Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

And I was giving you the rationale behind my words towards Popoff.Anyway, this off-topic. Admins, I apologize. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Reference?

Lets say you heard about a "famous history teacher". People around you talk about this man a lot. One fine day, you bump into a random guy, and he says sorry. You recognize his picture from the papers (famous right?). You're like "aren't you??..." He says, "Yes, I am"What is wrong with the man telling you that he is the famous history teacher you've been hearing about? Would you say to him, "shut up, that's circular logic, how can you say you're the teacher based on your own authority, huh??"On the other hand, if the man is silent when you ask him who he is, will you not think that he doesn't know what you're talking about? You will. Whats wrong with the Bible telling us that its testimony is true? Nothing! In fact iself-testimony is the right approach. Credibility necessitates self-testimony, would you not agree?
Plus, we've got historical evidence to back up Biblical claims, numbers, people facts. There is much more evidence for the Bible's claims than for any other religious book. Rama? Krishna? Saraswati? Kali? Hanuman? Where's the evidence? 1. There is no cosmic point
2. There is no evil planIts all in the way you and I interpret the Bible.Okay, leaving everything aside (I know you have a LOT of things to say in your latest post), lets just remake a starting point for ourselves here. What do you think "nothing can come apart from God's doing" means?Does it mean:
1. God does everything or
2. Whatever happens passes God's approval before it happens.The Bible hold the second view an so do I. Evidently, you hold the first view. Hence your saying that God created sin. Right? Well if you hold the faulty view, faulty conclusions are inevitable.On the other hand, when you view God as an authority figure whose approval every event must pass, you will come to the conclusion that God permitted the entry of sin into the world. Satan offered sin to Adam, Adam accepted it, God permitted it, voila! sin enters the world. Now, could God have not permitted sin to enter the world? Yes. Why did he not do it? I speculate that He wanted all of us to learn a little lesson about Him namely no one can thwart God's plan forever and those who do try end up in misery. "A little bit of a selfish plan?", an atheist may remark. Very unselfish is my response.P.S: I am not evading the Judas question. I think 1. this is not the appropriate thread 2. it is not something that can be resolved in a conversation between two on the internet. However, if you still want to talk about it, maybe another time in another threadEdited by Dr. Sing, : added somethingEdited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Indirectly it is. There are times when things are best understood when taken in a broader context. The story of God is not about God and the King of Babylon, God and Einstein. God and Euler, God and bengal tigers. Its about God and his adversary (give him whatever name you like). Taken in a broad context especially with regards to Israel and its history (which is what Isaiah's context is), we see that God is trying to tell Israel that He is great. That His enemies will be defeated. Does it make sense for the King of Babylon to be God's archenemy? No, it doesn't. The guy was human. Obviously, there's a supernatural power working through the King. And that power was once great, really great. Hence the morning star imagery.

I filter out redundant illustrations and focus on claims and facts. That's what I meant.Apologies if that came across as rude. I do want to listen to you, do want to have a civil conversation and hopefully to a good end. Edited by Dr. Sing, : second statement...felt it necessary

Thanks for showing me. But that doesn't make me change my view that Is 14 refers to God's archenemy, satan when taken in a non-literal, broad sense.

If inquisitiveness made adam eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the necessity for satan to tempt him vanishes. But you see, adam never ate the fruit even though he was an inquisitive creature all along. Satan was necessary to make him eat the fruit! Why? Because his inquisitive could not make him sin against God.Think about this.Desire to eat the fruit translates as desire to disobey God. If adam wants to disobey God, he wants to please someone else, correct? He would have had 2 options: 1. Please himself or his wife 2. Please no one else (no incentive to disobey) Note that Adam and Eve didn't sin up until this point even though they had option 1.But here comes satan with alluring words and attractive promises and eve complies to his enticement (and so does Adam to hers) in a heartbeat!! What do you make of that? Adam and Eve never cultivated a desire to eat the fruit before satan arrived.SUPPOSE THEY CULTIVATED THE DESIRE BEFORE SATAN CAME, they would have followed option 1. (which they didn't)Interestingly, we notice that both of them act impulsively.Therefore, I maintain that God never supplied Adam with a "flesh desire/nature". The proof for this claim is that fact that Adam and eve never sinned to please themselves. Sin nature was introduced to Adam by satan and Adam deeming it attractive, bought it from satan. And for a nasty price of course. Wrong.Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 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."-God is not talking about physical death. Adam lived for 930 years. -God is referring to spiritual death. Adam communicated with God through his spirit.
-When Adam disobeys is when their communication/friendship ends is what God is saying to Adam in verse 17.
-What evidence do you present to argue that Adam was innocent/naive/tricked/deceived/helpless when he was given so clear a warning? Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Which is exactly why I explained what "you will die" is interpreted. Perhaps you didn't grasp it? Here's it in sort of a mathematical mode: you will die=your spirit will die=you will have no means to have a relationship with me anymore. This information is easily grasped by Adam since there is no jargon in there; you will die=/=your heart will stop beating. Animals as we know them today don't go around chatting with humans unless you live in a different world than I do. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

