Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah - Women, homosexuals, and family values - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Daystar.pathwaymachine		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 304 02/23/09 07:57:27	Argy wrote: Paul says that because sin entered the world through one man the atonement had to be made by a man. But Genesis says the first sinner was a woman. Shouldn't the Messiah have been a woman? No. had Adam rejected Eve's offering of the fruit sin wouldn't have taken place. God put man in charge of the Earth. Adam, that is. Though the first sin was of the serpent (not actually the serpent, but the spirit creature who used the serpent) the first sin as far as Adam or man was concerned was through Adam.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
WALRUS666	The First Sin	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 8 02/23/09 14:01:11	I've always thought that it was God who created sin in this world. Apparently, there was sin in this world prior to Adam & Eve eating the fruit. So, I'd say that the creator of the world, The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the serpent is the guilty party. AIDS, War, Cancer, Poverty, Starvation, Suicide, Depression, Child Molestation, Rape, Murder, and Death (to name a few), are the results of two beings eating some fruit!? I don't know about you guys but if I was the creator I would have taken a pass at creating the serpent and this insidious tree! Have you ever seen any of those old black & white movies? Man, people weren't too bright back then. Now imagine going back to Adam & Eve's time! It wouldn't surprise me to see them swinging from the trees. In addition, Adam & Eve wouldn't have known that the serpent was lying to them (if indeed he was) because they had no knowledge of evil, so they wouldn't even know what a lie was, until they ate the fruit! Even in our barbaric society, these beings would not be held responsible for their actions and would not be punished but helped. Of course, I would question the ways that we'd try to help them, but nevertheless. Yep, I don't give any credence to the Adam & Eve story.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 320 02/24/09 06:52:41	WALRUS666 wrote: I've always thought that it was God who created sin in this world. Apparently, there was sin in this world prior to Adam & Eve eating the fruit. So, I'd say that the creator of the world, The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the serpent is the guilty party. AIDS, War, Cancer, Poverty, Starvation, Suicide, Depression, Child Molestation, Rape, Murder, and Death (to name a few), are the results of two beings eating some fruit!? I don't know about you guys but if I was the creator I would have taken a pass at creating the serpent and this insidious tree! Have you ever seen any of those old black & white movies? Man, people weren't too bright back then. Now imagine going back to Adam & Eve's time! It wouldn't surprise me to see them swinging from the trees. In addition, Adam & Eve wouldn't have known that the serpent was lying to them (if indeed he was) because they had no knowledge of evil, so they wouldn't even know what a lie was, until they ate the fruit! Even in our barbaric society, these beings would not be held responsible for their actions and would not be punished but helped. Of course, I would question the ways that we'd try to help them, but nevertheless. Yep, I don't give any credence to the Adam & Eve story. The Hebrew word ra is sometimes translated evil, so in the King James Version God created evil, but ra can also be translated as calamity or bad or ugly etc. Ra can mean justice through calamity. So when the KJV says God created evil what the original language actually conveyed was that God brought about calamity or disciplined sin. Sin means to miss the mark set by anyone. In the case of Adam sin was to reject the creator and deciding that he could judge what was good and what was evil. God didn't create sin. The serpent was an creature in the garden that was used by an angel to deceive Eve. The angel was the most beautiful of angels in heaven and had been given the charge of protecting Adam and Eve, but instead deceived them into thinking that they could judge what was good and what was bad. So AIDS, War, Cancer, Poverty, Starvation, Suicide, Depression, Child Molestation, Rape, Murder and Death, aside from being good material for Heavy Metal recording artists, was a product of man rather than God. Adam, by the way, did know that the serpent had lied to him because the creator had set down the truth before him and who was this serpent to say different? One of the things that Jesus did was to demonstrate that the perfect Adam didn't have to sin. When you compare Adam to anyone in our barbaric society you fail to appreciate that the earth had been given to Adam to do what he wanted and to just enjoy himself with only the stipulation that he keep in mind the obvious fact that his creator knew what was best for him and could give guidance and protection. Adam rejected that so the creator, Jehovah God, had very little choice but to let him have a go of it on his own. All of the things you mention above are a result of that, but, the creator will step in before man has destroyed all of it completely [looks at watch] and set it right only for those who would have better sense than Adam had.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
