|
Author
|
Topic: Biblical contradictions II
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
Message 14 of 307 (46969)
07-22-2003 10:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Newborn
07-22-2003 4:54 PM
|
|
Newborn responds to me...I think...:
quote:
God had give them a law first.
So? How were they supposed to know this? They hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil yet and thus were incapable of understanding what a "law" was and why it would be important to follow it. And if someone else comes along and tells you that the person who gave you this "law," whatever that is, is lying, what do you do? How do you decide between them? What criteria do you use? It can't be because "god is good" becuase you don't know what "good" is.
quote:
Then they had responsability to obey God not the serpent.
Why? How on earth could they possibly know this? They hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus had no concept of things like duty and responsibility. I do not deny that the events of the story and the intent of god's statement to Adam and Eve. I am simply asking how on earth anybody could reasonably think that Adam and Eve would understand what was being asked of them given the precise fact that they were innocent having not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and thus ignorant of things like good and evil. Doesn't sin require deliberate action? How can one deliberately do evil if one doesn't know what evil is? Again, suppose you have a delicate Mhing vase that you don't want broken. Do you leave it on a wobbly pedestal next to a toddler? Even if you tell the toddler not to touch it? Do you really expect the toddler to understand? And when you find the vase in pieces, do you blame the toddler for doing what toddlers do or do you blame yourself for being stupid enough to think the toddler would keep away?
quote:
It is unfair for a supreme being to post a law after a less powerful entity(Satan in this case).
Excuse me? This sentence no verb. By the way...the serpent wasn't the devil. You will notice that god curses the serpent. If the serpent were the devil, then this would be the story of the fall of Lucifer and it isn't.
quote:
Without a law first and a temptation next sin could not exist.
No, temptation existed the moment god put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden next to two innocents who wouldn't know any better not to eat from the tree, even if told not to. How could they possibly understand the commandment not to eat from the tree? They hadn't eaten from the tree yet, so they didn't understand good and evil and thus couldn't understand things like duty and obligation and responsibility. They don't know what "good" is and thus don't understand that following god's commandments is a "good" thing and not following them is an "evil" thing. So if someone comes along and tells you that the other guy telling you not to do something is lying to you, how do you decide who is really lying? One of them is, but you have no capabilities of finding out. Suppose somebody tells you to do something because it is beetaratagang. Somebody else then comes along and tells you not to do it because it is clerendipity. Which do you choose? One of those will let you go to heaven while the other will damn you to hell. So which do you choose? Why do you hesitate? You're an intelligent person with free will, capable of making a choice. Come on! Which is it? Do you understand the point I am trying to make? You have no idea what beetaratagang and clerendipity mean. And yet, here I am trying to get you to choose between them. How on earth can you possibly make a choice between things you don't understand and be expected to understand your choice and take responsibility for that choice?
quote:
It dont makes sense to have a temptation before a law.
Then why did god tempt Adam and Eve with the Tree of Knowledge?
quote:
That is because the more powerful one can not be unfair.
Why not? God was certainly unfair when it came to Adam and Eve. He made them innocent and thus incapable of comprehending his commandments, tempted them, and then punished them for doing exactly what would be expected from people who don't understand the consequences of their actions. So where does this idea come from that god can't be unfair just because he is more powerful?
quote:
Oh,and Adam and Eve died but it was a spiritual death meaning they were doomed with the entire creation and loose their relationship with God .
That isn't what god says: Genesis 2:17: 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. Notice it is not a statement of spiritual death. It is a statement of physical death. It even gets repeated: Genesis 3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Again, not a spiritual death but a physical death. And look at what the serpent says: Genesis 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And sure enough, that's exactly what happens: Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: So it seems that the serpent was telling the truth and god was lying. Eating of the tree would not cause...not even a spiritual death. Instead, it would make one as the gods. Indeed, one only need to eat from the Tree of Life and the transformation would be complete. It seems god is scared of his creation, worried that his creation might rise up and supplant him. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Newborn, posted 07-22-2003 4:54 PM | | Newborn has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to Asgara:
quote:
Well it's quite simple to understand. Will they prefer what God says or will they be tempted.
