Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 169 (701978)
06-28-2013 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
06-28-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Original Sin?
My example was concerning the person being able to stay on my ranch in the house on the ranch with everything they needed supplied by me. Their entire family could have been present, husband, wife, 10 kids, 2 dogs and 3 cats. The restrictions would have still applied, but the only one that would have breached the contract would have been the one I made the deal with.
But when I expelled them from my ranch my question was, would any of that persons descendants have a right to live on my ranch?
Regardless of any "rights" they have, your actions make you an asshole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2013 12:35 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 169 (701980)
06-28-2013 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
06-28-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Original Sin?
No contract was possible between God and Adam or God and Eve in the fable recounted in Genesis 2. To even think a contract was possible is absurd.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2013 12:35 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 169 (701982)
06-28-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
06-28-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Original Sin?
ICANT writes:
If a man has sex with a woman who produces a child that he is the father of and he goes his way never seeing the child or providing for the child, does the child suffer loss because of the actions of the father?
No. The child can't lose what it never had.
ICANT writes:
That is the same way mankind suffers loss due to the transgression of the perfect man formed from the dust of the ground.
Exactly. We suffer no loss at all.
(And by your analogy God is a deadbeat father. There is no "transgression" on the part of the abandoned child.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2013 12:35 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 79 of 169 (701995)
06-28-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
06-28-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Original Sin?
Ok so Genesis 1 God creates "Mankind" they do not eat from the tree of knowledge. Genesis 2 God creates Adam and then creates a women from Adam who Adam names Eve. Correct?
It is the Genesis 2 Adam and Eve who eat the forbidden fruit and who you say die instantly? I'm still following you right?
If that is the case then how can Adam and Eve be in Genesis 5 to sire Cain, Able, Seth and all the other offspring? Also, how is it that the Genesis 1 "Mankind" are suffering from the consequences of Genesis 2's Adam. Who is supposedly dead even though it talks about his offspring in Genesis 4 and 5? God says nothing to the Genesis 2 Adam about sin entering the world or a seperation from God for all of the Genesis 1 "Mankind". Only that when you eat from it you will certainly die.
Let's look at your example again
ICANT writes:
I have a ranch that has a beautiful 5 bedroom house on it. I invite you to come to live on my ranch. Everything is supplied for you and all you have to do is look after my ranch. But there is one stipulation to the deal. There is one of the bedrooms that has a sign on the door stating if you open this door you will be expelled from the ranch.
You enjoy the ranch but one day you look at that door and the curiosity gets the best of you and you just have to open the door that you were forbidden to open. When you open the door you see a beautiful room so you close the door. You think no one will ever know you opened that door.
But about an hour later a big moving van pulls up to the front of the house and several men come in and take all your belongings and put them in the van. They order you into the van and take you and your belongings to the entrance to the ranch unloads all your stuff and tells you are on your own.
Do you or any of your descendants have any right to come live on my ranch?
The only way you are any of your descendants would ever be able to live on my ranch would be if I made a deal with you or your descendants.
What I was trying to explain is that your analogy is not synonymous with the two Genesis tales. If it was you would need 2 people. One who comes first who doesn't live in the house and no instructions are given to and the second who comes later and are told not to open a certain room or else he will die. Now curiousity gets the better of the second person. He opens the room and when the transgression is found out they are instead expelled instead of killed and who go on to live a full life with many kids for hundreds of years. The first person though has no chance now of being able to go to the house nor are any of his descendants able to go to the house because the second person broke a rule.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2013 12:35 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2013 7:53 PM rueh has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 80 of 169 (702011)
06-28-2013 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by rueh
06-28-2013 4:24 PM