My point was to say that satan never tucked himself into a random reticulated python dwelling in the garden of eden, he transformed himself into a snake so that he would appear tactful to eve since she knew the nature of snakes. I doubt if a bunny would have been effective in convincing Eve to sin. Satan is a clever dude, don't you think? Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

All quotes by Hyroglyphyx Although I do not in reality agree with this, for the sake of argument and theoretically (and to provide both us a common point of agreement) I will agree with you here. God decided to test Adam's faith by placing the tree in Adam's surroundings. (hereafter, I'll use just Adam to refer to him and his wife as a compound unit)Hereafter, I'm going to explicitly say if I agree or disagree and why. (maybe this will help the conversation?, let's see) I disagree.
And my reason:
1. Human nature entails understanding and reason
2. Adam was a human.
Therefore, Adam could both understand and reason. So.....a. Reason enables one to judge based on criteria. (A doctor uses his judgment to treat a disease by observing its symptoms) b. You wouldn't need to make judgment unless you have *more than one* choices to choose from. (If the only disease in the world was pneumonia, the doctor would not need to use his judgment for analysis and treatment of the disease. However, there are many diseases in the world with similar symptoms, so the doc needs to reason...) c. God told Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. d. God told Adam the consequences of such an action. e. Being human, Adam understood the warning and only had to use his reason to make a decision. f. Until God told Adam NOT to eat the tree, Adam had only one choice, namely: eat the fruit. God's forbidding consumption of this fruit presents the second choice.At this point, Adam is faced with two choices. In response to the next quote, I will argue that Adam knew which choice was "good" and which one was "bad". I disagree.
Reason: Adam now has two choices before him and the sources of the choices are different. [Choice 1=Not eat fruit] is from God, [Choice 2: Eat it] is from God's enemy. Agree so far? I think you will.Now, million dollar question. How does Adam know which choice is good, choice 1 or choice 2? Adam knows the consequence of eating the fruit. Furthermore, the consequence was stated in two different fomrats by two different people. Ask me how? Number one format, God told him: You will lose your God-given privilege of being in a spiritual relationship with me. Number two format, God's enemy gave him: You will become like the gods...you will know good and evil.
Using reason then, any human will conclude that "knowing good and evil/becoming like God = losing a relationship with God " Adam did conclude this too. It stands to reason that breaking of a pure friendship between two people (God and Adam) who are in good terms is a BAD thing. And Adam knew all along while chewing the fruit that he was voluntarily cutting off the relationship/friendship between God and him to "know good and evil, become like God".______________________________________________________It will take some Bible study to understand the implications of "losing a relationship with God". But here are some Biblical implication that one cannot and shout not miss:1. Loss of sanctifying graceSanctifying GraceGrace has been divided by some theologians into two forms, Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace. Sanctifying grace is the divine life that infuses our soul at justification (normatively at baptism) and, through the spirit of adoption, transforms the sinner into a holy child of God. As such we participate in the Divine Childship of Jesus Christ. With this divine childship comes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (who is the divine personification of the bond of love between God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ). Sanctifying grace is a permanent part of the soul as long as one does not reject one's adopted childship by committing a mortal sin, which severs one's bond to the Father. However, God is infinitely merciful, and sanctifying grace can always be restored to the penitent heart, normatively in the sacrament of reconciliation. Since the end and aim of all efficacious grace is directed to the production of sanctifying grace where it does not already exist, or to retain and increase it where it is already present, its excellence, dignity, and importance become immediately apparent; for holiness and the sonship of God depend solely upon the possession of sanctifying grace, wherefore it is frequently called simply grace without any qualifying word to accompany it as, for instance, in the phrases "to live in grace" or "to fall from grace".--Source
2. Loss of access to heaven
3. Marred image of God in Adam
4. Spiritual death of soul
5. Compounding of sin and temptation
6. No restoration of relationship unless God initiates it. In other words, man cannot successfully claim his sanctifying grace back with an apology. Man was never entitled to it in the first place. It was a free gift bestowed on man.
7. Original Sin--which is the sin we all inherit based on our physical *origin* in Adam"...this is the reaosn behind saying "because Adam sinne,d the entire human race fell"So what exactly does it mean when satan told Adam that eating it will make him know good and evil? It meant that Adam will gain an experiential knowledge of sin. Till then, adan never experienced sin , but satan did. And satan was offering the same experience to Adam. Experiential knowledge of good and bad. Right and wrong.______________________________________________________ It makes more sense to interpret otherwise here. And the reason I'm following this rule for Is 14 is threefold:1. Theme of Isaiah
2. Context of Isaiah
3. Selection of words in the chapterThe theme of Isaiah is "Spiritual redemption of nation Israel from bondage to sin through Jesus Christ"
The context is Israel's history.
Isaiah is known as the Messianic prophet. No one Biblical writer prophesied about Christ as much as him. The common string of all the pearls in the necklace is "Christ your redeemer will come to save you, you must repent of your sins and become one with Him". In order to explain this theme, Isaiah talks about Israel's past and present history: kings, battles, pharoah,s defeats, wilderness experiences, apostasy, idols etc etc to show how all along Israel has been rejecting God for the most part when He's been pursuing them. But soon the resolution of this problem is going to come, namely Christ. He is going to become a man and physically appear to them. Agree with me so far? Why is Christ coming? Is it to destroy the King of Babylon? Well, He could have just said "Okay, King of Babylon, you're done. Please die" Furthermore, why should only the King of Babylon be his archenemy, why not Egypt's pharoah? His archenemy that he's coming to destroy must be a supernatural being: satan.As far as selection of words go,12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [c]14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."falling from heaven, cast down to earth, make myself like the most High...relate to satan a lot better than earthly kings.Ah. I'm done for tonight. G'night everyone. We shall resume this discussion tomorrow. I just want to throw this out there: none of what I wrote above is from listening to preaching, its from my own Bible study. So, if you would like to defame it, defame me, it has nothing to do with "being brainwashed by biased Christian preachers preaching the same thing over and over again"G'night. Edited by Dr. Sing, : syntax and spellingEdited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