Isn't temptation an evil act? Why are you asking us to follow the embodiment of evil?
quote:
It was a test man and woman failed, not God.
No, Adam and Eve were set up. A person who is incapable of understanding a choice cannot be held responsible for that choice. That's why minors are not allowed to enter into legal contracts: They aren't capable of understanding the consequences. Which one do you choose: Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One will send you to heaven while the other will condemn you to hell, so choose carefully. Come on! Why are you hesitating? You're an intelligent person capable of making a choice. Surely you know which one you're going to choose. So make it already! I should point out that hesitation is one of beetaratagang and clerendipity, too, so you should be careful about why you're hesitating. So which one will it be? Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote:
They didn't know good and evil but their hearts (the heart of man is desperately wicked)preffered temptation.
That's not what the Bible says. It says they were innocent: Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. They weren't doing this because they were wicked. They were doing this because they were innocent. They didn't know any better. They were set up by the evil god. What do you think is going to happen when you tempt an innocent? Eventually, the innocent is going to succumb precisely because of that innocence: The innocent doesn't know any better. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 7:55 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to Asgara:
quote:
Before sin there was NO death
So why was there the Tree of Life? Genesis 2:9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Remember, this happens before Eve is created. If there is no death, why is there a Tree of Life? Why is god worried that Adam and Eve might eat from the Tree of Life if they weren't going to die in the first place? Why tell Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2003 10:13 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz writes:
quote:
Every creationist will agree with me that 'death came through sin' before sin there was no death
That doesn't mean they're right.
quote:
God said they would know good and evil,
No, he didn't. He said they would die that very day. In fact, Eve is of the opinion that she would die if she even touched it: Genesis 3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. No, it wasn't god that said they would become as gods, knowing good and evil. It was the serpent: Genesis 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Genesis 3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. It was only after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, didn't die, and had their eyes opened to become as gods, knowing good and evil does god actually own up to the truth: Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: So "every creationist" can whine all he wants about how there was no death until after the fall, they're simply wrong. The Bible clearly indicates otherwise. Death was a part of the plan from the beginning and god lied to Adam and Eve.
quote:
so he would not say 'you will know good and evil' if they where going to die instantly.
But they didn't die instantly which is what he said would happen: Genesis 2:17: 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.
quote:
The FACT is that they were made whole, man and woman , they did not age or the would have also been young,
Where? Where does it say that? Nothing in the text says this. You're simply making it up.
quote:
but as God said if they ate of the tree they would die
Not just die. He said they would die that very day. They didn't. Turns out god was lying.
quote:
death was not planned by God,
So why the Tree of Life? Why does god panic that Adam and Eve, having just eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, might then eat from the Tree of Life and live forever? Why worry about Adam and Eve living forever if they weren't going to die? Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
quote:
remember they could listen to God's voice who they knew was boss
No, they didn't. They hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet. How could they possibly understand to follow god's words and not the serpents? Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One is the path to heaven while the other surely leads to hell. Which do you choose? Come on, why are you hesitating? You're an adult capable of making a choice. Which shall it be? Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote:
or satans
Satan had nothing to do with it. The serpent is not the devil: Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Notice that the serpent is considered to be full of wiles all on his own. But wait, there's more: Genesis 3:14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. If the serpent is the devil, how did he manage to escape this punishment of god's? Why curse all of serpentkind for the work of the devil?
quote:
they chose satan,
No, they simply blindly followed the serpent's path. As they were innocent, not having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet, they can't be held responsible for their actions, just like they weren't being held responsible for their nudity. Notice that the first thing they do after eating from the Tree of Knowledge is panic over being naked, not over eating from the Tree of Knowledge: Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Isn't temptation an evil act?