Re: Original Sin?
Hi rueh,
rueh writes:
Ok so Genesis 1 God creates "Mankind" they do not eat from the tree of knowledge.
Yes god created 'mankind' in His image/likeness in Genesis 1:27.
Concerning what they could eat the text says:
quote:
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
This mankind was never placed in a garden to dress and keep it.
There is no mention of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It did not exist at this time.
There was no fruit that was forbidden.
rueh writes:
Genesis 2 God creates Adam and then creates a women from Adam who Adam names Eve. Correct?
This man was not created. He was formed from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".
The woman was cloned from a rib of the man. Genesis 2:22 "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man".
Neither was created, they were made.
The man called the woman Eve.
The translators gave the man the name of Adm as they transliterated the Hebrew word for man. They had to use the vowels provided in the Masoretic text of 915 AD to get Adam.
rueh writes:
It is the Genesis 2 Adam and Eve who eat the forbidden fruit and who you say die instantly? I'm still following you right?
I said they died the same day they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. No place did I say they died instantly.
I conclude they died the same day they ate the fruit as they did not exist in Genesis 1:2 where there is evening bringing on night which ended with the following morning that God declared 'day one' in Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day".
First does not appear in the Hebrew text but the numeral one does and the text should have been translated 'day one'.
Therefore they did not exist on the second day.
rueh writes:
If that is the case then how can Adam and Eve be in Genesis 5 to sire Cain, Able, Seth and all the other offspring?
You are under the assumption that the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and woman made from the rib of that man in Genesis 2:22 are one and the same as the mankind created in the image/likeness of God on the sixth day in Genesis 1:27.
They can not be the same as the people in chapter 2 was made in the day the LORD GOD created the heavens and the earth. Gen. 2:4
The mankind in Genesis 1:27 was created, on the sixth day.
So the mankind in Genesis 5:1 is are the mankind created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.
quote:
5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
rueh writes:
Also, how is it that the Genesis 1 "Mankind" are suffering from the consequences of Genesis 2's Adam.
Had the man not eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would still be in the garden walking and talking with God. But since he did eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the entire universe and everything in it was separated from God and under the penalty of death.
rueh writes:
Who is supposedly dead even though it talks about his offspring in Genesis 4 and 5?
Yes it talks about the children of the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis chapter 4.
But the generations beginning in Genesis 5:1 are of the mankind that was created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 not the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7.
rueh writes:
God says nothing to the Genesis 2 Adam about sin entering the world or a seperation from God for all of the Genesis 1 "Mankind". Only that when you eat from it you will certainly die.
I was beginning to think you could not understand what you was reading. But with this observation you have just been toying with me.
You are correct that God told the man the day he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die. He died that same day, as did all his children. None of them existed at Genesis 1:2 which was the evening of 'DAY ONE'.
Paul tells us in Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned":
'Have sinned' should have been translated ' to be without a share in'.
Which is referring to the atonement mentioned in verse 11.
rueh writes:
What I was trying to explain is that your analogy is not synonymous with the two Genesis tales. If it was you would need 2 people. One who comes first who doesn't live in the house and no instructions are given to and the second who comes later and are told not to open a certain room or else he will die. Now curiousity gets the better of the second person. He opens the room and when the transgression is found out they are instead expelled instead of killed and who go on to live a full life with many kids for hundreds of years. The first person though has no chance now of being able to go to the house nor are any of his descendants able to go to the house because the second person broke a rule.
My analogy was not meant to be synonymous with the two Genesis tales, and was not presented as such.
My question qualified what my purpose was.
In Message 69 I asked:
quote:
Do you or any of your descendants have any right to come live on my ranch?
So if I had made you the offer instead of Faith would you or your descendants have any rights to come and live on my ranch?
The same would apply to the man formed from the dust of the ground or any mankind that existed after he died. Why would any mankind have a right to dwell in Gods paradise unless He personally extended an invitation to them?
Which he did do. He extends an invitation to any person who will accept His offer of eternal life.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by rueh, posted 06-28-2013 4:24 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by rueh, posted 07-01-2013 9:45 AM ICANT has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 81 of 169 (702019)
06-28-2013 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by ICANT
06-28-2013 2:01 AM


