

yes, and you CAN do that with the truth. you can even do it without "white lies and half truths." you can do with selective reporting of the facts. politicians do this all the time. how is this hard to understand?

If your telling white lies, halve truths or any other bended line, you end up with a curve. God does not lie. end point and full stop. If you belive that, say it. End.

but the god of the bible DOES lie. not a matter of belief, it's a matter of reading the text. i just think the whole prophet-from-another-religion is a weak example, since the point is that the prophet is right in his prophesy.

seriously, this isn't that hard to get folks. can we move on now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Derrick, posted 02-21-2005 4:28 PM Derrick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Derrick, posted 02-22-2005 2:35 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 129 of 381 (187425)
02-22-2005 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by xevolutionist
02-21-2005 3:56 PM


Re: Great example of GOD lying Phat, thanks.
The early Hebrews didn't understand a lot of things but they didn't try to change them.

there's no evidence of blatant anachronisms in the text. that's one of the points of validity of the (ot) bible: we can date it to before about 200 bc using only textual methods.

if it was filled with anachronisms, like the book of mormon, we'd think it was written recently, like the book of mormon.

For instance the "seed of the woman" was not understood

it means child. i can find you a half dozen references that clearly use the idea to imply NON virgin birth. why would the genesis one be any different than say eli and elkanah's child?

you know why? becuase people are reading stuff into it. you don't think the authors of the new testament, and of revelation in particular, DIDN'T have a copy of genesis, do you?

if i read "macbeth" and then go and kill my boss so i can get promoted in his stead, was macbeth prophetic of what i did? did shakespeare not understand the concept of me killing my boss? think about it.

this is the pre-hoc-propter-hoc fallacy, and you're guilty of it just as much as eddy penngelly.

As I said previously, I would look upon loss of friendship with God as a spiritual death.

you know, that's funny. god doesn't just disappear from the bible after genesis 3, does he? he doesn't even start to slow down until after moses. god's all over the bible. what exactly DID change in genesis 3?

they got kicked out of the garden and had to work for themselves. they were gonna die anyways, and we're no more separate from god because of it. to say anything else is to be in complete contradiction to the text. stop making stuff up.

Many people agree with you that it is physical death. If it is, what's a thousand years compared with eternity? That would seem pretty much immediate to someone comparing the two time periods.

oh, now god is stupid? i would rather he be a liar than stupid. he told adam that adam would die that same day. i think he put it in adam's terms, don't you?

Isn't everything relative? On that day, Adam's death became a certainty, even if He didn't drop dead on the spot.

no, you're reading it wrong.

god says he'll die that day.

god says when he kicks them out that the only way adam is going to live forever is if he eats from the tree of life. which means that he hadn't already, which means that ADAM WAS ALWAYS MORTAL. the story is not about a loss of immortality.

it's about the origin of a people, and the reasons why:
men work/farm in a desert
women have a painful childbirth and parenting process
snakes slither/smell with their tongues.

it is also about the origin of conciousness, and the responsibility that ensues (ie: the basis for mosaic law). the tree is called "knowledge of good and evil." think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by xevolutionist, posted 02-21-2005 3:56 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Derrick, posted 02-22-2005 4:03 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 142 by xevolutionist, posted 02-22-2005 9:02 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 130 of 381 (187427)
02-22-2005 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by xevolutionist
02-21-2005 12:42 AM


Re: Wise as Serpents
Are you arguing from a deist point of view?

no, i'm arguing from the "i've read the story" point of view. i've read it several times in fact. i've read a ton of stuff about it. i've read alot of the rest of the bible too, so i know some context.

and simply put, you're wrong. the story you're thinking of paradise lost, by milton. not genesis 2-3.

Those who have been forgiven don't need guilt. I personally think that's something a lot of Christians don't get.

quite. but think about it for a second. if the story is about permament guilt and original sin for all my kind, how are some men in the bible called perfect? good old job -- the story hinges on the fact that he hasn't sinned, and is perfect in every way.

Death is a reality, at least the physical death.

why? i'll put in standard christian terms. when we die, we go to god, right? and now we're separated from god. if you truly believe... well, why isn't christianity a suicide cult? they completely invalidate this life, saying it's all preparation, a test to get into the next.

what stops people? fear, probably.

i don't think death is a punishment. i don't think it's a reward. i just think life can only be meanigful for so long, and part of it is that i must end. there has always been death, even in the garden of eden. life doesn't work without it.