WALRUS666	Response To Daystar	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 10 02/25/09 03:06:24	Greetings Daystar, If the word "sin" in this case is used incorrectly in the KJV and the words "calamity" or "disciplined sin" are the correct terms, then these terms should have been used instead. Surely, the Word of God shouldn't need support from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek dictionaries or any other book or writings for that matter. The Word of God should stand on it's own and be perfect as God claims to be. The KJV is the word of God, is it not? Even if "calamity or "disciplined sin" are the correct terms, these terms still suggest sin to me. How can one create sin, calamity, and, or disciplined sin, without sinning? Which brings us to the beautiful angel that you mentioned. I take it that you were referring to Satan. Wouldn't you consider it a sin to create a creature such as Satan? Bear in mind that God knew before he created this being that Satan would rebel against him and cause every type of sin that you can imagine (and many that you can't), bringing the world to the brink of destruction. Yet, God created him anyway! Quite frankly, If I knew that if I made love with my girlfriend tonight and as a result she was going to give birth to a son who would be responsible for crashing an airplane into a building killing thousands of innocent people, guess what? I'm taking a cold shower instead! The kid will not be born. Free will or not. So, if as you wrote "The serpent was an creature in the garden that was used by an angel to deceive Eve", wouldn't this deception be considered a sin? It certainly sounds like a sin to me and of course it happened prior to Eve eating the fruit. So, in essence, I must conclude that there was indeed sin in the world before Adam & Eve ate the fruit. Incidentally, I mentioned Aids, War, etc, as the result of eating fruit to show a comparison between the crime and the punishment. By all means, the punishment does not fit the crime! You wrote "Adam, by the way, did know that the serpent had lied to him because the creator had set down the truth before him and who was this serpent to say different?" Again, how would Adam & Eve know how to differentiate between truth and lies if they didn't have a knowledge of good & evil? The serpent's so-called lies were evil, correct? If anything, a lie could possibly confuse them a bit but they certainly wouldn't think to themselves "hey this dude is full of shit"! They wouldn't have known what a lie was! At any rate, an amusing tale.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 331 02/25/09 06:42:16	WALRUS666, the word evil is in the KJV where the word calamity is more accurate. There are two types of Bibles; versions and translations. The version is more of a personal expression of the original language, in other words they put it in their own words where as a translation is a more literal attempt at capturing the original language as best as possible. The first printings of the KJV actually had quotes from William Shakespeare within the text. They translate certain animals like ox bull or goat into mythical creatures like unicorn, dragon and satyr. The KJV is also limited from a modern day perspective due to the old language. A shamble then meant a meat market and now means a funny walk or mess. But even though the KJV is, in my opinion, the worst Bible there is, it is still possible to get from it every thing you need to know about God's word. I once did a comparison study of the KJV with 5 other translations and there was surprisingly (to me) little harm done by the KJV. The KJV is an imperfect interpretation of God's word and there are no perfect interpretations. Critics of the Bible often say God's word should be clear to us without flaw or question and translation should be protected or insured by God himself but God allows us to translate his word as we think it should be translated, and we are imperfect but God is aware of this. The ancient Israelites who God dealt very closely with as well as the disciples of Christ were not perfect the same as we, but that isn't a problem. There isn't going to be a test where only the best interpretation passes it is simply a question of seeking knowledge (John 17:3) The beautiful angel who protected the garden of Eden was not created as Satan. He was created a perfect being and there was no sin in him, nor was his creation a sin. God didn't know beforehand that the angel later known as Satan (Satan is a Hebrew word which means adversary; devil is from the Greek di·a′bo·los and means slanderer or liar) would sin, nor that Adam would sin. The deception of the angel through the serpent was a sin, but this sin wasn't perpetrated by men. Only Adam, who was in charge of the earth, could have sinned and brought sin to everyone after him. If the angel had sinned by deceiving Eve but Eve didn't buy into it then there wouldn't have been a sin on her part. If Adam who was in charge had corrected Eve that wouldn't have been a sin for Adam and we wouldn't have inherited sin. If they had had a child before the sin and the child sinned and Adam corrected him we wouldn't have inherited sin. It was all up to Adam. You mention AIDS and punishment for a crime, but that is sort of an oversimplified example. It isn't so much a crime and punishment as it is a result of what happened. God created Adam and Eve and the Earth perfect. He only insisted that it was important that they, like children, listen to their creator. They rejected that and pushed him away. But they also raised a question; Is man capable of running things without the protection and guidance of the creator? In all fairness the