So, may I ask you a question. Who created Windows XP? You have two choices: 1. Microsoft. 2. God.That was not a trick question. And I know you know the answer is Microsoft. What "all things were made by Him" means is "all things that exist/happen pass His permission before they do" Obviously, God doesn't work for Microsoft! But the fact that Windows XP exists means that God approved Microsoft company's Windows XP before time and let it happen during time" In the same fashion, God permitted the sinful nature which Adam bought form satan to enter the world. Now, I'm not saying that God liked Adam's idea. No. God permits both things He agrees with and doesn't agree with. I'm saying Adam's idea could not have happened unless God permitted it to. What do you say Dr. Apothecus?Okay, I'm really going to bed now. Edited by Dr. Sing, : spellings and suchEdited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Ahh, of all words, why did I pick "approval" here!? What I mean is "permission". I'm sorry for the ambiguity. English is not my first language, so I often have trouble communicating thoughts. I'm working on it. Thank you for pointing this out, I appreciate it.But the idea is that of permission. Lets say a Muslim guy falls in love with a Hindu woman and they both want to marry. Traditional Muslims usually do not marry from other religions. The parents of the young man do not approve of the wedding but they permit their son to marry this Hindu woman because they want to please their son and honor his heart's desire. They do not approve whats he's doing but permit him to do it anyway. Similarly, God permitted the entry of sin into the world but did not approve it. Suppose Adam resisted the devil and never sinned, who would you have given the applause to? God or Adam? I think you'll say Adam. I would give Adam all the credit. We all would agree that Adam was very brave, gallant, and intelligent, right? However, when Adam messes up, we blame God for it and Adam has nothing whatsoever to do with it??? And the question tells us that you do not understand the concept of freewill. Why? We are talking about an intelligent man, no?For all your sarcasm, Dr A, Adam didn't need me to help him out. He had intelligence, and that's often enough to understand simple sentences and ideas. If I told you strictly not to do X, what would you infer? Obviously, that doing X will make me angry, correct? Why was it different with Adam? Was he mentally challenged??
God told Adam, don't do X, therefore Adam knew that doing X will make God angry. How can you still justify Adam willingness to make God angry?___________________________________________ Yes, there is a whopper of a difference between "bad" and "evil". In this context, I use the word evil to denote sin, whereas the word bad to denote something BAD. Bad as in-- loss of friendship between God and Adam is BAD, its a sad thing, its not desirable, its not pleasing, its not good, God doesn't like it, its just BAD in the word's most basic, simple sense.You're right when you think that Adam didn't know what sin/evil was. But you're wrong when you think he didn't know what BAD was. I'm sure that there weresome fruit that Adam liked better than others and some he didn't like as much--which he would classify as BAD in his mind (who know,s maybe he hated pears---he would classify them as BAD). It didn't take first-hand experience of sin for Adam to have classified some fruit or flower to be BAD. Kids do it all the time. They say some things are good and some are bad even if they never murdered or plagiarized or understood what these crimes mean. We all have an inborn knowledge of knowing the good and the BAD.

