Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Yes, to a point, I think the purpose of life is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
That is not precisely worship, but for the purpose of what we are discussing it will suffice. Yet, note there are two aspects to this. Firstly, it is about acknowledging God and secondly, it is about being fulfilled as his creation in the way that God wants to live. Purpose and identity is thence found in God and living as he wants us to. It is not self-directed but other centred. In fact is God centred - Love God and love others.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Oh please stop it and get over yourself. I have conceded nothing. You lost an argument. Get over it.
Or did you miss this>
"I can have a dialogue with my three year old granddaughter about very few and limited things because she is ignorant of thousands of things".
Nope, I did not miss it. I just don't think it is relevant to the topic.
The points have been explained - yet it appears that you simply have made up your mind and are closed to considering other views. Hence the fact that you can have a dialogue with your three year old daughter might be more relevant than I had thought because that is about how it seems in discussing this with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You are basing an argument on an English language convention, which is simply absurd. What letters were used as a name for your god before an Englishman decided it should be a capital G?
Old English, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch god and German Gott .
Oddly, the exact origin of the word God is unknown.All that we know for certain is that the word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts which were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.Amusingly, none of the prophets, sages and disciples who wrote down the various books of the Bible would recognize or understand this recently invented word God. Yet people fight over it!
Well actually all of the prophets, sages, and disciples and all who wrote the various books of the Bible would recognise the clear distinction between the God who created this world and anything else that somehow purports to take his place. the English g and G may well be an invention to distinguish English words - but in the Hebrew other language signals were used.
And in any event, it is you or stephen who conveniently use parts of the bible to selectively make points - but intentionally relegate passages which clearly say there is only one God to almost nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
Yes I agree with that understanding. Good to see others have a brain as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
That's a very interesting and uncommon perspective, Trade. I've never met a Christian who would agree that their personal conversations with God qualify as them "still writing" the Bible. I also haven't run into many Christians who cast critical doubt on these hallelujah personal faith experiences that other Christians advertise. My experience has been that if it praises God, Christians generally cheer it. Do you find Catholics or Protestants more prone to the behavior we're talking about? My guess being Protestants. Evangelical Protestants, specifically.
I don't think it is uncommon in either Catholic or Protestant denominations nor the Orthodox denomination too. It however is not something that is old within the mainline church. It is a relatively recent invention within the mainline churches and pretty much came about from the 18th century when Christian societies moved into a new individualism and away from covenantal understandings of the way we relate to each other. I would think that the Reformed churches would tend to the view that I am advocating as they are more inclined towards covenantal thinking. I think that Charismatics churches and many of the dissident (non-conformist) churches would be more prone to this type of experiential like relationship. America is probably the primary place in the world where individualism is taken to all sorts of extremes. It however is not conducive to good reformed and covenantal theology.
What do you think of the idea that people need to talk to God in their daily lives, need to feel his presence or guidance in personal moments when neither a Bible or church is near?
I think it is important, vital even for Christians to talk to God daily. Prayer continually reminds us that we are dependant upon someone else and require his sustaining power. I don't think we need to "feel his presence or his guidance" though. For me, the Christian life is not about "feelings". It is about renewing my mind, thinking, reasoning, persuading, growing. but it is not just about thinking and growing intellectually it is about becoming more like Jesus. This is not a feeling. don't misunderstand me. I am sure feelings are important but they are not a measure of God's presence or his guidance. whether I feel that God is near me or not does not overrule the fact that he tells me is near me. My feelings may well signal to me that I am trusting in myself which hopefully should direct me to walk back towards God metaphorically.
I am not sure entirely what you mean by your last phrase. I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year. I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek. Hence if I was somehow separated from a bible or a church, I would still have enough knowledge of the scriptures to meditate upon. Yet, there are many people who never memorise the scriptures - and sadly many Christians who never read the scriptures. I think for these people - if they were separated from the their bibles it probably would not make any difference because they don't use them anyway. Being separated from the church would be like separating themselves from a community of people who share common beliefs. For these latter people, talking to god and hearing back from him is probably an experience for them. I think the problem with experiences of course is that they can be faked or replaced or deleted. Or mocked. I personally think that if a person had an experience and this led to God, and that they never read their bible after that - it probably - not always but probably demonstrates that the experience was not a genuine one in the first place.
Sadly, I think there are many people who call themselves Christians because of some experience they have had somewhere but it never led to spiritual growth in reading their bibles - but led rather to more and more spiritual experiences - but are not true Christians in the sense of how the Bible describes Christians. Most of them are lovely people - who do many generous things for other people - and who sincerely believe they are Christians - but don't genuinely understand the gospel and when confronted either by suffering, or temptations to sin, crafty people with questions, they melt away.
Genuine Christians will want to be fed and nourished by the Word of God - noting their utter dependence upon God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Sorry, that does not work.
none of those answer why rape is wrong. They just give reasons why you think it is wrong.
What is wrong with physically hurting someone? our armies do it. our police do it. Our prison guards do it. Our parents do it. Our bullies do it.
What is wrong with infringing upon someone's right to consent. Who says there is a right to consent? you have just asserted things.
What is wrong with invading someone's dignity? Just cos you say it is wrong does not make it wrong. I thought you said you had some reasons to back up your morals. You are simply asserting things - no reason for it.
none of the others things are reasons why rape is wrong. You are twisted and brainwashed by the culture you live in. Prove something please. Don't just assert it.
I could have added any of these things but they are all based on a western cultural concept of private property. A right which we don't actually have - which is - that we own our own body. go and do some homework before you show just how ignorant you really are.
As for some alleged quote from Jesus - I don't recall that quote - but it is not talking about rape. Perhaps the message is not the best translation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is a very good reason you wont go into semantics with me. It is because you don't know Hebrew nor Greek. You rip verses out context and mangle the language and the story of the bible to make it fit something you like. Yet there are no recognised or respected academics who agree with your opinions.
My views at least have the backing of recognised academics. And the language themselves.
You don't mind quoting other books apart from the bible - and to use other texts as authority to interpret the bible. Yet, it does not wash.