creator had to allow this question to be answered. now God and I know that man will destroy God's creation if given the chance and that is what he is doing. But God won't allow his creation to be destroyed. Once the answer to the question is clear God will step in before that happens. WALRUS666 wrote: Again, how would Adam & Eve know how to differentiate between truth and lies if they didn't have a knowledge of good & evil? The serpent's so-called lies were evil, correct? If anything, a lie could possibly confuse them a bit but they certainly wouldn't think to themselves "hey this dude is full of shit"! They wouldn't have known what a lie was! At any rate, an amusing tale. I think that you are probably accustomed to the fucked up version of the 'amusing tale' as presented by Xianity. Lets take a closer look - briefly. Adam was created and was surrounded by animals that died. He was told that if he didn't keep in mind the importance of the creator's guidance and protection, symbolized by the tree, he too would die. Eve came to him and he knew what she did was wrong, but he concluded that he would be the judge of what was good and what was bad or evil himself. He rejected God. God stepped back and said I can't have anything to do with that, you are on your own. I think you have a problem with the meaning of sin and the Hebrew word Ra which is translated as evil. Let me give an example of what this word really means in relation to what happened in Eden and what is meant by God having created Ra, translated evil or bad. In modern understanding. A child is told by his father to not play in the road or something very bad (evil from Ra) will happen. The mark has been set by the father. The child misses the mark (sin) by playing in the road anyway. The father sees him and disciplines him. To the child the discipline is bad (ra) so the father created something bad or evil or hurtful (Ra) to discipline the child from doing something worse (Ra).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
busterggi	Please quote where the bible says this	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 228 02/25/09 15:24:02	"The beautiful angel who protected the garden of Eden was not created as Satan. He was created a perfect being and there was no sin in him, nor was his creation a sin. God didn't know beforehand that the angel later known as Satan (Satan is a Hebrew word which means adversary; devil is from the Greek di·a′bo·los and means slanderer or liar) would sin, nor that Adam would sin. The deception of the angel through the serpent was a sin, but this sin wasn't perpetrated by men. " Perfect beings supposedly don't sin And bible-god is an idiot not to know better. "Lets take a closer look - briefly. Adam was created and was surrounded by animals that died. " Another of your interpretations or can you actually quote the bible on this? I already know you can't but give it a try.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
WALRUS666	Hello Buster	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11 02/26/09 03:45:54	"Perfect beings supposedly don't sin And bible-god is an idiot not to know better." Well, I guess that if perfect beings can sin then we can expect Jesus to go to war with God and the Holy Spirit in an attempt to take the thrown for himself and set up an alliance with Satan.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
busterggi		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 230 02/26/09 06:14:56	According to the usual beliefs of Christians the NT overthrows the OT so it already happened & Yahweh is warming a seat next to Odin & the other deposed gods.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
WALRUS666		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 02/26/09 04:26:19	Daystar wrote: WALRUS666, the word evil is in the KJV where the word calamity is more accurate. There are two types of Bibles; versions and translations. The version is more of a personal expression of the original language, in other words they put it in their own words where as a translation is a more literal attempt at capturing the original language as best as possible. The first printings of the KJV actually had quotes from William Shakespeare within the text. They translate certain animals like ox bull or goat into mythical creatures like unicorn, dragon and satyr. The KJV is also limited from a modern day perspective due to the old language. A shamble then meant a meat market and now means a funny walk or mess. But even though the KJV is, in my opinion, the worst Bible there is, it is still possible to get from it every thing you need to know about God's word. I once did a comparison study of the KJV with 5 other translations and there was surprisingly (to me) little harm done by the KJV. The KJV is an imperfect interpretation of God's word and there are no perfect interpretations. Critics of the Bible often say God's word should be clear to us without flaw or question and translation should be protected or insured by God himself but God allows us to translate his word as we think it should be translated, and we are imperfect but God is aware of this. The ancient Israelites who God dealt very closely with as well as the disciples of Christ were not perfect the same as we, but that isn't a problem. There isn't going to be a test where only the best interpretation passes it is simply a question of seeking knowledge (John 17:3) The beautiful angel who protected the garden of Eden was not created as Satan. He was created a perfect being and there was no sin in him, nor was his creation a