Re: ICANT
Yeah, I'm intimately familiar with your little chimera.
But I want so much more, brother. I want to see Faith's spiritual death and St. Peter's Thousand Year Day and maybe even Lucifer's Flood, getting the walkabout they deserve. None of that seems likely to happen now, it's all you. And that makes me sad.
Seeing as how we are still at it though
Genesis 4:25, 26 writes:
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.
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
go ahead and give your explanation
Genesis 5:3, 6 writes:
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: ...
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
of what's up with these genealogies. Yeah?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2013 2:01 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 06-29-2013 11:11 AM Iblis has not replied
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 06-30-2013 6:10 PM Iblis has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 82 of 169 (702035)
06-29-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Iblis
06-28-2013 10:52 PM


Re: ICANT
Hi Iblis,
Iblis writes:
Yeah, I'm intimately familiar with your little chimera.
In Message 249 you stated:
quote:
One of us has missed something, and I don't think it's me. He is specifically not trying to fit 2ff into day 6. That is the normal fundie position, it is for example what Peg is trying to do. ICANT has recognized the problems with this, and instead is trying to fit 2:4-4:24 into the gap between 1:1 and 1:2, call it day 0.
Where have I ever placed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?
Where have I ever called anything day 0?
You must be confusing me with someone else.
I believe Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:24 took place the same day that God created the heavens and the earth.
quote:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
This verse claims that the following history (generations) are the history of the day the heavens and the earth was created.
This day ended with the evening found at Genesis 1:2 as God declared that day plus the following night that ended with the following morning as 'DAY ONE'. That means there was no day prior to the day the heavens and the earth was created.
God's definition of a day.
quote:
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
God defined the light period as Day.
God defined the dark period as Night.
God defined the light period and the dark period as Day.
So I have the universe, earth and everything that was created or made beginning to exist in 6 light periods and 6 dark periods which combined make 6 days, in which everything began to exist.
As to Peter's thousand year day where do you find that in the Bible?
Are you getting that from the following text?
quote:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
That does not say a day is a thousand years long.
It does say that "one day is with the Lord AS a thousand years". In other words Peter says God is not concerned with time as He is not affected by time. God is eternal. Time is a concept of mankind that God provided the tools for mankind to figure out a measurement of duration in eternity. The earth revolves on its axis in relation to the sun in a duration that mankind has divided up into hours, minutes, seconds and smaller divisions to measure that duration.
Iblis writes:
Genesis 4:25, 26 writes:
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.
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
go ahead and give your explanation
I believe Genesis 4:25 and 26 was added by someone who was trying to make one creation story out of Genesis 1:2-2:3 and the story in Genesis 2:4-4:24.
But lets put that aside an say that totally out of place statement existed in the original text.
Cain has great, great, great grandchildren alive at the time the statement is made in Genesis 4:25.
The city of Enoch has been built. Genesis 4:17
Lamech is fearful of his life being taken and he is responsible for the second death recorded in Genesis 2:4 - 4:24
Since all this took place in the day God created the heavens and the earth none of these people are alive at the evening found in Genesis 1:2.
Therefore if there was a Seth born to the man formed from the dust of the ground and the woman he called Eve he is not the Seth mentioned in Genesis 5:3.
The man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 did not have a son named Cain or Abel as they are not listed in his generations listed in Genesis chapter 5.
Iblis writes:
Genesis 5:3, 6 writes:
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: ...
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
of what's up with these genealogies. Yeah?
There is nothing wrong with the genealogies.
The genealogy listed in Genesis 5:1-32 is the history of the children of the man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.
The genealogy of the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 begins at Genesis 4:1 and ends at Genesis 4:22.
If after 7 generations of people were born cities built the man formed from the dust of the ground had another son he would have been around 170 years old but no one has any age ascribed to them in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26.
There are only 2 deaths recorded, that of Abel and the young man Lamech killed.
Yet none of these people existed on the second day. If fact they did not exist on the earth in Genesis 1:2 for to do so they would have to have been fish.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Iblis, posted 06-28-2013 10:52 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 83 of 169 (702060)
06-29-2013 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Greatest I am
05-31-2013 1:09 PM


Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Well, the proof is in the pudding, isn't it.
Do the people who responded in this thread, with defenses of the deicide doctrine, turn out to be egomaniacs or not?
I know I'm an arrogant piece of shit, and I only "believe" for purposes of philosophical modeling.
How about Icant? Anything grand about those, delusions?
How about Faith? Seem like there's no way that neck should be capable of holding up, that head?
Chime in, everyone. Did those who think, god died for them, turn out to be, e go tist i cal ???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Greatest I am, posted 05-31-2013 1:09 PM Greatest I am has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 84 of 169 (702062)
06-30-2013 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by onifre
06-26-2013 1:17 PM


Re: The first to see Jesus after He'd risen
Oni writes:
There is nothing special about the way YOU read the scriptures and the way I do. Just because you fallaciously put the cart before the horse doesn't mean the rest of us are going to.
The reason that you argue this way is because you by nature hate the idea of God.
Let me ask you something...Why did "they" hate Stephen?
Acts 6:5-8:2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by onifre, posted 06-26-2013 1:17 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 06-30-2013 8:34 AM Phat has replied
 Message 91 by Theodoric, posted 06-30-2013 8:54 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 85 of 169 (702065)
06-30-2013 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Phat
06-30-2013 2:28 AM


Let's go get stoned.
I'm not sure hate is the right word. They stoned Stephen because he was a blasphemer.
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 06-30-2013 2:28 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 06-30-2013 3:57 PM jar has replied
 Message 100 by foreveryoung, posted 07-01-2013 7:54 PM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 86 of 169 (702071)
06-30-2013 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
06-30-2013 8:34 AM


Re: Let's go get stoned.
Yet Stephen was telling the truth. The Jews couldn't handle the truth. Have you ever actually read the bible, jar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 06-30-2013 8:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 06-30-2013 4:17 PM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 169 (702074)
06-30-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
06-30-2013 3:57 PM


Re: Let's go get stoned.
Stephen was a character in a story. The writer is telling propaganda, marketing a new product but without acknowledging it really was a new product.
Truth had nothing to do with the reality.
The Bible is not about Truth, rather it is about marketing a new religion while coopting the older religion.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 06-30-2013 3:57 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 06-30-2013 5:50 PM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 88 of 169 (702075)
06-30-2013 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
06-30-2013 4:17 PM


Saint Stephen versus the Ain't Listening Bunch.
Did you mean to say "corrupting?
If so, Israel itself was foreknown to become corrupted. They rejected the Messiah that had come for them.
Truth had nothing to do with reality.
Truth was rejected in favor of the reality that humans chose. The same stubborn nature that was in the men who stoned Stephen is in the minds and hearts of many self proclaimed intellectuals to this day. Reject the truth and embrace reality as you determine it. Sad mistake.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 06-30-2013 4:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 06-30-2013 7:38 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 89 of 169 (702076)
06-30-2013 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Iblis
06-28-2013 10:52 PM


Re: ICANT
Iblis writes:
I want so much more, brother. I want to see Faith's spiritual death and St. Peter's Thousand Year Day and maybe even Lucifer's Flood, getting the walkabout they deserve. None of that seems likely to happen now, it's all you. And that makes me sad.
What is it...really...that you want to see? I think that in all reality you have your mind made up. I could be wrong though---enlighten me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Iblis, posted 06-28-2013 10:52 PM Iblis has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 169 (702079)
06-30-2013 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Phat
06-30-2013 5:50 PM


Re: Saint Stephen versus the Ain't Listening Bunch.
Did I use the word "corrupting"?
Jesus did not and does not meet any of the criteria for the Jewish messiah.
Phat writes:
Truth was rejected in favor of the reality that humans chose. The same stubborn nature that was in the men who stoned Stephen is in the minds and hearts of many self proclaimed intellectuals to this day. Reject the truth and embrace reality as you determine it. Sad mistake.
So you say. From the some Christian marketing position I assume. But like Jesus, the audience were not Christians but Jews.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 06-30-2013 5:50 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024