The Bible clearly teaches there is ONE GOD. You have yet to demonstrate it teaches more than one GOD with a capital G. But God with a capital G verses god with a little g is pretty significant. You know it and I know it. Yet, I don't think you care because that is not the direction you want this topic to go. You really have yet to give ANY evidence that the Bible teaches there is more than one GOD. When you do, then perhaps I will respond more. At this point, little g's don't count.
If you opinion is worth anything - then perhaps you might give some evidence. Until then, it is merely an assertion. Little g's are not big G's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I don't think it was created at all. But I think it's a miraculous and mind-boggling little gem that is like no other rock in space we have yet discovered, and it regularly fills me with amazement.
Now that is a puzzling statement. You don't think it was created, but you accept it exists. Surely you don't think it just magically appeared all by itself? Even if it is a fragment of something else … it still had to come from somewhere or thing. You think it is a miraculous and mind boggling little gem? Well that is observant. It is unique - so unique "that is like no other rock in space". It feels you with amazement?
But if you think Earth was created and that's your jumping off point, you might ask yourself a few questions.
I am pleased that you are able to engage with the author's question. It does demonstrate that your mind is not entirely closed.
- Does Earth's apparent uniqueness as a life bearing planet imply a creator intended for us to be here?
Great question. And I think it is reasonable to presume a creator when it uniqueness is such as it is. Of course it does not prove the same, but it is quite reasonable to make the presumption. It certainly seems more plausible than the alternatives presented currently. It is more plausible to consider that everything was created by something rather than everything just "happened" for no particular reason. At least within the biological world of Darwin he posited the notion of "natural selection" as a means of change. Outside of the biological world, and away from natural selection, it falls down to chance and randomness. I recognise that discussing the origin of everything is necessarily in the same ballpark as evolution but there are certain similarities.
- Mass extinction is inevitable for every life form on Earth. Why were we created just to be destroyed?
It is not inevitable that mass extinction for every life form on earth will occur. That particular view is part of the eschatological reality for a non-theist worldview, but it is not able to be demonstrated or proved. It is based upon "chance", "randomness", "probability", "statistics" and intentionally omitting a Creator who made the earth with purpose and intent. Hence, your question is a form of the old chestnut "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?" Point being that if God made everything with a purpose then all of the things which are able to end the forms of life are also within his domain and control.
- Are the Earth's purpose and humanity's purpose two different things, or is the purpose of our planet bound to us in some way?
This is a good question too. Firstly, if God did create everything, then the answer of purpose for the earth and humanity is the same. It is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever. From a non-theist's point of view, the two would or may be vastly different. I suspect that the earth's purpose in this latter case would as Hawking might suggest be nothing. Humanity's purpose on the other hand could not be a collective thing, unless it was to survive (although this raises more difficult questions such as why?) so it must be totally subjective to each individual. And their purpose would be to do things in order to live and to die. They might include things along the way - to look after their children etc, to live peaceably with each other, but all of these (without God) would still be directed their own individual purpose in life.
The second part of your question is also quite intriguing. It almost implies a metaphysical force of some description either God or something else. Like trees and humans require each other to survive - a symbiotic relationship between the earth and humans for a purpose probably unknown to humanity as a whole although not necessarily to the earth. Still, I suspect that as we become greener and more collective in our ideas that shape the way we think of this topic. A Christian does not take the view that we are symbiotic with the world but are totally dependant and reliant upon God. It is our responsibility however to tend to the earth and to look after it and each other as we serve the Lord. And the best way to do this is in accordance to the wisdom that God has given to us.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Thanks for the concession.
It has been a pleasure instructing you to a more plausible interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
the opening account of Genesis is talking about the Trinity. And I do take the view that the Ancient Hebrews understood God as one but understood God as broader than just one. Certainly, when Moses spoke to God in the burning bush, God was the "angel of the Lord".
Yet, Christian theology can quite consistently talk of One God and many gods. It all goes to what you mean by God or god. The bible clearly teaches that there is one God. One Creator God who has unique and divine attributes of omniscience, and omnipotence. One God who created this world. Yet you quote passages that suggest that God is the judge of gods etc etc.
And while it is possible on one hand to say there must be other gods, we are not talking about other God who create and have enormous power and intellect. Indeed in many occasions in the OT, others gods were just sticks and stones shaped like an animal bird or human. Even humans are called gods, quoted in Psalm and then by Jesus in his ministry talking to the Pharisees "are you not gods?". We even have Satan called the god of this world in the NT.
In other words, there is one GOD and potentially myriads of gods with this latter thing being a rock, tree, animal, the sun, the moon, humans, birds, satan or his demons, or even angels. As I said in another topic, Adam and Eve became like god, because they now decided what good and evil was for themselves. By that definition, every person on this planet who does not take God's own wisdom in respect of what is good and evil is a little god. Jesus talked about the idols in our hearts. These might be anything from lusting in a sexual way to lusting after alcohol, drugs, power, money etc. These are all gods or idols because they take the devotion we ought to have towards God and directs it toward whatever they are. Pop gods, rock stars, sports stars, celebrities, even politicians in some cases, all have the appearance of being gods. Even Darwin, Dawkins, or Hawking can be this way for some people.
There is nothing inconsistent inherently by stating and being correct that there is ONE true God and also acknowledging that the sinful heart of humanity directs and forms images of little gods. One is a real God and everything else is a pretender. Some pretenders are more powerful than others. But they are all still pretenders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
All I demonstrate is that my morals and yours are different.
Why is rape wrong? Go on answer that one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
It would appear that at best, you're able to follow orders but you still don't know why you shouldn't kill, commit adultery or steal. In fact, you even admit you don't know whether or not to sleep with someone you're not married to.
We don't murder because man is made in the image of God and to murder or hit or assault a human is to attack the image of God. I suspect that is above your brain level, yet in a non- Christian worldview, the reason not to kill is nothing but the fear of going to jail. We don't kill people because it is not nice. We don't commit adultery because God wants us to be faithful to him and this is reflected in the way we relate to each other. We don't steal because - everything belongs to God whom he delegates as he pleases. Stealing from others is stealing from God. All of these answers are in the Bible.