Yes God does not tempt, only satan,
Um, then what was up with putting the Tree of Knowledge in the middle of the garden with a couple of innocents who wouldn't know not to eat from it even if you put Rambo in front of it to protect it? If you have a delicate Mhing vase that you do not wish broken, do you put it on a wobbly pedestal in front of a toddler? Even if you tell the toddler not to touch? Or are you smart enough to realize that a toddler is innocent and doesn't understand the concept of "do not touch under any circumstances" and thus it is up to you to keep the vase away from the toddler. It isn't that the toddler means to break the vase...they just don't know any better. Adam and Eve were set up. And for the umpteenth time, the serpent is not the devil. Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Notice that it's the serpent, and not the devil. Genesis 3:14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. If the serpent is the devil, how did he manage to escape this punishment of god's? Why curse all of serpentkind for the work of the devil?
quote:
therefore we can conclude by your own logic the serpant was satan.
No, we can't. The serpent was telling the truth: If you eat from the Tree of Knowledge, you will not die but will become as gods, knowing good from evil. And that's precisely what happened: Genesis 3:6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And since it was god who put the Tree of Knowledge was in the garden in front of Adam and Eve who were innocent since they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet, it is god who was tempting them. Even without a serpent to explain to them that god is lying to them, they would have eventually eaten from it. Why? Because they're innocent. Temptation is the presentation of something that shouldn't be indulged. You can't be tempted by something that doesn't exist or you don't have access to. Since it is god who put the Tree of Knowledge in front of Adam and Eve, it is god who is tempting them. Oh, yes, the serpent tells them to eat from the Tree, too, but the serpent is telling the truth. God lies and says they'll die if they do. If the serpent is tempting them, god surely is, too. As I've asked you numerous times: Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Which is it? One is the way to heaven while the other leads to hell. So which one do you choose? You're an intelligent person, so which one do you choose? Why are you hesitating? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
Rhain I have covered all these points.
Only to repeat the same misquotations and then finish up with, "But all the creationists believe me." That isn't "covering" them. That's avoiding them.
quote:
the serpant is against God and therefore IS evil
How can telling the truth be evil? Isn't lying a sin? It's one of the commandments, after all: Thou shalt not bear false witness. And yet, god does it all the time.
quote:
otherwise the serpant would say 'do as God says'
But let's look at the actual exchange between the serpent and Eve: Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 3:2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 3:4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. It seems that serpent doesn't tell Eve to eat it. He simply asks what god has said. Eve responds that they can eat of every tree but the Tree of Knowledge and if they do eat from that tree, they'll die...even if they do so much as touch it. All the serpent tells them is that god is lying: You won't die...you'll just become as gods, knowing good and evil. Now tell me, where does the serpent say to Eve that she should eat? Does knowing that they won't die change the commandment from god not to eat from the tree? So why are we blaming the serpent? He didn't do anything except point out to Adam and Eve that god wasn't telling the truth.
quote:
God did not lie
He most certainly did. He told Adam: Genesis 2:17: 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. But "in the day that [they] eatest thereof," they did not "surely die." How is that not a lie?
quote:
there was no death or birth before sin
We've already covered how there was death before sin. Why the Tree of Life if there was no death? Why does god panic over Adam and Eve possibly eating from it? Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Obviously, there was death before sin. Now you're bringing in another lie. There was certainly birth before sin. God specifically uses that as the curse upon Eve: Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Notice that god does not say that Eve will be suddenly inflicted with the curse of having to bear children. Instead, he says that she will bring forth children in pain. She was always going to have children, but now she's going to suffer through it rather than the pleasant experience it was seemingly going to be had they not been subject to god's wrath.
quote:
as God took man from the dust and made him fully mature,
What does that have to do with anything? So what if Adam and Eve were made fully mature. How does that show they weren't going to have children?
quote:
nor did he age or die untill he ate from the tree.