The spiritual life I was speaking of in the previous posts was friendship with God.

what of abraham? god liked him a lot. walked around with him, told him stuff. he seemed to like moses even more. he told moses... well a couple books worth, right?

separation from god? have you even read the bible at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by xevolutionist, posted 02-21-2005 12:42 AM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Derrick, posted 02-22-2005 4:23 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 144 by xevolutionist, posted 02-23-2005 12:39 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 131 of 381 (187428)
02-22-2005 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by ramoss
02-21-2005 8:15 AM


Re: Great example of GOD lying Phat, thanks.
But, hey, if you can't put meaning in where it wasn't meant, a lot of Christian belief could not be justified.

i've read enough of the old testament, and learned enough about it, that i had a minor crisis of faith a little while ago: i could no longer justify my christianity.

and i still can't. i haven't worked it out yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ramoss, posted 02-21-2005 8:15 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 132 of 381 (187430)
02-22-2005 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by xevolutionist
02-21-2005 3:08 PM


Re: Wise as Serpents
How many snakes converse with humans?

how many walking sticks turn into snakes when you drop them? how many fiery winged serpents have you been bitten by lately?

Satan either spoke through the serpent or took on the appearance of the serpent

why satan? why not azazel? by not ba'al? why not beelzebub? why not asherah? why not gabriel or michael?

i'll tell you why you THINK it's satan. because you think it's a test. maybe you haven't made this connection conciously, but that's how the idea came about.

originally, hasatan was a son of god (or "other god" if you will). as a lesser to yahweh, he served only yahweh's wishes. and his duty, as defined by his name, was the test men. he name means "adversary" but in respect to the adversary of man, not god.

hasatan was thought up around the time of the writing of chronicles (his first appearance) to do god's dirty work. instead of god provoking david to sin, satan does it. the hebrews at the time were uncomfortable with saying that god would make men do bad things, and that god would lie. so they made up an angel to do it instead.

over time, he was given more and more power until he became the adversary of god, and a fallen angel. but the story doesn't line up. if satan is fallen, banished to hell, how is he in the garden? how does he control and tempt men?

your giving more power to something that should be powerless, and then using him to blow a miniscule animal out of proportion. the story says "snake." and it means "snake." the snake is not punished for being possessed. he's punished for being sneaky.

does it say "and satan was the most subtle of god's angels?" no, it doesn't. it's not satan, it's a snake. like the story says. if you tell me different, you have to show me proof that satan slithers and smells with his tongue.

perhaps "crawl on your belly and eat dust" is symbolic of an angel being cast down to earth from heaven.

the writers of the bible LOVE to write about powerful kings being overthrown by the might of god. if they wanted the write that story, they would have.

it contains a similar theme, but not as dramatic. and that's why christians have read into it. but that's not what it says: it explains why snakes are snakes. satan is not a snake. qed, it's not satan.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by xevolutionist, posted 02-21-2005 3:08 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by xevolutionist, posted 02-23-2005 1:03 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 150 of 381 (187669)
02-23-2005 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Derrick
02-22-2005 4:03 PM


Re: Great example of GOD lying Phat, thanks.
consolidated reply.

You said you can find 6. Please find 2 that actually talk about the seed of a "woman", that also refers to virgin birth (Mary and JC i.e. gosples excluded

quote:
You said you can find 6. Please find 2 that actually talk about the seed of a "woman", that also refers to virgin birth (Mary and JC i.e. gosples excluded

quote:
Lev 15:18 The woman also with whom man shall lie [with] seed of copulation, they shall [both] bathe [themselves] in water, and be unclean until the even.

quote:
Rth 4:12 And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.

used in plural:

quote:
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

now, debate those if you want, but this one clearly uses the same phrase:

quote:
1Sa 2:20 And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the LORD. And they went unto their own home.

clearly seed is a euphemism for child. particularly the kind made with SEMEN:

quote:
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

was jesus made with semen? you tell me.

Whatever your smoking, I want two! what does Mac have to do with it?

tell me. was macbeth prophetic of me killing my boss, or did i just get the idea from reading it?

Did you actually READ Gen or are you working on hearsay? Before the fall they walke with God, talked with Him as friends, being Naked infront of Him (intemacy if you will) did not even botter them.
After the fall, all that's gone.

did YOU read genesis?

so no one walked with god after the fall?

quote:
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.

no one talked with god on a regular basis? i bet i can find more verses that start "and god said" directed at moses than adam. the clothing bit has to do with awareness: they weren't concerned with nudity before, because they were just like the animals.