That's probably why crime and violence are highest in religiously rich societies, the people there have no concept of reasoning or rationalizing murder, adultery and theft. They'll do it if they can justify it somewhere in the Bible.
Actually crime and violence is not highest in protestant societies - but in any society where the rule of law is not equal or applied appropriately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
That is because most theists have never really thought their theology through when it comes to revelation. After all, if God is going to communicate to us apart from the Bible, how do we know it is God speaking? Also it puts this new revelation on the same level as the Bible - which means it is still being written. This however would contradict the bible itself which says it would be closed around the end of the first century AD.
Also people are often told that we have a personal relationship with God, which is true. Yet, then this relationship is described just like other relationships which we have, which is not true. People also like to try and prove their relationship with God, and when they have this expectation that God still speaks apart from the Scriptures, then they are more likely to either invent it, exaggerate it, or put themselves into a situation when anything could talk to them and they would believe it is God.
the Book of Hebrews commences with the fact that God used to speak in various ways but now speaks to us through Jesus. His words have been passed down through the apostolic traditions and come to us today. People are often looking for God's will in their life which is a good thing. Yet they don't actually want to know god's will, they want a horoscope or they want God to tell them how to live their life and what to do. I see this as immature Christianity. God wants us to grow up and use the brains that he gave us.
He has given us principles to live by. He does issue some commands. And he has told us what he desires for us. Essentially he wants us to live holy and blameless lives and that we become more and more conformed to the image of his son. He wants us to love him and to love others. He does not tell us what job we ought to get - although he does forbid us from jobs that are wicked and evil. Hence he does not want us to assassins. He does not want us to be in occupations that go against his nature. He wants us to weigh up things and decide mostly for ourselves.
Some of the commands he gives us are straight forward - don't kill. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal. Not too difficult really. I don't need to pray to God and ask him whether it is alright to sleep with someone I am not married too. I already know the answer. Remember, from the bible's perspective God decides what is right and wrong. Humans might disagree with God. There is no point in asking God if something we know is wrong might actually be ok.
Not sure if this helps.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are the one whokeeps calling them ignorant, not me
Indeed, and is well withincontext of the story concerning their lack of knowledge prior to the death threat , is it not?
Lets see:
ignorant
ˈɪɡn(ə)r(ə)nt
adjective
1. 1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Which explains why it was only AFTER the act of defiance that their eyes were opened.
ˈɪɡn(ə)r(ə)nt
adjective
1. 1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Which explains why it was only AFTER the act of defiance that their eyes were opened.
You have not proved they were ignorant. You keep asserting it. God issued a command to them. Surely you do not say they were ignorant of this command and what would happen if they chose to ignore it? If they were ignorant, how could they possibly enter into a dialogue with anyone about the rights or wrongs of it? They were not animals. They were created in the image of God which includes his moral aspect. They knew right from wrong. You ignore this and deliberately distort the story because it does not fit your pre-conceived interpretation of God. The rest of Scripture - in fact I say all of Scripture fits the position I have put. Your interpretation fits only with another book you have read which you opine believe is similar. It might fit with that one - but it does not correspond the context here.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
“Guarding the way to the tree of Life”.<<<<<< It is noticed this loving Lord didn’t put a flaming guard around the problematic tree of knowledge and save himself a big problem.
Again I am not sure of the problem. Prior to humanity eating from the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of life was not guarded. Adam and Eve could have gone to that tree for a start, but chose death instead. God expressly told them that they would die - and if he gave them life as well as death - then not only is this a real contradiction but it makes him out to be liar.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought death because it is a tree which opened their eyes to deciding for themselves what good and evil was.
Yes, and this Lord didn’t want our “eyes to be opened did he” I keep telling you, this lord wanted us to remain in a state of servitude and ignorance. Like I have pointed out, they even (according to this Lord) had to be told they were naked. he calls all people his "SERVANTS"
Humanity wanted to be like God, that is clear. They knew their choice and they knew the consequences. Whinging about it after the fact is just sour grapes. As for being his servant, that is something I am proud of. Yet, we are not just his servants or his slaves as Paul puts it, but we have been adopted as children into his family. This is what Adam and Eve failed to understand and why Jesus came to fulfill.
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked?You have not explained how this "opening of their eyes" actually gave them knowledge.
And neither does the bible, so that is for you to explain away sunshine. But let me remind you of something: the “gods” plural had this to say just after the act of defiance:
Actually it is your assertion. I have provided a plausible answer and one which has been part of Christian doctrine since the beginning. You are asserting some new and which is clearly not as plausible as you make it out to be.
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”So there it is, we suddenly became wise like them. This^^^^^^ is the most interesting part of the whole saga as far as I am concerned.So, it is there plain as day that WE ARE “LIKE THE GODS”. I.e we are as good or as bad as the gods themselves.
Actually God is not bad. He is good. Perfect in every way and holy. As I have indicated it is your assertion, therefore it is for your not just say what you think is possible, but plausible as well. I have also provided a response which is consistent with the rest of Scripture.
yes I know you do. But what else can you possibly say? I hardly expected you to agree with anything I say. You simply do not like me highlighting parts of these scriptures that simply do not ring true.
I made these statements as explained. Your arguments - are weak. They are pathetic. They are inconsistent. You have failed to use any of ordinary tools that experts use in this area. You have not looked at the underlying language. You have not looked at the context. You have not looked at the overall message of the bible. You have done as so many fundamentalists do - look at the language in a 2 dimensional fashion and then shut your ears to anything else. I actually welcome discussions in relation to so called discrepancies in the bible. I have nothing to hide from.
You are struggling to explain away any part of this nonsense. It is nonsense simply because it has come down to us after thousands of years and many translations and misunderstanding and rewriting. And you are left holding the baby.
I have not struggled to answer or explain any of the passage we have looked at. In fact as I look back it is you who delayed in answering key questions and then failed to address some of the other matters put back to you. When I provide a plausible explanation - you just quote a verse and expect that somehow answers my question. It is like talking to a Mormon or a JW or a fundamentalist Baptist.