Where does the Bible say this? I have been quoting the thing left and right and you have yet to provide a single verse. Please let us know where we can find this information of yours.
quote:
God did not tempt he strictly forbade them to eat of the tree
If he wasn't tempting them, why did he put the Tree in front of them? You can't be tempted by what doesn't exist. And the serpent does not tell Eve to eat from the tree. He simply points out that god wasn't telling the truth. This actually leads into my favorite responses to Pascal's Wager: What if the god in the Bible is actually the devil and the devil is god? What if the Bible is actually a test to see who will find the righteous path by using his own mind and judgement rather than following a silly book...especially one so full of contradictions and illogic. I mean really...the serpent tells the truth and he's the one that gets punished? He doesn't tell Eve to eat from the tree and this is somehow his fault? If we had seen this behaviour out of any human parent, we'd have him locked up for abuse. Why does god get let off the hook? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Even without a serpent to explain to them that god is lying to them, they would have eventually eaten from it
BUT the fact is that didn't happen so it is totally irrelevant
Not at all. If you know that your kids are going to screw up, do you deliberately put the thing they're going to screw up on right in front of them? If you have a Mhing vase you don't want broken, do you put it on a wobbly pedestal in front of a toddler? Even if you tell the toddler not to touch it? Or do you know that the toddler is innocent and won't break it out of malice but will eventually do so because he doesn't know any better? You can't be tempted by what isn't there. Why did god put the Tree of Knowledge in front of Adam and Eve if he didn't want them to eat from it? What was the point if not to test them with a temptation and see what they would do?
quote:
the fact is God gave an order and they did not follow.
But they couldn't be expected to follow it because they didn't understand it not having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet. As I have asked you many times: Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Which do you choose? One leads to heaven, the other to hell. You're an intelligent person capable of making a choice, so which one do you choose? Why are you hesitating?
quote:
JUST like the serpant who WAS AGAINST GOD for the hundreth time!
But the serpent wasn't against god. The serpent was telling the truth. The serpent did not tell Eve to eat from the tree. The serpent simply points out that god wasn't telling the truth when he said that they would die. And the serpent was right: They didn't die but rather became as gods.
quote:
quote:
Um, then what was up with putting the Tree of Knowledge in the middle of the garden with a couple of innocents
You see you questio Gods righteoussness with your own thinking you are right
Of course. I am as a god, knowing good from evil. That's the point behind eating from the Tree of Knowledge, after all: Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: So of course I have every right to question god's righteousness. That is my legacy from Adam and Eve: Knowledge of good and evil.
quote:
questioning God's will like the serpant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a debating hint: If you feel the need to put a bunch of exclamation points after your point, it isn't really a legitimate point. But the serpent didn't question god. He simply told the truth.
quote:
quote:
The serpent was telling the truth: If you eat from the Tree of Knowledge, you will not die but will become as gods, knowing good from evil.
Why did the serpant even interfere?
Who knows? The Bible doesn't say. Perhaps it was because lying is a sin and the serpent saw god sinning in his lie to Adam and Eve. He doesn't tell Eve to eat from the Tree...he simply points out that god is lying in saying they will immediately die.
quote:
was he favouring what God said?
One should support a lie? Isn't lying a sin? Thou shalt not bear false witness. Or is lying for Jesus not a sin?
quote:
you obviously even believe in a serpant before the will of God so how can you be righteouss in your comments?
Because I am as the gods, knowing good from evil. That is my legacy from Adam and Eve who ate from the Tree of Knowledge. You will note that I have not questioned god's desire not to have Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge. I am simply questioning his methodology and reaction. If god didn't want them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, then he shouldn't have put it where they could get at it. You don't put things you don't want touched in the grasp of people who don't understand that they're not supposed to touch it. Adam and Eve were innocent. No matter how many times you tell them not to touch it, they don't understand that because that's a question of good and evil and they hadn't eaten from the Tree yet. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
You know what Rhain you obviously are extremely biased against God,
Let me see if I understand your logic correctly...because I disagree with your opinion, that means I'm against god? Who died and made you god? Why don't we let god be the judge of who is against him and who is for him, shall we?
quote:
you qoute his words but understand them not.
': And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:' But God said they would die so the serpant was lying against God!
But the serpent was right! They didn't die! How could the serpent be "lying against god" when what the serpent said would happen was what actually happened? God said they would die that very day and they didn't. The serpent said they would become as gods knowing good from evil and they did.
quote:
quote:
We've already covered how there was death before sin.
ABSOLUTE RUBBISH name who died before the tree?
Doesn't matter. I don't need to show you a dead body in order to show that death was a possibility. I only need to show that death was a possiblity and for that, I point to the Tree of Life. What was the point of the Tree of Life if they were going to live forever anyway? And notice that god panics when Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge: Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Why worry about Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Life if they weren't going to die?
quote:
quote:
the serpent tells the truth and he's the one that gets punished?
Again simple misunderstanding, the serpant DOES lie he says they wont die
And they don't. God said they would die that very day: Genesis 2:17: 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. But they don't. Therefore, god was lying when he said they would die that very day.
quote:
but they aged and died and eventually people lived shorter and shorter lives.
But god doesn't say they would "age and die eventually." He says they would die that very day.
quote:
Also the serpant directly tempted them by going against the creator,
No, he didn't. He didn't tell Eve to eat from the Tree. He simply pointed out that god's claim that they would die that very day was a lie. Instead, they would just become as gods, knowing good from evil. And that's precisely correct.
quote:
and if I'm wrong who died before the tree ? who?who Rhain?
Who cares? It doesn't matter. If I set up a system that includes the concept of death but lets things live for many years, how does the fact that nobody has died by day 5 indicate there is no death? Just because nobody has managed to die yet doesn't mean there is no death. It simply means that nobody has managed to die yet. I don't need to show you a body in order to show you that death was a part of god's system. I simply need to show you how god expected them to die and for that, I point out the Tree of Life. What is the point of the Tree of Life if Adam and Eve weren't going to die? Why does god panic over them eating of the Tree of Life if they weren't going to die?
quote:
quote:
What if the god in the Bible is actually the devil
what a foolish statement.
Only because you don't like it. You are using the Bible to justify itself. How do you know that the Bible wasn't left as a tool of the devil to corrupt you? Wouldn't that be the ultimate coup? Convince people that they're doing good when they're really doing evil?
quote:
God has explained the nature of self righteoussness and guess who qualifies?
Everybody. Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge and became as gods, knowing good from evil. All their children have inherited this legacy. Where do I get off questioning god? I get it because I am as god. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
can the same be said for you,can you admitt you could be wrong
Of course. All you have to do is show me where in the Bible the serpent told Eve to eat from the tree. All you have to do is show me where in the Bible it says there was no death before the fall. All you have to do is show me where in the Bible it says that god really meant a "spiritual death" instead of the physical death it seems to so clearly indicate. All you have to do is show me how somebody who doesn't know the difference between good and evil is capable of making a choice between good and evil. There are lots of ways you can prove me wrong. And I do not subscribe to your deconstructionist/post-modern/"liberal" attitude that just because you think something is true, then you have a valid opinion that needs to be treated just as seriously and considered correct as every other opinion.
quote:
I said about self righteoussness could be right?
But the Bible says we are as gods, knowing good from evil. So why are you upset over me using the abilities I have?
quote:
how can I trust your interpretations of the bible.
Because I am actually quoting the Bible. In this entire exchange, you haven't quoted it at all.
quote:
God says those who are of the truth hear his words, you have ignored my poiints
You aren't god, though. If the Bible truly is the word of god, why should I listen to you when everything you claim is directly contradicted by the actual text of the Bible? Shouldn't I pay attention to the Bible? The Bible doesn't say what you claim it says. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Let me see if I understand your logic correctly...because I disagree with your opinion, that means I'm against god? Who died and made you god? Why don't we let god be the judge of who is against him and who is for him, shall we?
No but how can you not be gainst him when you say he could be the devil.
Hint: Just because you think the character listed in the Bible as god really is god doesn't mean it actually is. You seem to have confused the character in the bible for the actual god that exists.
quote:
Are you so up your own but that you think you are even defending God?
Yep. Again, just because the Bible claims to be describing god doesn't mean it actually is. Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but the Bible is wrong about it?
quote:
If you are defending him you would not say he could be the devil!
No, I'm not saying god is the devil. I'm saying the character described in the Bible as god is actually the devil and the character described as the devil in the Bible is actually god. That is, what if the Bible is actually a work of the devil who is trying to pass himself off as god? Wouldn't that be a wonderful coup? Think of the souls he could corrput by making them think they were following the path to heaven when they were really going straight to hell! In short, you're confusing a book with god. What makes you think god had anything to do with the book? The book said so? Wouldn't you expect someone who was trying to fool you with a book to say exactly that? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 10:31 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Shouldn't I pay attention to the Bible? The Bible doesn't say what you claim it says.
