Posted: 2017-09-11 10:55
Caleb, are you saying that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed there merely to tempt Adam and Eve but to have them remain in total ignorance. Considering that God must have known that they would eat of that very tree, don 8767 t you wonder why He put that tree there to begin with. Was it pure godly cynicism?
Of course had they not eaten of that tree you about I would not have the ability to engage in this discussion about a mythical God and a Heavem and Hell that do not exist!
Interpretations are always necessary, simply because our thought processes do not work the same way.
I have found some very interesting posts from Caleb, Carlos and Martin, inter alia. You may want to read or re-read some instead of my pasting them here.
One important thing to remenber is that the Bible is a compilation of stories. It is filled with myths and that makes it unbridled acceptance as factual quite dangerous. I found this statement by Carlos to be of great significance:
8775 Religion is a deadly poison that damages intelligence and clear thinking and is especially harmful when instilled in little children. 8776
Having said that, I don 8767 t believe that the faithful, regardless of their preferred religion will ever veer from their firm belief in favour of ligic or scientific truth, because Faith will always be stronger than Truth.
What knowledge does one religious seek? To be God? To do Godly works? Power of sorts? Since man feels knowledge is Power. Why? It 8767 s been given, why not just enjoy, give, be, not become? The search is doubt itself. Thou no one 8767 s speaking of God 8767 s Adversary! He 8767 s laughing as we debate each other. People don 8767 t speak of his actions of darkness in society leading us down the pit fall. All of us need to stop this religion bashing, He 8767 s Winning! I love you all, no matter what who where, you are. Love me, and we 8767 re Good. Xoxoxo
Once again, you assert that I am cherry-picking. AiG has credentials, you just don 8767 t like that they find the view to fit better. I 8767 d rather go listen to people who have a good reason to believe that their conclusions are reliable (or even /testable\), and at least try, than to someone who has to be inconsistent.
I say that you are arguing for the sake of arguing because your very world-view makes knowledge impossible, and yet you still argue from it over something that makes perfect sense within the context. That definitively is arguing for the love of argument.
Virgin can mean 8775 maiden 8776 . Worldwide flood can mean 8775 known world 8776 8775 I am the way 8776 could mean 8775 I am (one of) the ways 8776 Who knows what is true in the bible if words are used so loosely. 8775 Yom 8776 (day) is stated to mean 79 hr day by the YEC 8767 s, or long period of time by others, same hebrew word, still different meanings. When you know the original text, its meaning is still ambiguous.
I 8767 m no fan of the idea of hell, believe me, but neither am I ready to declare it obsolete. For what it 8767 s worth I have a book by a heart surgeon named Rawlings called 8775 To hell and back 8776 he documents cases he personally experienced of people having very very bad NDE 8767 s, noting that most people would forget them much as we forget dreams. But that some people had such NDE 8767 s and resolved to change their lives and did so.
I do not know if you are a Christian, but i sense you are one Great Christian and a highly blessed one. I love the way you bring the points out one after the other in such a way that only people who refuse to accept the truth refuse it. I would be greatly honored if you can guide me on how to bring the truth of God and our Lord Jesus Christ to the fore front.
Are you concerned with Christians that are still living under the Law of Moses today, and not under the Grace and Truth brought by Christ? I am a new creation and would love to have a mentor like you. For God has directed me to do his work but I am a coward for now on how to progress his I have a lot of Highly controversial issues to tackle on behalf of God like the ones you are tackling.
By the way, I loved your response to the Brother John Doyen,
Martin, I think that there is a problem with the way you state your idea. There is a difference between a money debt and breaking the law. In a money debt, there is no wrong involved. If you are kind, after getting repaid, you can return the money that was owed to you. But when a wrong is committed, a judge and a court system are involved because punishment must be applied if the person is found guilty. Payment is not optional. Justice must be served. Laws exist (supposedly!!) for the well being of all. After punishment was applied to Jesus in place of the guilty, God gave Jesus, who was innocent of any crime, his life back and also gave him control of yours. Jesus now has control of who lives and dies for their crimes. Every single person must face Jesus for his/her actions. Just like God gave Jesus his life back, he can give your life back to you or not!!
Hey, I think you offered an unrelated analogy of a beating for a death. You don 8767 t just heal from death? Isn 8767 t that comparing apples and oranges?
Isn 8767 t it his death that paid for our sin so that we can be raised? But God gave the life back by raising Jesus he didn 8767 t just get better by himself (skin healed).
Didn 8767 t God reverse the punishment by giving life back to Jesus? Is my $655 analogy faulty?
Alright, so I have to say, Andrew is right when He says that God sees forced love as a contradiction of terms. Love is by definition, a free will act. Further, you are only considering the world as it is now, rather than what it is intended to lead to (consider Leiniz 8767 s statement about the best of all possible worlds). All these questions are resolved once we realize that God did know that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit, and planned all that He did based on what He knows will happen, and what He wants to happen. The future world will be what you want right now, but don 8767 t get to have. Just be patient. Once again, sorry for showing up in this conversation.
Jay, I would suggest that ((The fact that there are so many diverse teachings in christianity)) implies that Christians, as in all religions, cultures, languages and races diverge. This is the nature of life. Old testament people believed different to new testament and we believe different today. What is the chance that you or I are right? Very small and what right do we have to tell others what to believe? If we follow opinions of other men like our ministers or politicians, we 8767 re probably following opinions. Since they are all so different, they certainly are only opinions. Best to have two eyes, two ears and (only) one tongue.
Leo, It is not possible to have a creationist accept any real discussion that challenges the notion of creativity. Faith is stronger than truth because Faith does not need evidence to exist as does truth. The most ridiculous nonsense in the Bible is the Holy Trinity which no one can explain. Proof that Jesus even existed is far from convincing since the writings all come from the same Bible that is considered highly suspect.
Your definition of God differs from my (more traditional)one. I am grateful for your definition and now understand why you react to the label of superstitious.
Your definition “A Being that can account for logic, constant physical laws, and is the cause of the universe. All other attributes are not considered.”
8775 All other attributes are not considered. 8776
What say I? Brilliant!!!
This definition would question the immaculate conception, resurrection of Jesus after three days, rapture, stopping of the Sun, raising of Lazarus and any other supernatural miracles. These miracles defy natural laws and I have trouble believing in them too. Natural explanations are more simple and more likely.
I wonder why a being is needed at all to explain logic, and laws, and origins, but as a naturalist, I do like your definition. I do find this definition hard to reconcile with a Christian God of miracles.
While my last paragraph is genuine, I present it to test your definition and see if it is closer to mine, allowing for supernatural laws.
Ambitious work you have cut out for yourself here. I am a committed Christian, but one whom I 8767 m afraid many others might consider lost or borderline heretical in my leanings. I have become a student of George MacDonald to some extent and am in the process of dissecting and then dismissing much of what has come from the Calvinist/reformed tradition beginning with Augustine 8767 s doctrine of original sin which as I read his Confessions is born mostly of self-flagellation over sexual sin. That is awfully relevant today in the church, but it seems pretty shaky grounds for a traditionally foundational belief. I have come up with all sorts of bad ideas about how the world works while under the influence of self-loathing they were never good ideas.
Andrew, you have addressed my question better than anyone on this blog. You have explained that Jesus was the only person who could pay this debt because he was sinless. But my under-standing of theology is that he could only pay for others because he had no debt of his own. In law you cannot pay a debt on someones behalf if you owe that debt yourself. But Adam paid his own. Eve paid her own. I cannot see how Jesus removed sin, he only removed it from us. He paid for it in our place so we are forgiven. The cost is death, not just for three days. If you tax debt is $5555 and I pay it for you, it stays paid and not returned to me after three days. That is the law. I know analogies are not always valid but I think a legal analogy is accurate here.
Rational and secular minds have no loyalty to doctrine and easily recognize that death is forever and not only three days. The faithful confuse the issue endlessly by claiming Jesus is God/human(?) death is physical/spiritual(?), salvation is by faith/works, hell is death/alive but suffering, earth is evolution is guided/false, God is silent/active, God is a being of justice/mercy.
Imagine the mess science would be in if it couldn 8767 t define its own terms.
9/ All words including 8775 superstition 8776 have a clear meaning. When its definition is understood by both parties, a conclusion may be agreed upon. I use words clearly defined to argue my point. If you are not happy with that logical use of correct definitions you call it self serving. Yes, it is wrong to ignore definitions. You can ignore definitions without worries if you want to live in ignorance. If the definition is wrong, point it out, but lets not debate on shifting sands.
I am also reminded of the story of the widow Tamar in Genesis 88 where her brother-in-law is supposed to impregnate her but does coitus-interruptus to keep from having to give his inheritance over to the son she would bear. God kills him for cheating her in this way. Her father-in-law Judah doesn 8767 t do anything about it so later she dresses up as a prostitute, seduces him on the side of the road without him knowing who she is and gets herself pregnant. Then she retains physical proof that the son is his and makes the act public. In Jewish tradition, by implication in the passage and by her inclusion in Jesus 8767 geneaology she is honored for doing this. Rahab too is in Jesus 8767 geneaology.
As a naturalist (distinct from a supernaturalist) I find miracles hard to accept and believe that all things follow natural laws distinct from divine laws, whatever they are. I admire most of what you say because it seems well thought out rather than regurgitated.
I have one question which seems to me to be a contradiction in Christian theology.
Since Jesus died for the sins of mankind, shouldn 8767 t he be dead still? If the debt is now paid since he did die and can now be resurrected, then why didn 8767 t God just raise Adam, and Eve, and everybody. If I owe you $6555 and then pay you back, you won 8767 t return it to me once the debt is paid. Christians that I have asked cannot comprehend the question at all. I expect that you will. Thanks Martin
Actually, it depends on who you are asking. I was merely pointing out that even YECists have educations. Starting with crickets: the word that describes crickets, locusts, etc., is sherets, which describes creatures that have a MINIMUM of four legs. And these definitely are within that limit! With whales, you fail to realize that the days of Genesis overlap. Therefore, it depends on who you ask that determines whether this is an error. Call this what you may, but there is no error that is present that lacks an explanation for why it seems present. I am glad that you don 8767 t care about these aspects however. It means I have one less task to deal with next time you decide to reply (or should). If you must insult my character, and call me unthinking, yeesh, what does that show?