Let me colour it a bit more, your married, you cheet on your spouce. He/she walks in. You and you friend go for clothes. What just happend to your, marrage and relationship? Why are you suddenly scared to be naked infront of your spouce? Is your sp. going to be arround very much longer?

but that's not what happens. adam is not god's wife or husband. god is adam's father.

Tel me again, how does above mentioned statemet make God stupid. The writer is stating a possibility that God might have mesuring a day diffrently than we do.

no, the author of genesis is not. a later author is. maybe to explain genesis, maybe not. the author of genesis wrote the word day. as in days of creation. a day, evening and morning. if he had meant eternity, he would have eternity. if he had ment a myriad years, he would have said a myriad years.

why does it make god stupid? because god is unable to put himself in adam's point of view. god knows what a day is: he made them. god knows how adam experiences time: he made both adam and time. this sound like a good punishment to you? "don't do it, or i'll kill you a thousand years from now." right, ok. by then i'll probably want to die anyways.

god meant a literal day, the story is preposterous any other way.

True ,not about Loss of immortality and it is about the origen of man. i.e. God. Your focus is out of place. If your focus was on target, Lions would be mowing your lawn.

quote:
Whatever your smoking, I want two!

Quite correct. A few people are called perfect in the word. But perfect does not always refer to sinless

but it does in the case of job. it HAS to mean "without sin" otherwise god's "punishment" of job is valid. the whole point of the gooey poetry center of the book, the whole driving conflict is that the just often suffer. if job is unjust, and all men are inherently sinful, there's no point in writing the book. and better yet, god would have said something to that extent when he shows up at the end.

If you are a Christian Death is no punishment, although we have to complete our task at hand and when its done, we will be called home. If you Don't belive in hell and think of Death as a cutoff switch, then it would be and easey way to cop-out of any problems.
But hell does exist and therfor it is a punnishment to any one not found in Christ. Sorry.

no, i don't believe in hell. because i know a little tiny bit of hebrew, and the tradition revolving around it.

the english word "hell" comes from the hebrew "sheol" meaning grave. as in the physical place you are buried. sorry, but the tanakh (ot) just does not support any sort of afterlife, except possibly one akin to the greek hades (also not "hell") where people exist as shades of their former selves.

About Abraham and Moses... see Heb 11

i've you've read any of my other posts here, you'd already be aware that i don't like the apostle paul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Derrick, posted 02-22-2005 4:03 PM Derrick has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 151 of 381 (187676)
02-23-2005 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by xevolutionist
02-22-2005 9:02 PM


Re: Great example of GOD lying Phat, thanks.
I love the way you dissect parts of my sentences without ever touching the meaning of them. I wasn't talking about anachronisms as you should know.

actually, i very well did touch the meaning of it. you said the hebrew wrote something they didn't understand. you're claiming that phrase is an anachronism, or rather a prophesy. they're more or less the same the study of the bible, btw. the only prophesies we know were written before the fact are the ones that failed. (because who'd fake a failed prophesy?)

Women didn't have seed!

they're called ovum. mabe by ovaries. but then, you knew that, right? however, please look up the other 280-some times the word "seed" is used in the bible, and tell me exactly what you think the word means?

oh, look, here's one now:

quote:
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

did you see that? eve called seth her seed. and abel as well, actually. here it's CLEARLY used in a sexual meaning, and CLEARLY means "child." are we done with this debate yet?

if not, look up a couple of lost gospels, inter-testamental stuff. it's either the book of adam ever or jubilees that contains the fulfillment of this prophesy: seth bashing in the snake's head, after it bites him on his heel.

although i suspect it might have something to do with this story:

quote:
Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

similar theme, breaking the head of a serpent. this has to do with an earlier mythology, that both the author of this psalm and the authors of genesis seemed to have drawn on. later author combined these themes to have a different meaning, regarding an angel who had nothing to do with anything in either story, and metaphorically condemning a real-life person: the emporer of rome.

I like the way I read it.

ok, let's run with it.

is satan the son of a snake, literally?
where does satan bite jesus on the heel?
where does jesus bash satan's head in?
where does satan crawl on the ground?
where does satan eat dust?

please give me verses for those.

Well, my version says that Job was blameless, not that he never sinned or was perfect. It even mentions that he was making extra sacrifices for his children in case they had sinned without realizing it. At one point in the narrative he asks God how many sins he has that he's not aware of.

the story becomes pointless is job's punishment is deserved.