I claim it is the word of God you claim it could be satan.
Indeed. I also claim it could be the work of some deluded people. It could be a lot of things. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't know. We cannot use the Bible to justify its own existence. But notice what you have done: When I asked you shouldn't I pay attention to the Bible, you told me to pay attention to you. So I guess that's your answer: No, don't pay attention to the Bible. Instead, pay attention to you. The Bible isn't the word of god, you are. You are the active mouth of god. You have the direct pipeline.
quote:
Where does it say God is Satan.
It doesn't. That's the point. If the devil were trying to trick you into thinking he's god, he's not going to tell you outright. "I'm not god, but I play him on TV." Yeah, right. You're missing the point, mike. Obviously the Bible doesn't say it, but we can't use the Bible's claim that it is the word of god as evidence that it is. The devil would be just as likely to claim that his work is the word of god as god would. So since both god and the devil would say they are god, we cannot take their words for it. We have to find some other means of figuring it out. Remember that old riddle where you are presented with two people, one who always lies and the other who always tells the truth. You have one yes-or-no question with which to figure out which is which. Well, asking, "Are you the truth-teller?" doesn't work. The truth-teller will answer yes as will the liar. Asking, "Are you the liar?" doesn't work, either, because both will say no. You have to find something else in order to figure it out.
quote:
I even said I could be wrong but still you don't admitt your view of the text could be wrong.
Incorrect. I gave you a host of ways for you to show me wrong. Weren't you paying attention? This from the very message you were quoting ( Message 50):
can the same be said for you,can you admitt you could be wrong Of course. All you have to do is show me where in the Bible the serpent told Eve to eat from the tree. All you have to do is show me where in the Bible it says there was no death before the fall. All you have to do is show me where in the Bible it says that god really meant a "spiritual death" instead of the physical death it seems to so clearly indicate. All you have to do is show me how somebody who doesn't know the difference between good and evil is capable of making a choice between good and evil. There are lots of ways you can prove me wrong. And I do not subscribe to your deconstructionist/post-modern/"liberal" attitude that just because you think something is true, then you have a valid opinion that needs to be treated just as seriously and considered correct as every other opinion. So there you go. You now know what it takes for me to admit I'm wrong. Of course I can be wrong, but it's going to take more than just your say so in order for me to do so. You have to show me wrong. If you want me to admit that I was mistaken, you have to come up with evidence that indicates that I was. I have been quoting Genesis left and right showing you what it actually says. Where is the counter-argument showing that those passages really don't say what they so plainly do say?
quote:
I am shocked , I don't think you even listened.
Considering that I gave you a paragraph of things that you could do that would make me admit I am wrong, I wonder if you even read my response before hitting the reply button. You did read my response, didn't you?
quote:
As for qouting text, I remember text as I have always had this ability only with the bible though.
Irrelevant. I can't read your mind. What I need is not what you think the Bible says. I need to see what it actually says. I have shown you the actual text. You need to show me where the error lies. Your say so is not sufficient.
quote:
I f I say something slightly off then I apologise, like when I admitted it earlier on in this topic.
But it's more than that. You're claiming "there was no death until sin" but there is nothing in the text that comes even close to saying that and many things that indicate the exact opposite. What is the point of the Tree of Life if Adam and Eve were never going to die? Why does god panic that they might eat from the Tree of Life if they were never going to die? You then claimed that "there was no birth until sin" and I showed you the text that shows the exact opposite. God's curse on Eve is not pregnancy. It's labor. Before she sinned, she would have had no pain in delivering children. Now she's going to suffer.
quote:
quote:
You aren't god, though. If the Bible truly is the word of god, why should I listen to you
AGAIN I have already said we should agree to disagree I am not forcing my opinion on you I am simply saying I will trust my interpratation as you have even failed to understand my words.