My answer to your question is yes, qualified by deleting your adjective "ignorant".
Even if we take this story literally the had to be told that they were naked?
Even this is incorrect? Who told them they were naked?
Nope I have a reason for asking you my question at that particular juncture, I addressed your question. see above 4th line down.
I am sure you did. How about explaining why?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It seems to me that rather than suddenly having wisdom, every thing they did after they ate the fruit got dumber and dumber.
Then you are completely denying what the gods (plural)themselves have said aren't you.
No, God said, they have become like us. I have suggested that this is most plausibly explained by the fact that the humans now determine for themselves right and wrong as opposed God. Your suggestion seems to be (or at least correct me if I am incorrect) that humans have now become moral beings in the sense that they can distinguish between right and wrong. You are certainly not suggesting that humans now are omniscient or omnipotent or have the power of salvation. What plausible reason is there for God to lock out the humans from the tree of life because they have now become moral beings? I say that since in the rest of the Bible, God is always expecting that humanity ought to obey him and stop living in the way that they want to because their way leads to death best fits with my position. He wants them to be moral. He desires them to be holy. I certainly do not see anywhere, (perhaps you might provide some verses which support your view) where God gets frustrated because humanity knows the difference between good and evil. God often makes the point that the so called wisdom of humanity is a problem and that it is contrasted with the wisdom of God.
As for the man being driven out of the garden, would you care to at least address why you think it is important because it remains a mystery to me
You are attempting to answer a question with a question ...AGAIN. It is in the bible, it has to mean something. It is also clear the woman wasn’t driven out. There is absolutely nothing that indicates a reason why the woman was not expelled; the bible is totally silent on the matter. You can make all the surmises and speculations you like, but you simply cannot make up a story of your own to explain away this very bias act of this so called ‘loving’ god.
I am not sure asking questions is a bad thing. Do you think I should stop asking questions and JUST believe you? I have not seen anyone distinguish between the man and the woman being driven out of the garden. Hence, why I am asking for clarification. I don't see it as biased. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I see Adam as the head of humanity and representative. What happened to him, all in him receive. As Paul says later, in Adam, all sinned and death reigned. Give I take the view that Adam is essentially the king, or the president, or the head of humanity at this time, it seems quite reasonable that God would address him and her through him. When the General Secretary of the UN addresses me, he does it through the PM, this is not biased against me. It simply acknowledges that the PM represents me (and this is despite the fact I did not vote for him). I have already previously discussed covenantal death - my position sits very comfortable with this understanding of it.
AND you are ignoring the fact that this dictate was to the woman only and not the man.
Which dictate to the woman? I really have no idea what dictate you are talking about.
This couple didn’t even understand the meaning of “ nakedness” this we know by the fact this Lord had to asked them “ who told you were naked”.
You miss my point completely. The point is - it does not matter whether Adam or Eve knew what nakedness was before they ate the fruit. Your position seems to be suggesting that eating the fruit gave them knowledge to know the difference between good and evil. Hence, whether they knew about it or not is irrelevant. It is how they responded to their nakedness at the time after they ate the fruit. Surely whatever was good before hand, remains good, all that they fruit does in your view is give them the knowledge of this. And whatever was evil, remains evil, this is the thrust of what your view is suggesting. Yet, they don't respond with "oh we are naked how good this is - they say oh we are naked we had better hide." Surely even you can see this?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
That is a good question.
I have used these terms interchangeably here at times, but I do see a distinction between them as well. but it depends upon the context and upon what is going on at the same time.
A poor decision is not necessarily an evil decision. Sometimes things which are "not good" are not evil. For example even in this story, God had made everything in the creation and declared it good. He noted that Adam was alone and this was "not good". He created Eve and then things became very good. But Adam being alone was "not good", but it was not evil. Nevertheless, God remedied it.
So I think that sometimes the words can be used interchangeably, but this does not mean that every usage will be the same.
I think all evil things are wrong. And all good things are right. But I don't think every non good thing is evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
hi SkepticalOne,
What a great question.
I think that the existence of something is a complex one. Are we talking about whether they exist as concepts? If that is the case, then each of the above exist to some extent. After all, if the concept of dragons is not a valid existence, then the story of the Hobbit becomes nonsense. What I mean by that is not that the story of the Hobbit is true or in any sense real but that the mystery attached to the novel loses its gravitas. Novels and stories use the imagination to bring these concepts into existence.
Are we talking of abstract things too? Things such as love, or hate? Do these intangible concepts exist or are they simply words to describe something meta-physical? Are they like space?
Personally, I think the existence of God is necessary for the existence of everything else. None of the other concepts mentioned above or indeed that include concrete matters such as humanity is or claims to be the cause of all other things. God does make this claim and it is a significant one.
I have never seen any of these other things - and for that matter I have never seen God either. But like the wind, which I also cannot see but know exists, because of the effects it has on places it has been, so too with God. I have seen lives changed by the reality of God. People who did not believe in one moment and then the next they did without any apparent intervening event that I could appreciate. I have seen many prayers answered in respect of many different matters which would almost seem miraculous otherwise. I think the impact of God in changing lives is extraordinary and powerful evidence of God's existence. I don't really believe in fairies or the other things mentioned above, but nor do I see the impact upon them in our world except by way of movies, stories, and concept.
I am sure this is not enough to persuade someone else, but for me it is quite compelling in its own way.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are the one who keeps calling them ignorant, not me. If they were ignorant until they suddenly knew right from wrong why did they not apply this new found wisdom and do the right thing. The right thing to do after realising you have done the wrong thing is to go the one you have wronged and say sorry. But Adam and Eve went and hid - in the garden and then blamed shifted their responsibility. Adam blamed Eve and God. Eve blamed the snake.
It seems to me that rather than suddenly having wisdom, every thing they did after they ate the fruit got dumber and dumber.
But nice diversion away from my question to you.