What motive would an animal have to subvert God? Satan, the fallen angel, one of God's creations that was so great he wanted to take God's place, would have a motive.

we don't have any verse about god telling the serpent not to eat from the tree of knowledge, do we? maybe he had, i dunno.

what motive would anything else have to subvert god? it's not like satan is the only thing to try it. in fact, i would go so far as to say that a lot of other people have, but not satan. (yet, anyways)

in fact, in the traditional view, satan is an angel. a son of god. in the strictest orthodox belief, consistent with the torah, the sons of god do not have free will. which would make satan incapable of subverting god. starting to see how this doesn't line up?

Because of the talking snake. I'm waiting to see how it turns out.

god wins in the end.

oh sorry, did i spoil it for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by xevolutionist, posted 02-22-2005 9:02 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by xevolutionist, posted 02-25-2005 1:13 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 152 of 381 (187677)
02-23-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by doctrbill
02-22-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Wise as Serpents
Since when does theology consider the consciousness, morality, or eternal salvation of animals?

*cough* or humans for that matter? (well, i guess about 30 ad or so...)

i'm going to phrase the story another way. genesis 3 is about the birth of morality, not original sin, and not even the first sin. why? because to sin, we have to first have knowledge of good and evil, right? we have to be able to tell one from the other.

now, it doesn't say, but if i had to bet money, i'd place it on the idea that serpent ate from the tree as well. otherwise, how would he have known what effect it would have?

although genesis is a collection of folk tales, this is the only example of a talking animal in the entire book. i'm willing to bet also that the authors knew animals, even snakes, couldn't talk.

could the snake talk because of the tree of knowledge? and if so, why can't all snakes talk? did the effects wear off? not get passed down? what does that mean for human morality?

what a muddled and confusing way to start off a book.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by doctrbill, posted 02-22-2005 11:43 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by doctrbill, posted 02-23-2005 10:09 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 153 of 381 (187679)
02-23-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Derrick
02-22-2005 2:35 PM


answer: an intelligent person. sometimes.
The truth does not only consist of facts. It also rests on motive and interpritation. Whith what motive was the facts presented and how was it interpreted. There is and example of this in the passage of the temptation of Christ.

sure. the serpent tells the truth in the respect, well, he was right. and god tells the truth because he embodied the badness of the idea. i'm find with that.

but god still lied. it's just the same way we lie to our children about santa claus.

PS Are you just playing Devils Advocate or whats your belief?

literally, i suppose i am. but then i don't believe in The Devil.

i am a christian, sort of. i'm in the process of redefining my faith at the moment, as i can no longer seem to justify my christianity. i still have firm faith in the god represented in the hebrew bible, but no faith whatsoever in the bible itself. this all comes from studying it closely, of course.

even with my belief in christ, i reject whole-heartedly the gospel of john (as blasphemy) and the letters of the apostle paul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Derrick, posted 02-22-2005 2:35 PM Derrick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 5:12 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 159 of 381 (187809)
02-23-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by doctrbill
02-23-2005 10:09 AM


Re: Wise as Serpents
That the Bible starts off this way should be a clue to its general tenor. Yes?

quite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by doctrbill, posted 02-23-2005 10:09 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 160 of 381 (187811)
02-23-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by ramoss
02-23-2005 12:14 PM


Re: Wise as Serpents
At the time that Genesis was written, the concept of 'Satan' was not yet introduced into the Hebrew religion.

don't be so sure. i think genesis was written at around 600 bc, which would be right around the time of satan's introduction.

however, the name is absent from the book, and all other books of the torah. it's quite possible that the editors of the torah were aware of the concept and just rejected it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ramoss, posted 02-23-2005 12:14 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 167 of 381 (188310)
02-25-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by custard
02-24-2005 5:12 AM


Re: answer: an intelligent person. sometimes.
Whoa, really? That piques my curiosity!

Quick question, why is the gospel of John blasphemy. Short answer works for me. Thanks!

solely a faith issue. i refuse to believe in a jesus who walked around attracting worship, claiming to be god or the way to god, etc, as such things ARE blasphemy. even if you're related to god.

the point of christianity is that christ is a blameless victim, to take on the sins of others (not that i really accept that any more either*). but christ can't be that if they can find a valid reason to execute him under mosaic laws. which in the gospel of john, they can.

paul i don't feel like getting into. he just doesn't line up with the hebrew bible or the teachings of christ, and i hear nothing but bad things in his writings. (oppress women and gays, stay away from sex, etc). it also seems to the source of a lot of the messed-up christian complexes i've witness firsthand. and i think i'll leave it at that. ponder it on your own, and let me know what you think.