No, I've understood them very well: You don't care what the Bible says. You have a direct line to god and screw anybody who points out that your claims do not jibe with the Bible which you also claim is the word of god. They can't both be right, so you have done an amazing job of ignoring the Bible when it is convenient for you. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 10:39 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2003 2:32 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
mike the wiz responds to Asgara:
quote:
How many times do I have to say 'I could be wrong' I havent added that much
But mike, you don't get to add anything at all! That's the entire point. If I'm giving you my address of 123 Main Street, you don't get to add an extra digit to that address. My address is in a specific spot with a specific identification and you do not get to add anything to it.
quote:
do you agree it does in no way (genesis) suggests God is satan?
You're completely misunderstanding the point, mike. Of course the Bible does not say that "god is really the devil." What I am saying that the devil, in an attempt to corrupt the souls of innocents such as yourself, could quite possibly have written a book wherein he calls himself god and calls god the devil. This book would never say that this deception was taking place because that would ruin the point of its existence. Are you sure that the character named "Jehovah" that is described in the Bible is the actual god that truly exists? What justification do you have that the character called "Jehovah" is the actual god? Because the Bible says so? Well, if the Bible were written by the devil, wouldn't you expect it to lie about that point?
quote:
you agree with each other that God is a liar and could be satan and believe in serpants over the creator.
Logical error: Compound question. Whether or not god is a liar has nothing to do with whether or not the character referred to as "Jehovah" in the Bible is the devil. The character called "Jehovah" in the Bible could really be god and could also still be a liar. The Bible directly states that god does lie (1 Kings 22:23, 2 Corinthians 18:22, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11). So to find god lying in Genesis is not that much of a shock. The question of whether or not the character called "Jehovah" in the Bible really is god is completely separate. I am simply asking you to consider the possibility that the Bible is not what it appears to be, was not written by people inspired by god but was actually inspired by the devil. What would you expect out of such a book? One thing you might expect is a reversal of roles...you'd call the god that actually exists the devil and make the devil out to be god. You wouldn't state this directly because that would give it away. If the devil is going to be impersonating god, it wouldn't do to tell everybody that he's doing it. That'd spoil the surprise when they die and find out that they were really following the devil. Suppose I'm trying to impersonate you to your boss. I go to the trouble of getting a wig to match your hair, prosthetics to match your face, clothing that you tend to wear, work on my gait so that I can walk the way you do, months of practice on the voice to get it just right.... Do I then go up to your boss and immediately tell him I'm not you? Of course not! I'm trying to make him think that I'm you so I do everything in my power to keep him thinking I am you. I call myself by your name, I make sure everybody else refers to me by your name. And if the Bible is to be believed, then we must necessarily believe the serpent (it's "serp[i][b]E[/i][/b]nt" with an "e") over god because the serpent was the one telling the truth. God said Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate of the Tree of Knowledge. The serpent said they would just become as gods, knowing good and evil. Well, Adam and Eve didn't die on the day they ate of the Tree of Knowledge but rather became as gods, knowing good and evil. So it turns out the serpent was right and god was wrong. If we assume that god knew what would really happen, then we are left to conclude that god lied to Adam and Eve. He may have had what he thought were good reasons (since Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge yet, they wouldn't understand the concept of duty, obligation, obedience, etc., and thus "Because I said so" would be ineffective, so he gave them something he hoped they could work with: You'll die if you do.) However, the fact remains that the actual consequences of eating from the Tree of Knowledge were not as god said but as the serpent said.
quote:
but genesis is not about a righteouss serpant as the serpant is quite clearly the bad guy.
How? He didn't tell Eve to eat from the tree. Show me where the serpent tells Eve to eat from the tree. All the serpent says is that they won't die if they eat from it. How is someone who tells the truth the bad guy?
quote:
Where does it say the serpant is with God or good,
It doesn't. But it also doesn't say the serpent is against god, either, so why assume it? You added that last part. Now what did we just point out about adding things?
quote:
did not God punish the serpant for it's evil?
No, god punished it not because it was evil. God punished it because it told the truth. But again, how is someone who tells the truth the bad guy? Lying isn't a sin anymore?
quote:
are you saying the bible is suggestin the serpant is righteouss and above God?
Of course the Bible is trying to make the serpent out to be the bad guy, but I'm asking you to use that knowledge of good and evil you were born with to actually look at the story and decide for yourself. Suppose you have a delicate Mhing vase you don't wish to have broken. If you put it on a wobbly pededstal and then put your toddler in the same room telling your infant "Don't touch!" do you really expect the toddler is going to stay away? And when you do hear the inevitable crash and cry, do you kick your child out of the house to fend for itself? Do you curse the pedestal for not being strong enough? Or do you blame yourself for being stupid enough to put a delicate object next to an innocent child who doesn't know any better? Once again, I am asking you: Where in the story does the serpent tell Eve to eat of the tree? All the serpent tells Eve is the truth: You won't die. You'll just become as gods knowing good and evil. Now tell me...how does that override god's commandment not to eat from the tree? Just because the consequences aren't what god said they would be, why does that mean god won't be upset if you do? Eve could just as easily have said that to the serpent. Why didn't she respond with, "Oh...but still: God said don't eat it, so I won't." There's a very simple reason why she didn't: She was innocent. She hadn't eaten from the tree yet and thus she didn't know the difference between good and evil just like you don't know the difference between beetaratagang and clerendipity. The concepts of obedience and duty and responsibility and obligation are all part of the knowledge of good and evil that Eve did not have since she hadn't eaten from the tree yet. Therefore, how could she possibly say no? How could she be held responsible for not saying no?
quote:
I don't think any one with common sense thinks that.
I know lots of people who think that. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 10:49 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 128 of 307 (47818)
07-29-2003 2:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by John
07-24-2003 9:56 AM
|
|
John responds to me:
quote:
quote:
As I have asked you many times: Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
Lol... indeed! Now, let me think....
Just some context, somewhat off topic: I get these two words from an acting excercise in my intro acting class. In a scene, the characters want something...the "objective." These objectives can be mundane such as getting the other person to pick up a piece of paper or deep such as getting the other person to fall in love. To achieve these objective, the actor employs "tactics" which tend to fall into two categories: The positive, inclusive, friendly, nice type and the negative, exclusive, unfriendly, mean type. For example, if I want you to pick up the letter and read it, I might try to make you think that there is some wonderful news inside it that you simply must read immediately. Or, I might be forceful, snatch the letter, back you into a corner, and shove the letter in your face. In order to explore the tactics, it can help to have a scene where you know what the goal is but you are not constrained by the text. Thus, you only have two words that you can use: Beetaratagang and clerendipity. One of them (I won't say which) is a positive tactic. The other is a negative tactic. You end up exploring tone of voice, physical positioning, timing of speech, etc. Thus, we can see why Adam and Eve have a hard time. Even if they know the point behind the two words, they don't know what the words mean individually, so how can they possibly make an informed choice? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by John, posted 07-24-2003 9:56 AM | | John has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
truthlover writes:
quote:
The thing about the serpent being satan was brought up several times. Christians believe the serpent was satan because the Bible says so twice in Revelation (12:9 and 20:2),
Um, not quite: Revelation 12:9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 20:2: And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, The phrase, "that old serpent," is referring to the dragon. Dragons, being reptiles, are often poetically called serpents. It is not a reference to the serpent in the garden of Eden. Again, it is apparent that the serpent in the garden of Eden is not the devil since god curses the serpent, talking about how humans will always hate snakes forever more. "Dust you shall eat," and all that. How can you do that to a supernatural being? No, that's what you do to a biological being like any of the other animals. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by truthlover, posted 07-24-2003 12:15 PM | | truthlover has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Re: God lied?
Theologian63 writes:
quote:
God CANNOT lie.
That isn't what the Bible says. 1 Kings 22:23: Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 2 Chronicles 18:22: Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. Jeremiah 20:7: O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Ezekiel 14:9: And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. 2 Thessalonians 2:11: For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by Theologian63, posted 07-24-2003 2:03 PM | | Theologian63 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2