I'm done with the rest of ya'll. I'm not going to post the same thing one more time lest you accuse me of "testing you guys' patience" often like you accuse Buzsaw and ICANT. ( I see Dr A has come to the question which got me posting in this thread: why did Adam being perfect sin? Which I answered, but obviously he isn't satisfied, so whats the point in me taking another go at it. I'm one of the worst people at explaining things. ) So, if anyone is really interested, open a different thread and take the opinion of other believers I guess, or read books, the Bible...
But, just wanna say one thing to Apothecus and Dr A. I will agree that I am using over-simplified terminology. For example "the relationship between God and Adam would end by Adam's eating the fruit". That is a REALLY simple way. There's two reasons I'm doing this: 1. An unbeliever always thinks differently from a believer, he will not understand the things of God, I'll show you the verse in a sec...so whats the point in introducing theological jargon into such a discussion and complicate it. 2. I fear misusing or misunderstanding complex, deep theological terms and ideas because of my limited intellectual capacity, therefore I use simple words and daily-life examples.The verse I was referring to is 14I Cor 2: 6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"[b] 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. No. God has complete knowledge of past, present, and future events. I think you completely misunderstood what I said about God's omniscience. He knew everything that would happen during time, even before time itself began. He permitted all that He wanted and all that He wanted happens now to us during time. In other words, nothing which was not permitted by God before time happens today, is my belief. Gen 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. (emphasis mine)"Since you brought it up, I had one of the most disgusting flying experiences with British Airways. I'm pretty sure I'm never going for them again, even if they offer me a free trip around the entire planet. Anyway, this is off-topic. Which is the same question which enticed me to join this discussion. So now that we're back to square one, I had better leave before we repeat the same cycle of events again... Or maybe the opposite party that is listening to what we're saying has incomplete understanding? (Our Bible says ya'll do) Does that possibility ever occur to you? Probably not. But that's fine. Let time reveal everything there is to know. I don't do a good job anyway, do I Dr. Apothecus?G'night all. Edited by Dr. Sing, : uuhh...just added a word. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Yes, but God cannot be tempted to sin. His nature is one that does not and cannot deem sin as attractive. IOW, He doesn't have to make an effort, like I do, to not sin...sin just doesn't appeal to Him.Did Adam have that kind of perfect nature? No. If Adam was in EVERY way like God, then he's not Adam, he's God II, right? Adam clearly was a human. Adam was like God in many ways before he sinned, example, he had a pure soul, eternal life, freewill, the ability to love, think, reason, judge...but he certainly didn't have the incommunicable qualities of God like omniscience, omnipotence, impeccbaility, justice...But Adam was a perfect human. And this is where Dr A is having to do some mental gymnastics. (...and they are not pleasing to him at all, I might add).I know, Dr A, that you perfectly understand Message 60 as far the words, idea, and concept is concerned. Why you have a problem with it is because you have no faith. To an atheist, everything must be logical and empirical, if something isn't then it doesn't exist at all right? Well, how do you suppose that approaching the Bible with that kind of a worldview will give you your answers. I think every unsaved person that comes to finally understand the things of God does so only after he believes that what he is hearing is true. I know, I know, you won't like this. But essentially what you are trying to do is fit supernatural matters into a naturalistic framework (and they'll never fit, I might add). For you to imagine two varying degrees of perfection requires faith. The Bible makes complete sense to one who believes in supernatural things. It is to the unbeliever that "logical contradictions" appear on every page simply because they try to interpret the Bible in terms of logic.All I'm saying is, while you perfectly understand message 60, you find it hard to believe. And I'm not surprised, I'm just helpless. I can't refine my words to make them "more logical". Some things in faith just aren't logical, such as having varying degrees of perfection.P.S: I think I'll continue to feel guilty for my harsh words towards you (about the analogy and all that) as long you don't forgive me. Have mercy on me and say you forgive me?? Okay, don't even tell me, just forgiven me in you heart. Edited by Dr. Sing, : Asking dr A to forgive me for the fourth or fifth time. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

No, I concluded that there are two different types perfection simply because the Bible states that God is perfect and there is no one else like Him. However, the Bible also says that when believers die, they will lose human bodies and their spirit will become perfect. I don't believe that to mean that resurrected believers will become Gods. They will become like God. Just as Adam was a pattern of Christ, but not a clone of Christ Himself. Implying Adam had many of the same qualities God had but not all of them. Adam was perfect in that he never sinned before the fall, but God is perfect in that He cannot sin. Rom 5 is where I get my comparison between Christ and Adam. OriginalGod is holy in that He is sacred, is what I make of the original verse. And there is no one as sacred as God, no one, not even Adam. Adam was a type of Christ, but not Christ Himself. I believe in the literal, plenary inspiration of the Word of God. That every single word is meaningful, profitable, and perfect. Be it a homage, be it a lengthy argument by Paul, or a poignant poem by Isaiah, or a terrible vision from John, or simply history from Joshua, or a collection of proverbs or the love story of Ruth and Boaz...every Word will be fulfilled and must be revered. It doesn't matter when the ink was spilled on paper. God formed the Bible, so to speak, before the world was created. To show that God lives even today. No matter which age a believer who reads this is in, he will understand that the God of the Bible lives even today. Does it not take faith to believe that such a perfect God exists if you have not seen or touched Him? Or does it not take faith to even believe what the Scripture says is true? Whereas the believer approaches the Bible with total belief that it is perfect and true, the unbeliever tries to dissect its logic and find internal contradictions (which I believe are only apparent, and not real, BTW) Ah. I'm not sure what ICANT believes here. (I suggest we discuss it in his presence in another thread if you want to) But God made perfect animals, didn't He? Were they also of same substance as Him, then? no. In that case, why can't Adam be created of a "similar" but not "exact same" substance as God? Is God's omnipotence limited? Only in two situations: 1. Self imposed limitations 2. Limitation imposed by His nature (i.e God cannot do anything that doesn't agree with His nature) So, the answer is, yes, God can make people who resemble Him, animals who do not resemble Him, and gardens which do not resemble Him, fruit which do not resemble Him, and angels who do resemble Him. But none of these creations is the exact same replica of God in substance.The difference between type 2 and imperfect is presence or absence of sin. Adam was type 2 before he sinned. And Adam was the only type 2 that ever existed. Everyone born after him is imperfect. I know my heart wasn't right when I said those harsh words, that's why the apology. Thank you. Perhaps you got ICANT wrong. To me it looks like where ICANT picks up his argument from is: Gen 1: 31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good" I agree with him that God created a perfect world. Just, nothing that was in it was of same substance as His. Which necessitates varying degrees of perfection. And I already showed you the Apostle Paul's take on that. Rom 5Rom 5: Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.______________________________________________________Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : included last quote and responseEdited by Dr. Sing, : included Romans 5 for fear of getting "well, you've got to provide evidence form the Bible and not made up stuff, Zenmonkey?"