*recently, i've come to think of christ's sacrifice as not to god, but to the people. he's not fulfilling mosaic practices in any way, rather it's to make people understand that god cares and to make them feel like their sins have been atoned for and their guilt removed. it's a technicality, and i'm still thinking this one over. but either way, the tainted christ in the book of john is contradictory to the idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 5:12 AM custard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 12:51 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 172 of 381 (188647)
02-26-2005 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by xevolutionist
02-25-2005 1:13 PM


Re: Great example of GOD lying Phat, thanks.
In the Hebrew the word for seed is always masculine when used as a noun. The example you give says “for God hath appointed me another seed [son].

actually, the connotation is "first born." i think that would even be an acceptable translation.

She does not call Seth “her seed”.

she does. and you even posted. don't let the grammer confuse you. if god has a appointed HER another seed, the seed is HERS.

Yes it clearly is the prophecy of the virgin birth.

don't be preposertous. the story has nothing to do with virgins or anyone but eve. because the euphemism usually has to do with semen. "spilled his seed on the ground," etc. if you're a christian, jesus would be GOD'S SEED, not mary's. the only way jesus would be mary's seed is if it just simply means "first born" or "son" in which case there is no reason the genesis verse would indicate anything but eve's child, or by implication mankind.

remember, the hebrews like to refer to groups euphemistically. the nation of israel is ben'yisrael: the sons of israel, or even the sons of jacob. and so the seed of eve relates to her being the mother of all mankind.

It is usually used as the word for semen or male offspring.

explain to me how mary produced semen. if she did, then that would make her the only bi-functional hermaphrodite ever, and jesus's father would not be god, would she?

Check any Hebrew dictionary. Even when used as a verb it has the meaning that connotes sowing, or implanting seed.

ie: impregnation. as in by a man. not a miracle.

No, Satan is not the son of a snake, the snake was the way Satan appeared to Adam and Eve. I covered this previously.

and have consistently failed to back this purely religious argument. what makes you like this satan guy so much that you see him everywhere?

The scripture says “bruise” not bite.

semantics. where does satan BRUISE jesus's heel?

“He will crush his head” and that was accomplished on the cross. Satan may not know it yet, but it is finished.

this god of yours is a procrastinator, isn't he? either it was acomplished on the cross, or it wasn't. the whole crushing of the head thing... i'm sure he'd notice.

This is descriptive language, a type used in many places, not only in the Bible, but literature generally.

yes, it's sure is descriptive. if i described something that crawls along on it's belly and licks the ground, and is called "a snake" what would i be describing? an angel of course! don't be silly!

it's not metaphorical, because it is the origin of snakes. maybe the theme is there, but it is NOT satan because it's describind why snakes are snakes.

See Revelation 12, verses 7-9, which clearly shows that the angels have free will.

revelation is quite a trippy book, isn't it. now this i HAVE covered before. the dragon imagery comes from leviathan. who is not satan. wrong serpent. this is an amalgamation of several different legends, and is most likely saying something about a real-world person and not an angel.

they are not refering to the satan you think. satan means adversary. devil means liar. these are not even titles, really. in chapter two, this satan is described as having a real throne, and a real church. it seems to be talking about a person, and this name can apply to people who test faiths.

for instance, a king who feeds christians to lions could be called satan. you're just getting confused because they threw in the leviathan legen to let you know god wins.

I know that God wins, actually He already has from His view point, it just remains to be played out. That's the part I'm interested in, just seeing how it all happens.

your god's lazy, isn't he? i mean, limitless power, knows the future. why do anything when you can do everything? why does this satan run around if he's been beat? are you saying that god can't kick an ass very good?

in fact, if you create everything, why make a battle for yourself? he could have won before it started right? your logic is very strange.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by xevolutionist, posted 02-25-2005 1:13 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 2:28 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 212 by Trae, posted 03-04-2005 10:50 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 173 of 381 (188648)
02-26-2005 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by xevolutionist
02-25-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Wise as Serpents
My feeling is that God has the power to influence the selection of which writings are selected as scripture. There were many criteria which were involved in the determination of whether or not they were inspired texts. I've read a lot of those books and they read like the Book of Mormon to me. Interesting, but not the inspired word of God.

do we see the double standard here? why is the book of mormon not ok, but say the new testament is? they line about with the ot about as well.

why do you accept the entire ot as the word of god, when the people who wrote it only treat the majority of the first five books as the word of god, and easily recognize that books like psalms were written by men ABOUT god, not vice versa?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by xevolutionist, posted 02-25-2005 1:32 PM xevolutionist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by custard, posted 02-26-2005 5:01 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 177 by xevolutionist, posted 02-27-2005 1:49 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019