My answer to your question is yes, qualified by deleting your adjective "ignorant". They, and especially Adam, wilfully knew he was acting in defiance of God. Now would you be so kind as to answer whether you think God issued a command or not?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Sorry Stephen but you have not addressed my point at all. In fact you continue to go to verses after the fact and try and suggest it has something to do with the prior. What a load of nonsense and you know it. Do you agree God issued a command or not? At least answer that one.
As for the man being driven out of the garden, would you care to at least address why you think it is important because it remains a mystery to me. As I said, I don't know the answer to the question. I can speculate as I did above. I could say - other things such as man and woman had become one in marriage - but that does not seem probable in the circumstance. I could say that God had used the generic term for humanity - "the man" (After all the Hebrew term Adam means man), but this seems a little trite from my point of view. I could say it was because the woman had no rights - but this is inconsistent. So I really don't know the answer. but I am sure you have a brilliant answer - probably taken from one of those other books you are referring to. As I see it, both Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to this time and afterwards they were both out in the world. I suspect it was probably to do with the fact that Adam was the representative of humanity including Eve, and that as such whatever happened to him, happened by virtue of his representative of all humanity. This is consistent with the theology of breaching the covenant of works which is what eating the fruit did and for which they were translated from life to death by way of covenant.
I totally agree that God did not want humanity to die by eating from the fruit which he commanded them not to eat. I totally agree that God wanted them to remain faithful to him and to obtain eternal life. The tree of life gives eternal life, not life per se. They were already alive without eating from that tree. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought death because it is a tree which opened their eyes to deciding for themselves what good and evil was. You still have not addressed why they thought nakedness was bad when it had been declared good by God. You have not explained how this "opening of their eyes" actually gave them knowledge. If you are correct and they now knew good from evil, then this opening of their eyes would surely let them know that God had already declared it good before hand. But what happens is not such a revealing of knowledge, they actually change what was good and now think it is so bad they have to hide it. This is one reason why your view does not make sense.
If it was true that they now became moral creatures, and they now knew the difference between good and evil when before they did not know it, then things which were good, they would know and things which were bad or evil, they would know. Hence, they would now know that nakedness was good, but they did not. They would now know that God had commanded them not to eat from that tree and accept the consequences of it. But this is not what happened.
What is your explanation? I find your answers presently weak and pathetic and inconsistent. I am at least attempting to follow your logic but it just does not work.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Hello Stephen,
thanks again for your reply. I am glad I have not scared you away.
I am puzzled as to why you found my post rambling. Others I have shown it to were also surprised by your response. All of them made the same observation as I did. You failed to engage with my questions and did not answer but chose rather to attack me. I hope this is not how you intend to conduct yourself in the future as it does not demonstrate that you are prepared to show an objective look at positions other than your own.
My opinion is based upon a close reading of the text. This is confirmed by others who also have proper qualifications to make such an assessment. By your response it seems clear, that you value your opinion higher than others. That is fine. You go for it. It does not change the facts nor how academics from all walks of life perceive it.
As for seeing other books as irrelevant, that does not mean I don't read widely, nor that they don't hold helpful information. What it meant in this particular situation is that I hold to the sola scriptura position - Scripture interprets Scripture. This principle of interpretation is valid and whether you agree or not is again irrelevant. Even if I chose to read your other material - which you rely upon … "the Lady Of All Life" is not identical to "mother of all living". Is there a possible connection? Perhaps. But if we were to use your own interpretational method that you are relying upon here, they are nothing alike and obviously unrelated. If you are going to use the word "touch" as translated in whatever bible you use - and not rely upon the greek text which I did, then the two statements are only similar but nothing more.
Your suggestion that I simply say you are misinterpreting the text and that I simply could not see it your ways is obviously a lie. I, actually, indicated that even if your interpretation was true - it was impossible given the text. This is taking your own interpretation and attempting to give it the benefit of the doubt to see if actually could give sustenance to your meaning. I notice you are the one who did not return the good will but chose rather to lie and say that I am simply saying you are wrong and I am right. Attacking me is not attacking the arguments I made which you continue to avoid and run from.
Even your reference to thorns is evidence of your character and preparedness to fabricate untruths. in the first instance I was talking to another poster and made no reference to thorns to you. In the second instance I was referring to the particular time - just post fall when Adam made the comment about nakedness and before God had cursed the ground. I was not saying there were no thorns in Jesus' time or at any other time in the scriptures. Your pathetic attempt to paint me as not having read the bible reveals how weak your arguments are.
My point has been and remains the same. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He made this as a command to moral beings. You have not engaged with this point at all. It seems to me that non-engagement concedes it validity.
As for the point about the man only being driven out of the garden, I did not know it was an important point - and still don't. Nevertheless, I don't have an answer. It is the case though, that both Adam and Eve were outside the garden. It may be related to Paul's point in the NT that females ought to wear a head covering because Eve's part in the fall was less intentional than Adam's. She was reckless, yet his part was intentional and therefore more serious.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Ok it is your thread - you take it where you want. I don't have to go there though and I wont because it is irrelevant to me. As for facts, I think you are over-reaching again.
What is plain as day is that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You simply ignore this or suggest that this command somehow is a suggestion because Adam and Eve could not possibly know it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God. It is not me misreading the passage.
It is you who is reading into the passage an interpretation that fits your pre-conceived prejudices. The likely reason you are re-interpreting the command from God to be a suggestion is because it contradicts completely your pre-conceived prejudice that the tree of knowledge of good and evil made them able to discern the difference. The fact that they know it is wrong already makes it impossible for you to follow your logic that God has stopped them from knowing wisdom.
Your interpretation does not however give any reason for Eve's discussion and attempted rebuttal with the serpent. Nor does it give any explanation for why Adam and Eve were suddenly aware of their nakedness, to the point that they needed to be clothed. Even if God's command not to obey is seen as a suggestion and even if Adam and Eve were unable to discern good and evil, they were not totally devoid of knowledge. Eve spoke as did Adam. Adam in fact was naming animals and tending to the garden. How in the world then does suddenly being aware that you were naked - which is something they obviously already knew - become a moral concern? This you cannot explain satisfactorily.