sin. God didn't know beforehand that the angel later known as Satan (Satan is a Hebrew word which means adversary; devil is from the Greek di·a′bo·los and means slanderer or liar) would sin, nor that Adam would sin. The deception of the angel through the serpent was a sin, but this sin wasn't perpetrated by men. Only Adam, who was in charge of the earth, could have sinned and brought sin to everyone after him. If the angel had sinned by deceiving Eve but Eve didn't buy into it then there wouldn't have been a sin on her part. If Adam who was in charge had corrected Eve that wouldn't have been a sin for Adam and we wouldn't have inherited sin. If they had had a child before the sin and the child sinned and Adam corrected him we wouldn't have inherited sin. It was all up to Adam. You mention AIDS and punishment for a crime, but that is sort of an oversimplified example. It isn't so much a crime and punishment as it is a result of what happened. God created Adam and Eve and the Earth perfect. He only insisted that it was important that they, like children, listen to their creator. They rejected that and pushed him away. But they also raised a question; Is man capable of running things without the protection and guidance of the creator? In all fairness the creator had to allow this question to be answered. now God and I know that man will destroy God's creation if given the chance and that is what he is doing. But God won't allow his creation to be destroyed. Once the answer to the question is clear God will step in before that happens. WALRUS666 wrote: Again, how would Adam & Eve know how to differentiate between truth and lies if they didn't have a knowledge of good & evil? The serpent's so-called lies were evil, correct? If anything, a lie could possibly confuse them a bit but they certainly wouldn't think to themselves "hey this dude is full of shit"! They wouldn't have known what a lie was! At any rate, an amusing tale. I think that you are probably accustomed to the fucked up version of the 'amusing tale' as presented by Xianity. Lets take a closer look - briefly. Adam was created and was surrounded by animals that died. He was told that if he didn't keep in mind the importance of the creator's guidance and protection, symbolized by the tree, he too would die. Eve came to him and he knew what she did was wrong, but he concluded that he would be the judge of what was good and what was bad or evil himself. He rejected God. God stepped back and said I can't have anything to do with that, you are on your own. I think you have a problem with the meaning of sin and the Hebrew word Ra which is translated as evil. Let me give an example of what this word really means in relation to what happened in Eden and what is meant by God having created Ra, translated evil or bad. In modern understanding. A child is told by his father to not play in the road or something very bad (evil from Ra) will happen. The mark has been set by the father. The child misses the mark (sin) by playing in the road anyway. The father sees him and disciplines him. To the child the discipline is bad (ra) so the father created something bad or evil or hurtful (Ra) to discipline the child from doing something worse (Ra). Daystar, thanks for the response. I see that we're talking in circles on some of these issues and there's no point in going over them again. However, I noticed a couple of new points that you made and have a couple of questions for you. How could you possibly believe that GOD ALMIGHTY didn't know that Lucifer and Adam would sin? Secondly, like Buster, I'm a bit curious about the dead animal bit. You're not reading from the Daystar.pathwaymachine International Expanded version of the Bible, are you? Unfortunately, I have to cut this short. A thing called "work" is about to rear its ugly head.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine	Daystar Is Lucifer!	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 348 02/26/09 12:30:22	WALRUS666 wrote: Daystar, thanks for the response. I see that we're talking in circles on some of these issues and there's no point in going over them again. However, I noticed a couple of new points that you made and have a couple of questions for you. How could you possibly believe that GOD ALMIGHTY didn't know that Lucifer and Adam would sin? Secondly, like Buster, I'm a bit curious about the dead animal bit. You're not reading from the Daystar.pathwaymachine International Expanded version of the Bible, are you? Unfortunately, I have to cut this short. A thing called "work" is about to rear its ugly head. Lucifer isn't Satan. Lucifer is a Latin word that means "light bearer", so the Latin Vulgate translates the Greek word Heosphóros meaning "bringer of dawn" from the Septuagint which in turn comes from the Hebrew word hehlel meaning "shinning one" as Lucifer. Since the KJV comes from the Latin Vulgate it uses the word Lucifer at Isaiah 14:12. The only place the word Lucifer appears as such in the Bible. Other translations also use the term Lucifer such as the Douay, An American Translation, Knox and Darby. The American Standard Version and Revised Standard Version use the term "Day Star" instead of Lucifer, Rotherham uses "Shining One" and Moffatt uses "shining star." WHY?! You ask? Or was it who would possibly care? The answer, Walrus, is that Isaiah 14:12 actually applies, not to Satan, but rather in this case to the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. The term is applied to him in the sense that he would bring about a figurative new day. He would destroy the earthly