Nor do you explain how knowing the difference between good and evil is godlike. I reject it as a concept. It is nothing ever explored at any point in the bible. God wanted his creatures to obey him. Satan knew the difference between right and wrong. Gee even animals do to an extent and can feel guilt over it. But how does knowing the difference between good and evil be a picture or a description of divinity? I can think of no mythology which takes this position - I can think of no religion which takes this position. I can think of no philosophy or worldview that takes this position. And the reason for this is clear. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is not something that belongs to the realm of divinity exclusively.
Yet, deciding what is right and what is wrong is clearly a divine prerogative. And this is why it is much more plausible that this story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the symbolic picture of humanity trying to usurp this divine prerogative and why God says "now they have become like us".
Adam and Eve were made moral beings when God made them after his own image. They already had the law of God written on their hearts so that they would be without excuse. Your interpretation makes them out to be nothing more than animals who can talk. Perhaps, that is all you see here. Hence, these moral beings decided that to be human was not good enough - they wanted to be divine. This was a moral decision they made - knowing full well that such a decision would give them death. As the verse states, you will surely die, although in Hebrew it says "Dying you will die."
You will immediately be cut off - become dead to God's family, by being cast out of his presence and then because you are cut off from the tree of life, you will die physically. and lo and behold this is what happened. Not having access to the tree of life, Adam and Eve die. As the doctrines of the church have articulated, humanity fell out of their relationship with God and then inevitably died. They inherited death rather than life. And so from Adam forward death reigned. Until the second Adam came and provided access to the tree of life.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@disgusted
you don't get to change what is written to pacify your concerns for it's implausibility.
They do, and so do others here. They will ask a question such as " do you think that god is so stupid to not notice the contradiction in his own words"?
Then they will, in the very next breath, insist that what is actually written means something else entirely.
Tradesecret for instance, will have it that when god wrote the word "touch" , what he actually meant was any number of things including "light". he then point blank tried to change the verse completely, here:
Tradesecret "note however, Jesus never said to Mary don't touch - he says don't hold onto me".the word in the greek is the word hapto. It actually has the meaning to anoint. At times it is also translated cling, grasp, touch, or light..
This is what the verse actually says:>
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: John 20:17 KJV
This BLATANT! misleading and purposeful mistranslation of the GOSPEL text is something devout Christians do when they have painted themselves tightly into a corner and challenged.
And this is what any serious studier of these scriptures will find themselves up against. Liars and backsliders.
But then what is one to expect when their own leader instructs them to be two faced:>
Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV) be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Notice this man god actually instructs them to be WISE like the Serpent. This would be the same serpent that is said to have "deceived" brainless eve", I take it.
It really gets up your goat doesn't? That there are people who disagree with you and have good reasons and explanations for what they think. It is sad that your eyes really are closed to the truth. Still, I will pray for you. God may have mercy on you.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
--> @Tradesecret
What lie is there?
That A&E knew right from wrong, that's the reason you have avoided supplying a passage that supports your claim.
I have provided the verse - you just refuse to consider its truth. God said "you must not eat the fruit from that tree". This is a command - an imperative. It is not a suggestion. You don't like the idea that they already knew right from wrong. I wonder why that is such a big thing for you grasp hold to. when God said "don't … or you will die", we know that it would be wrong to do it.
Surely anyone with half a brain would realise that the threat of death is not going to happen to someone for no reason
Most especially when death didn't exist. How frightened are you of being cripsterneened? It's as meaningless a word as death was before death existed.
Who said death did not exist? It may well be true that no human had died at this time. But this does not mean that other creatures did not die in that time period. It would be pointless for God to use a term unless it had meaning to Eve and to Adam. Even they use it themselves. It is bizarre that you are hanging onto this element so strongly, without any evidence to support what you are saying and with plenty disagreeing with you.
She knew it was wrong to disobey God. As did Adam.
That's not possible, they were never taught right from wrong, obedience from disobedience. Obedience meant as much as death did and that was NOTHING.
You don't have evidence to support this. You are basing this completely on a definition that is not even warranted. And I wonder why? Is it because you have to find God to a liar? What would be the point of God issuing a command if they did not know what a command is? You seem to rely heavily on the words of Satan and minimise the words of God.
It is a more plausible explanation than thinking - gee she did not know it was wrong and had to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree to figure it out. Which is what your want to imply. But that is not possible - is highly implausible and not probable.
The entire story has no plausibility, you don't get to change what is written to pacify your concerns for it's implausibility. The story says that A&E new right from wrong after eating the fruit. Try reading the story not writing it.
I am not rewriting history. My interpretation is well known and has a long history. Your interpretation on the other hand is modern. this interpretation has plausibility and yours just does not make sense.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Yes, that is very childish and immature, adults don't represent things that way. If they did, it would be to a five year old. Perhaps, that's for who the Bible was written?
Adults represent things in metaphors and symbols all of the time. It was not childish in this instance - and you really don't have reasons to think that - except you don't like it.
Nakedness in a forest? I would not know. perhaps you could enlighten us?
You don't know? You've never been in a forest? Seriously? Go and spend time in a forest naked and you will very quickly understand how badly you need clothes. Clearly, Adam understood this but God didn't. God is a dummy.
I certainly have never spent time in a forest naked. That I suppose is my loss. but as to whether it was clever or not clever - the thing is at that time there were no thorns - so perhaps it would have been nice. Still …
Although it is true that God does get jealous - it is never over knowledge or wisdom, but rather faithfulness
Ah, so God is happiest when we don't use our brains, Gotcha. That would stand to reason if God was an imbecile who hated smarter people.
what a facile thing to say. I said God does not get jealous over humanities wisdom and you still turn it in a nasty way. God wants us to use our brains. He says "come and reason with me". He says be transformed in your thinking. He says - have an answer for the reason for the hope that is in you. when people apply the scriptures it comes through the mind.
The point is - you want to eat the fruit to be able to decide what is right and wrong for yourself - and you don't like the idea that your wisdom without God is really quite foolish. You want God to turn around and think how smart you are - and congratulate you. And the funniest thing about this is you don't even believe in God. How wise is it to continually be talking about discussing something you don't even believe in? Something you think is a myth.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
disgusted,
Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God by eating this fruit. God clearly say in 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
This was not a suggestion, it was a command. even the consequence of eating it is given.
You suggest that eating the fruit gave them knowledge of right and wrong. but that is clearly incorrect. How do we know? Simple, because the first thing they did after their eyes were opened was to notice that he was naked and needed to hide. If the eating of the fruit was giving them knowledge to know what right and wrong was, then this would not have been an issue for God already knew that they were naked and declared it was very good. In other words, it was right to be naked and not ashamed.
So if being naked was right and not wrong, then Adam receiving the ability to know right from wrong makes no sense for he immediately gets it wrong. On the other hand, if the interpretation of what I have suggested which is in line with the traditions of the church is correct, which is that by eating the fruit, he is declaring what good and bad is, then it is very plausible that his very first act of wisdom - could be in contradiction what has been declared good before that time.
This is what made Adam and Eve like God. Interestingly, Satan suggested that to be like God was something they could do by eating this fruit. And in one sense Satan was correct, and this is clarified by God. But how exactly were they to be like God? It was not about power or immortality. In fact it was not even about knowing right and wrong. the Bible has always been clear that it is God who determines what is right and what is evil. humanity hates this. humanity likes to think that God has got it wrong - and hates to think that God is the one who makes the rules. Satan hates this too and this is what he tempted Adam and Eve to do. To eat the fruit would not give them the ability to know right from wrong, but to decide what is right and what is wrong. This is the most plausible explanation of this passage. They had rejected life and chose death.
Other verses which support this in the OT, include the fact that humanity was made in the image of God with the moral ability to discern right from wrong because they have the law of God written on their hearts. Romans 1 also follows this thinking.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes Stephen, it was wrong of me to suggest you were following Satan. I apologise - it was uncalled for.
I am not arguing over the semantics of the word "touch".
Here, God never used the term at all. He said, don't eat it. Eve added the words touch. Now it is true that it is impossible to eat without touching - but on the other hand it is quite possible to touch and do other things with - without eating. I often used to throw apples at people like balls for example. And sometimes I would pick a fruit, feel it in my hand, look at it, and then put it down again.
My point is that Eve added even the pharisaical addition because she already knew it was wrong to eat the fruit - and like the Pharisees attempted to make it even more difficult to break the law. In any event, God issued a command - it was an imperative - not just a suggestion. To break the law was to do wrong. Even knew this and so did Adam. Satan did as well - but his entire point was to tempt them away from listening to and obeying the words of God.
I'm discussing the story as related in Genesis. I don't really have anything to say about any other story. If you want to go to Enlil et al., then start a new topic discussing that story.
At this point in time, you have not established that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. Your premise is not only weak, it is non existent.
Created:
It seems to me you would prefer to believe the ridiculous in order to ignore the obvious. In that case, I would rather talk to my grade threes at least they have the brains to recognise what they are looking at.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
What lie is there?
Eve knew it was wrong to eat the fruit. She knew she was not meant to eat it - indeed she went further and said she should not even touch it lest she die.
Surely anyone with half a brain would realise that the threat of death is not going to happen to someone for no reason. She knew it was wrong to disobey God. As did Adam.
If you can't see this then it is a waste of my time trying to show it more.
It is a more plausible explanation than thinking - gee she did not know it was wrong and had to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree to figure it out. Which is what your want to imply. But that is not possible - is highly implausible and not probable.
the fact is she must have known - because God told her and Adam - don't eat the fruit or you will die. Unless she felt death was not a threat, which makes it even more nonsensical.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Wow!
Stephen, you are priceless!
can you produce a verse where God said don't touch?
No you cannot. It was Eve's creation. LOL!
I tell no lies. Read that again. I tell no lies. come on darling - please find one.
Yes, he wanted us to know what we could handle. On a needs to know basis. but what does that mean ??? there are many things in life where this applies.
the serpent, satan, whatever - he is the accuser and you follow after him. you are his disciple. From my point of view - he is slime. You know like the stuff we find after a snail has passed by. creepy. disgusting. ugly. \
Yes, nakedness, this is the first thing they came up with . A joke really. come and join the wisdom of God - oh no we want to be wise ourselves - and eghhh we are naked - let us run and hide because we are such pitiable demonic creatures.
what a joke you write. satan was a dick. Useless and without any power. I reckon all the girls and all the boys rejected him. Impotent. Yes. trying to blame God or the lord is idiotic. Cain murdered his brother because he had rejected God.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Oh Goldtop,
so nice of you to drop in.
It is not the fruit which was the issue, it is the what it represented. God's wisdom or humanity.
Nakedness in a forest? I would not know. perhaps you could enlighten us?
Although it is true that God does get jealous - it is never over knowledge or wisdom, but rather faithfulness.
H
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Are you saying that Adam and Eve did not know it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit?
"but God did say, "you must not eat the fruit from the tree …" Genesis 3:3. Is this not what Eve said to the serpent?
The very fact Even responded to the serpent is because she knew it was wrong.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
To begin with, just the name of this deadly life threatening tree puzzles me. Good and evil: The reader is introduced to two trees specifically:
Genesis 2:9 King James Version (KJV)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.
Genesis 2:17 King James Version (KJV)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.
Why Wouldn’t the lord not want us to “eat from” this tree that not only held knowledge of evil, but also of good? Why Doesn’t this lord want us to know good?
Why was this tree created in such a way that it held knowledge of both evil and good?Why not simply two separate trees: one good, one bad?
We need to consider some of the context here. the first thing is this: Adam and Eve already knew good from evil. Eating this tree was not going to give them knowledge to knowing good and evil. They knew it was good not to eat from the tree and they knew it was evil to eat of the tree. So the question really is not about them becoming knowing these things - it is something else. Similarly, the tree of life did not give them life for they were alive and had not yet eaten from the tree - so when they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they die - their death must be similar in kind.