representation of Kings of Jehovah God. The "Daystar" or the "Morning Star" was a bright symbol of the coming dawn - a new day. Daystar, or morning stars were used because in certain seasons of the year they are the last to rise on the eastern horizon before the sun appears and so herals of the dawn of a new day. Isn't that fascinating?! No? Oh, I think it is! What the hell were we talking about? Just a second, I have to scroll . . . Did God Almighty know that Satan (then not known by that name) and Adam would sin? The answer is no. It is a difficult thing for a skeptic to accept, I know. Lets say you built a robot to your own standards and it, for no reason that you could foresee, fucked up. It isn't your fault. The trouble with that example is that you are not God Almighty and we are not robots, but that is sort of the point. God wouldn't have punished Adam for his own creation flaw. For something he knew Adam would do. God warned Adam of the possibility. From a logical and educated or even from a philosophical position I can see that but logic is a difficult thing to exercise when you have no point of reference. This is why I hate it when skeptics assume what God can do and how a perfectly created creature would act. But all of that is just something to think about. The real reason why I know that God didn't know that Adam or Satan would sin, or that that had to sin, is that Jesus was a perfect man who didn't sin. Part of his mission was to demonstrate this. There would be no point in his sacrifice to life everlasting on paradise earth as God originally planned for Adam if we would just fuck it up again. Jesus and, I might add, countless angels didn't sin. Adam didn't have to sin, and so it is possible that he didn't and we all wouldn't be subjected to all that sin brings. Death, sickness, natural disasters, etc. As for the dead animals thing . . . 2 Peter 2:12 kind of points out that animals were not created as humans were, to live forever. No where in the Bible does it indicate otherwise. We can pretty much assume that Adam lived for a considerable amount of time before he sinned. There is, however, no reason to think that animals didn't die before he sinned. Last Edited By: Daystar 02/26/09 12:40:35. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rambo123UK		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 793 02/26/09 12:57:50	Lucifer One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Sir Winston Churchill --- Bible Babble
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Hawker Hurricane		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1758 02/26/09 18:21:22	I always felt sorry for Lucifer. I mean, here's this Roman God, directly connected to the Greek Titan Prometheus. Prometheus was known as "The Friend of Mankind", for he was the one who when man was freezing cold, gave him fire. Now, he got the fire from the Sun, stealing it from Apollo against Zues' orders, and so was punished for a long time by being tied down to a rock and having a eagle come eat his liver every day (it grew back). He was eventually freed. Now here's a God who likes people. He suffered because he helped people. And now his name is attached with the ultimate evil. It just isn't fair. (For the record, to the Romans "Lucifer" was symbolized in the sky as the Morning Star, which we know is Venus. The Evening Star the Romans called Venus, which we know is also Venus. Seems the Romans, at least the peasantry, didn't realize that there was only one planet there. And Mercury got two names too, being known as Vulcan in the evening.) Aggressive Agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
busterggi	Ass-uming	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 233 02/26/09 19:29:55	"We can pretty much assume that Adam lived for a considerable amount of time before he sinned. There is, however, no reason to think that animals didn't die before he sinned. " We can also assume that Adam sinned on day one and that no animals died before that. There's no reason not to.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine	Ass-uming Wrong	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 352 02/27/09 07:08:13	busterggi wrote: "We can pretty much assume that Adam lived for a considerable amount of time before he sinned. There is, however, no reason to think that animals didn't die before he sinned. " We can also assume that Adam sinned on day one and that no animals died before that. There's no reason not to. When I say I assume that Adam was around long enough to see animals die I do so for logical reason. Genesis 2:19, 20 indicates that Adam named all of the animals as they were brought to him, and he lived for an indeterminate amount of time before he had a helper in Eve. You think that all of the things that happened from Genesis 2:7 to the end of that chapter happened in one day? And you think the creationists are nuts! C'mon, man, pull yourself together!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Akito		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6 02/27/09 10:09:36	Daystar wrote: busterggi wrote: "We can pretty much assume that Adam lived for a considerable amount of time before he sinned. There is, however, no reason to think that animals didn't die before he sinned. " We can also assume that Adam sinned on day one and that no animals died before that. There's no reason not to. When I say I assume that Adam was around long enough to see animals die I do so for logical reason. Genesis 2:19, 20 indicates that Adam named all of the animals as they were brought to him, and he lived for an indeterminate amount of time before he had a helper in Eve. You think that all of the things that happened from Genesis 2:7 to the end of that chapter happened in one day? And you think the creationists are nuts! C'mon, man, pull yourself together! If God can create the Earth in seven days, then I see no reason why Adam could not name them all in one day. Sure, he is human, but technically, Peter walks on water with Jesus in the New Testament, so naming every animal in one day seems like something believable from a Biblical standpoint. Plus, using "dying animals" as a justification doesn't really aid your point any when God specifically says that the animals only serve the purpose to serve man anyway. So seeing animals die would probably be like losing a completely expendable candy bar.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rambo123UK		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 798 02/27/09 10:51:47	Dave doesn't believe that "day" is a literal meaning. One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Sir Winston Churchill --- Bible Babble
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
busterggi	biblical days my boy, biblical days	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 240 02/28/09 07:44:40	Hey, its a biblical day! You know, one of those ones that lasts as long as its convenient for interpretation. You use it that way all the time so why shouldn't I?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Hawker Hurricane		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1759 03/01/09 19:07:21	busterggi wrote: Hey, its a biblical day! You know, one of those ones that lasts as long as its convenient for interpretation. You use it that way all the time so why shouldn't I? "When I use a word, it means what I wish it to mean, no more and no less." - Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carrol's "Alice in Wonderland" Aggressive Agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
WALRUS666		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 27 08/04/09 20:37:14	Daystar wrote: Did God Almighty know that Satan (then not known by that name) and Adam would sin? The answer is no. Is this your opinion or do you have any Bible verses to support this view?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2688 02/27/09 14:35:48	Daystar No. had Adam rejected Eve's offering of the fruit sin wouldn't have taken place. God put man in charge of the Earth. Adam, that is. Though the first sin was of the serpent (not actually the serpent, but the spirit creature who used the serpent) the first sin as far as Adam or man was concerned was through Adam. I thought you knew your bible better than that. Eve ate the fruit first and then tempted Adam with it (Gen 3.6). She was the first human being who sinned. "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." -- Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
wickle		#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1 02/27/09 18:19:24	Daystar No. had Adam rejected Eve's offering of the fruit sin wouldn't have taken place. God put man in charge of the Earth. Adam, that is. Though the first sin was of the serpent (not actually the serpent, but the spirit creature who used the serpent) the first sin as far as Adam or man was concerned was through Adam. Based on the mythology, Eve would have been the first human to sin. Of the cognisant "creatures" , God or the serpent would actually fit the bill better. Yet , even the serpent did nothing evil . He told the truth. So , that leave God as the culprit. That either of the humans sinned is theological dogma.Their creator gave niether of them the ability to decide right from wrong. He forbid them the ability to consume the very fruit that would have given them the moral compass to way a deciet , even with it starring them right in the face.Nor could they resist temptation. They were offered knowledge....is this a bad thing? No, I think not. One might even concider the serpent(a real serpent, not a possesed serpent) a hero. He did afterall help spread moral knowledge to humanity , when the creator refused to allow it.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine		#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 422 03/06/09 07:22:32	Argy wrote: I thought you knew your bible better than that. Eve ate the fruit first and then tempted Adam with it (Gen 3.6). She was the first human being who sinned. Well, you are correct. Eve was the first human to sin, but it meant more for Adam to have sinned and that is where we inherited our sin. From Adam rather than Eve. For two reasons. 1. Adam was in charge and could have corrected Eve thus preventing sin from entering to all mankind, and 2. Eve was decieved but Adam was not. (Romans 5:14 / 1 Timothy 2:14)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
wickle		#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 24 03/06/09 09:01:55	Irrelevent. Eve had eaten the fruit , already. The knowledge had already entered her.According to this god , Eve had her "seed". This would mean that at least half of the knowledge that this set of gods was so fearful of humans getting ahold of was already in her.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine		#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 461 03/22/09 06:55:58	wickle wrote: Irrelevent. Eve had eaten the fruit , already. The knowledge had already entered her.According to this god , Eve had her "seed". This would mean that at least half of the knowledge that this set of gods was so fearful of humans getting ahold of was already in her. Wrong. It was the sin of Adam.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
busterggi	So...	#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 304 03/22/09 15:01:57	if only Eve had eaten the apple would only women be sinners? How many wives do you think Adam would have gone through anyway?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine	The Answer Is 42?	#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 519 04/05/09 18:27:22	busterggi wrote: if only Eve had eaten the apple would only women be sinners? How many wives do you think Adam would have gone through anyway? As I have said before, if only Eve had eaten the apple mankind wouldn't have inherited sin. I hate to say this, because it seems to piss already irate skeptics off - because they can't see the importance of the language for the religious tradition of Xianity - but to sin only means you fail to live up to a standard. Adam would have told Eve of God's standards so it would still be a sin, but that only means that she would have failed in that regard. Since Adam had been entrusted with the planet and the future of mankind he could have corrected her and it would have ended there. Especially since Eve had been decieved. That wasn't the case with Adam. So when you talk about sin and the sin of Adam they are not necessarily the same thing. The sin of Adam is the result of Adam's choice which effects us all. I don't know what you mean by how many wives for Adam, I will take a guess and say 42? Is that right?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
wickle		#27	[url]	[-]
Posts: 117 04/05/09 19:30:52	Daystar wrote: busterggi wrote: if only Eve had eaten the apple would only women be sinners? How many wives do you think Adam would have gone through anyway? As I have said before, if only Eve had eaten the apple mankind wouldn't have inherited sin. I hate to say this, because it seems to piss already irate skeptics off - because they can't see the importance of the language for the religious tradition of Xianity - but to sin only means you fail to live up to a standard. Adam would have told Eve of God's standards so it would still be a sin, but that only means that she would have failed in that regard. Since Adam had been entrusted with the planet and the future of mankind he could have corrected her and it would have ended there. Especially since Eve had been decieved. That wasn't the case with Adam. So when you talk about sin and the sin of Adam they are not necessarily the same thing. The sin of Adam is the result of Adam's choice which effects us all. I don't know what you mean by how many wives for Adam, I will take a guess and say 42? Is that right? Why are you applying this to christianity , alone? This was Hebrew and is sighted by Jews. It is thier bible , after all. And , again , the bible says nothing about Adam not correcting Eve. This is a christian interpretation and filling in gaps, where nothing exists. Bad habit of believers , to fill those gaps up with thier own stuff(beliefs), when things don`t make sense or don`t match up.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Argy Lacedom		#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2710 03/06/09 09:05:36	1. Adam was in charge and could have corrected Eve thus preventing sin from entering to all mankind, But God was the boss of Adam. By your reasoning God should take the blame. 2. Eve was decieved but Adam was not. (Romans 5:14 / 1 Timothy 2:14) Adam was deceived by Eve (Gen 3:6) who told him the fruit was good to eat and would make him wise. "It's as simple as this: If there is a god who is capable of making himself known to us and cares that we know him, there would never be a question of his existence."- Yark Hutprancer SAB DB
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
wickle		#29	[url]	[-]
Posts: 25 03/06/09 09:43:52	Argy Lacedom wrote: 1. Adam was in charge and could have corrected Eve thus preventing sin from entering to all mankind, But God was the boss of Adam. By your reasoning God should take the blame. 2. Eve was decieved but Adam was not. (Romans 5:14 / 1 Timothy 2:14) Adam was deceived by Eve (Gen 3:6) who told him the fruit was good to eat and would make him wise. There is no evidence of any conversation that took place between Adam and Eve. He could only have gone by his own observation.The only thing that is noted , is that she offered him the fruit. She was eating the fruit, and was not made ill ,or did not die. Yes , god was the one in charge. But , according to D , he is not accountable.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine		#30	[url]	[-]
Posts: 462 03/22/09 07:08:20	Daystar - 1. Adam was in charge and could have corrected Eve thus preventing sin from entering to all mankind, Argy - But God was the boss of Adam. By your reasoning God should take the blame. It seems that I can explain this over and over again with absolutely no effect. You all have the Xian myth stuck in your heads and you can't get around it. I am going to ask you questions instead, as if I were trying to deprogram an Xian. A. Who created the Earth and why? B. What were the rules to the first created pair? C. What issues were raised by the breaking of the rules? D. What were the results? Daystar - 2. Eve was decieved but Adam was not. (Romans 5:14 / 1 Timothy 2:14) Argy - Adam was deceived by Eve (Gen 3:6) who told him the fruit was good to eat and would make him wise. I gave you the verses that indicated that Adam was not decieved and Eve was. Those verses said exactly that. Genesis 3:6 says: - "Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it." You are projecting your own ideas into your understanding of the account with no evidence for doing so.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
wickle		#31	[url]	[-]
Posts: 49 03/22/09 07:43:45	Daystar wrote: Daystar - 1. Adam was in charge and could have corrected Eve thus preventing sin from entering to all mankind, Argy - But God was the boss of Adam. By your reasoning God should take the blame. It seems that I can explain this over and over again with absolutely no effect. You all have the Xian myth stuck in your heads and you can't get around it. I am going to ask you questions instead, as if I were trying to deprogram an Xian. Daystar - 2. Eve was decieved but Adam was not. (Romans 5:14 / 1 Timothy 2:14) Argy - Adam was deceived by Eve (Gen 3:6) who told him the fruit was good to eat and would make him wise. I gave you the verses that indicated that Adam was not decieved and Eve was. Those verses said exactly that. Genesis 3:6 says: - "Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it." You are projecting your own ideas into your understanding of the account with no evidence for doing so. Dude, your one of those believers! Non of use should listen to you, either. Look at the book. God was the deciever. (Look at Eve as the first research scientist. She ate the fruit as a test.It looked nice.Tasted good. It was good for food. And she didn`t die that day. )
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Daystar.pathwaymachine	Amazing!	#32	[url]	[-]
Posts: 466 03/22/09 08:37:06	Wickle wrote: Dude, your one of those believers! Non of use should listen to you, either. Look at the book. God was the deciever. (Look at Eve as the first research scientist. She ate the fruit as a test.It looked nice.Tasted good. It was good for food. And she didn`t die that day. ) Show me how the book would indicate, should I happen to look at it, that God was the deciever.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
wickle		#33	[url]	[-]
Posts: 53 03/22/09 08:53:13	It was good for food. And she didn`t die that day. (oh, I know...a day isn`t a day) They(A and Eve) died , the same as any human does, and was built to. Very so so myth , if you look at it. Full of tall tales , bad guys and suprnatural talking critters ,and explaining the hardships of labor, and difficulty of living in a hostile environement. Nothing really extroarnary about it.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	01/20/09 14:00:30	Argy Lacedom
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	01/21/09 05:35:49	busterggi
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	01/21/09 21:26:00	Argy Lacedom
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	01/25/09 18:10:40	Yark Hutprancer
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/23/09 07:57:27	Daystar.pathwaymachine
The First Sin	02/23/09 14:01:11	WALRUS666
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/24/09 06:52:41	Daystar.pathwaymachine
Response To Daystar	02/25/09 03:06:24	WALRUS666
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/25/09 06:42:16	Daystar.pathwaymachine
Please quote where the bible says this	02/25/09 15:24:02	busterggi
Hello Buster	02/26/09 03:45:54	WALRUS666
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/26/09 06:14:56	busterggi
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/26/09 04:26:19	WALRUS666
Daystar Is Lucifer!	02/26/09 12:30:22	Daystar.pathwaymachine
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/26/09 12:57:50	Rambo123UK
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/26/09 18:21:22	Hawker Hurricane
Ass-uming	02/26/09 19:29:55	busterggi
Ass-uming Wrong	02/27/09 07:08:13	Daystar.pathwaymachine
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/27/09 10:09:36	Akito
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/27/09 10:51:47	Rambo123UK
biblical days my boy, biblical days	02/28/09 07:44:40	busterggi
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/01/09 19:07:21	Hawker Hurricane
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	08/04/09 20:37:14	WALRUS666
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/27/09 14:35:48	Argy Lacedom
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/27/09 18:19:24	wickle
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/06/09 07:22:32	Daystar.pathwaymachine
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/06/09 09:01:55	wickle
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/22/09 06:55:58	Daystar.pathwaymachine
So...	03/22/09 15:01:57	busterggi
The Answer Is 42?	04/05/09 18:27:22	Daystar.pathwaymachine
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	04/05/09 19:30:52	wickle
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/06/09 09:05:36	Argy Lacedom
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/06/09 09:43:52	wickle
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/22/09 07:08:20	Daystar.pathwaymachine
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/22/09 07:43:45	wickle
Amazing!	03/22/09 08:37:06	Daystar.pathwaymachine
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/22/09 08:53:13	wickle
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/23/09 14:16:16	WALRUS666
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/26/09 18:13:52	Akito
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	02/28/09 08:35:04	wickle
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/25/09 13:41:27	Akito
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	03/25/09 14:29:59	wickle
Re: Paul's Sexism and the Female Messiah	04/05/09 19:38:23	wickle