So when the serpent says that they become wise - and knew they were naked, how is that wise? God never said it was wrong to be naked - he made them naked and said it was very good - so how is now wise that they were naked? After all, all of the other beasts were naked too and this was not a problem. Why is it a wise thing to recognise what you already were? It is ironic isn't? The first act of real wisdom is "I am naked, please hide me".
I personally take the view that what happened here is not about them starting to understand good and evil - but in the manner in which it makes them like God. Prior to that time, good and evil were defined by God for humanity. After the eating of the forbidden fruit, they, namely humanity decided for themselves what good and evil were going to be. This is for those of you who want to define God, the essence of what it means to be God. humanity became gods because they decided what right and wrong was going to be. And their first wise saying is "it is bad to be naked". LOL! humans - you got to hand it to them. So from then on - all humans wore clothes. Interestingly, one of the significant differences between humans and the animals is the human decision to wear clothes.
And Although it was of this forbidden tree that they ate from and eventually were sentenced to die; the Tree of Life didn’t lose any immediate problem.
But the noticeable thing here is that once this couple had “eaten” from said tree they become wise. They had had their eyes opened by a so called “serpent” or mores thecase, on the face of it, a much wiser honest god that the one who said they would die.
I am reminded here that Jesus talks somewhat admirably about serpents being wise and instructs his disciples to imitate them:
Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV)Behold,I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
It appears then that this Lord of Genesis wanted us only to know what he wanted us know, and not a thing more: kept in the dark and ignorant.
It seems the wise ole’ snake had done mankind a great big favour.
God did not want us to be ignorant. He wanted us to be truly wise. He wanted us to listen to him and to obey him so that we could experience real life and in his presence. Humanity however chose to listen to Satan, and to reject God's wisdom. He wanted to be wise in his own eyes and after his own counsel and to reject God and his revelation. His first pearl of wisdom is "give me some clothes so that I am not naked." and behold God had to kill a beast to cover him because his fig trees really did not do the job.
Oh humanity fell into darkness because they did not want to remain in the light. They followed their own course and did their own thing and look at the wonderful world we now live in. A delightful paradise full of murderers, and perverts, and rejecters of the light. Oh yes, and we still think nakedness is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I asked could someone explain it to me.
SkepticalOne had no problem with my question. He replied right of the bat and not with 9 billion questions of his own before he would actually get around to answering the question
Yes, skepticalone did answer. Obviously, it was not a problem for him or her because he or she is coming from a similar position to yourself. Me on the other hand do see your posing of questions vague, which they are. I notice you did not bother trying to answer them - even in good faith. This leads me to conclude you did not ask in good faith but had an ulterior motive.
Then why don't you pose it that way, rather than closing down the discussion by attempting to make people look dumb?
It is straightforward request for an explanation. You seem to be struggling with it. Who have I “made look dumb”?
I think your intention was to close down everyone's argument who was opposed to you. You already had your understanding or interpretation and just wanted others to put up something so you could throw it down. Hence, why I asked you what your position was and possibly why you chose not to answer in good faith but resorted rather to attack.
You seem to be losing all of your debates.
That would be in your opinion... again. opinions do not win arguments.
Yes, it is my opinion. and others as well. It may not be your opinion but I am not sure you have yet succeeded in winning any arguments - because you turn people of with your aggressive attitude. You close down people's views rather than engage in meaningful dialogue unless of course it is someone who agrees with you.
I happen to agree here. I don't believe I need another explanation and you haven't got one either.
I am simply asking you to explain what you are trying to achieve by asking such questions and once you have done so, I am only asking that tell us how you came to that conclusion. I don't think that is asking too much. you are clearly much more clever than everyone else on this site and we need to think about the wisdom that you are putting forward.
SkepticalOne Interpolation and redaction were known to exist to the author of Revelation (whichI recognize one of the verses above is from)and this was his attempt to keephis writing unchanged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
sorry, skepticalone, you made the assertion so it is up to you to put up or back down and apologise.
I never said anything and you know it. So either put up and back up your claim or acknowledge it is only speculation based on no evidence at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
This is an assertion not a question. Why do you think you are right and yet religions must be wrong? Seems a little arrogant to me.
Created:
Why do you need anyone to provide evidence for life? Why don't you provide evidence for how life evolved from non-life?
Created:
Posted in:
Floods are not known to organize much less organize by complexity. If you were to find a human fossil in the same strata as a dinosaur fossil then a flood could be considered. However, we dont find this. What we find is simpler organisms in lower/older strata and more complex organisms in shallower/younger strata. A flood does not explain this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How can you be so sure? you have not given a reason but an opinion. This is a debate isn't? Possible? Plausible? Probable? I say no on at least two out of three cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Added: 09.27.18 01:29AM
--> @Stephen
Yes, of course. The author of Revelation had no clue his book would be lashed to others in a future canon. His warning was meant to protect his writing only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is no point in trying to answer a question when it is posed quite vaguely.
Hence, why I asked you the purpose behind wanting to know what it means.
Obviously, you have an agenda, I just want to know what that agenda is before I start answering the question.
Surely, if your question is bone fide, that is not too much to ask?
What do you think it means? And why does it matter?
If you point is simply to prove the bible has contradictions or that Christians don't think about where the NT comes from, then why don't you pose it that way, rather than closing down the discussion by attempting to make people look dumb? One of the principle rules of debate or an argument is that if either side closes down, then the debate has been lost by both sides. You seem to be losing all of your debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Someone who has studied and been peer reviewed by his field. Not wikapedia or an armchair theologian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That is a delightfully full assertion. Do you have any support for this from credible experts or is it something you came up with all by yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why would it matter which parts it applies to?
Are you wanting to add parts or delete parts? Or do think someone else has and wonder whether they have either received curses or been deleted from the book of life?
Do you have a pastoral concern for someone - or perhaps even yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Would it matter? Why would it matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why do you want to know? What do you think it means?
Do you think it is correct or something else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why do you want to know? What do you think it means?
Do you think it is incorrect or that it has no merit?
Created: