Satan in the garden?

Jerry · Apr 29, 2006

kal-el said:
I was under the impression that "nephilium" were "giants"

I misunderstood.
I had assumed a distinction between the original Nephilim and their offspring. The original Nephilim turned themselves from angels into Nephilim by falling from grace. God did not create them with sin, nor did God make them sin. God created them as holy angels, not fallen angels (= Nephilim).

Then why did he feel the need to drown nearly all of the human race?

God effected the flood because, again, they were evil. Assuming the Father knows absolutely everything, yes, He knew who was going to do what, which is why I assume that the flood was a strategic move. He knew what the Nephilim were going to do, so He set them up.

However, now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, saying that it is wrong when God allows evil in the world and it is wrong when He destroys it

Of course it was.....

Battling evil is not evil.

I'm trying to convey that the quanity of human anguish on this earth is not congruent with a perfectly good God.

If God does not run around like Q, snapping his fingers and making utopias everywhere and nullifying every choice we make per our free will, I assume that He has His reasons for not doing so, and I assume that these reasons lead to an ultimate good.

Remember that anything you ask for in faith will be don. So if you wish for such mass heart attacks, before you blame God, blame yourself for not making that request in faith to Jesus. YOU could have don something, but YOU stood by and let it happen, knowing that Jesus would have answered had you had trust in who you hold as the authority.

Tuff-love is not beyond God.

So, he didn't create murders?

That's right, God does not create murderers. God creates innocent children. Through the choices made by the children’s parents, their peers, and strangers, these children may become predisposed to committing murder. That person retains the ability, through free will, to chose to not commit the murder. It is exactly one's ability to chose not to commit crime which exonerates God.

So I take it God is incapable of creating contentment without creating affliction.

So what? Limitation does not = imperfection. See below.

Well then, how can you presume to speak for him?

You are misrepresenting a point of view, opinion, interpretation and quotations as "speaking for".

Either you know everything about the "master plan", and thus have no questions to debate me with, or per your own quoting and interpretations have also "spoken for God".

Dude, at least 11 other deities were barbarically crucified also. Why is Jesus any different?

[Fundi mode]
Jesus is different because Jesus is the Son of God.
[Fundi Mode]

Who here these 11 other deities, by the way? I suspect that some or all are one in the same with Jesus, and that they appear to be different because their story comes from a non-mainstream couture.

Saying "God did it" alleviates man from any burdens. There is no proof God invented tools.

That's another void which Genesis can not fulfill.

Nope, the idea or will to do harm is still very much there, it's just they're physically unable to carry-out that thought.

Would you then concede that if a woman is denied an on-demand abortion that her will is not infringed? She can, after all, still think about having an abortion.

So that means that God cannot effect his plans without evil.

Yes. Evil must be involved at some point, in some way, to some degree. Even if Adam and Eve had successfully resisted Satan and not eaten "the fruit", evil would have still had to be present in order to give the challenge of temptation to be overcome.

Were does it state that the "Holy Spirit" was in the garden? I think it states very clearly that the Lord God was present there. To my knowledge, holy spirit is only mentioned twice in the OT.

I interpret references to "Lord" to refer to a personified being. Deists primarily refer to the Holey Sprit (incorporeal force), and theists primarily refer to the Father (corporeal being). With the Christian triune God, both Theists and Deists are correct, it's just that they straw man each other because they come from 2 distinctively different "heads" of God. They do not first possess a common God-head from which the discussion will advance, hence the conflict.

Well if I am confusing them, which there's not even a scintilla of biblical evidence to support your "trinity" idea, then one of them is not afforded with the omnimax attributes. Which one has a fault? Is it the Padre, the son, or the holy spirit?

Lack of omnimax is not a fault, because a void of knowledge is not filled with evil (= guilt of crime). Prier to eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were sinless despite their lack of mastering nuclear power and space flight. Also, a new born child is totally void of evil despite their lack of knowledge of quantum theory, or Windows source code.

Jesus clearly does not possess the attribute of omnimax because he claimed to not know the day or time of the Lord's return to earth (Jesus was also surprised by a women who touched his robe from the back.....I forget the passage off-hand); yet despite this, Jesus is innocent of crime, and despite having many powerful emotions, Jesus retained his " perfect" status, making him a suitable sacrifice as "the Lamb".

In Matthew 21:35-39; Jesus himself hints that the Father is also absent of the attribute of omnimax, because in the Parable of the Tenants, the Father of the Son assumed that the tenants would respect His son. The Father was wrong.

God is perfect to His nature, but apparently this nature does not extend to knowing every choice that will be made.

The Holey Spirit, I would say, most sertanly would possess omnimax, but this entity is so incomprehensibly beyond our ability to understand that no logical reasoning can even be attempted. We wouldn't even be capable of understanding out logical fallacy is doing so. Hence my sig.

It is imperfection that makes error plausible.

Emotion is not an imperfection, so one is not in error by experiencing it.

This is, of coarse, unless you are saying that 1; it is wrong for a woman to feel anger at her rapist, or 2: loving your child is a mistake and should be avoided.

You don't say. They should've just went ahead with the evolutionary theory, as divine creation just doesn't cut it.

I don't believe that Genesis is the complete story, not by far, nor is Genesis represented well in any non original language.

I mean for example, you might get angry and jealous if you see your girlfriend hanging out with another guy, but because of a lack of knowledge, you show anger, he could be gay.

That's the fault of one's own insecurity, not of an unexpected event.

why omniscience is totally incompatible with emotions. If you're a teacher, you're mad because someone didn't do their homework, but it turns out they had a serious family emergency, a death, because of this lack of knowledge, a death in the family, you show an emotion.

Anger is a level of hate which is felt when an event occurs which is contrary to your will, not to your foresight. The teacher would be angry over the lack of homework because s/he wishes the student to do his/her part in learning. When the teacher learns that the homework was not don due to, say, a family death, the teacher's anger will subside if s/he does not wish for students to complete their work at-all-costs.

Likewise, the afore mentioned jealousy comes from the boyfriend's will to keep his relationship with his girlfriend exclusive, his assumption that the relation ship between his girlfriend and this other guy is romantic, and of jumping to his own conclusions rather than investigating the matter.

Quantum Theory trump God's omniscience?

I don't think so.

, he didn't know that the serpent was in the garden, or if he did, and knew it had deceitful intentions, he isn't benevolent.

Allowing people to make their own choices is not wrong.

God already knows what they will choose. Then they have no choice but to choose whatever he knows, or else if God is wrong, he isn't perfect.

As above....did God know, or did He not?

have indeed heard of this, there's many ways of showing contradictions. Atheists are the ones asking the question, theists must find a suitable answer, no?

I was just wondering if you had yet heard a satisfactory answer. Would you like one? Let me give it a shot.....

Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?
No.
Anything that God can make, He can also move.

This question is a classic straw man that has most Christians looking like the proverbial dear in headlights. At best, it challenges God's omnipotence. At worst, it challenges His existence.

First, there is a problem with the premise of the question. While it is true that God can do anything which is consistent with His nature, it is absurd to suggest that He can do everything. He can not lie ( Hebrews 6:18); He can not be tempted ( James 1:13); He can not cease to exist ( Psalm 102:25-27).

Furthermore, just as it is imposable to make a one-sided triangle, so it is imposable to make a rock so heavy it can not be moved. What an all-powerful God can create He can also move. Put another way, God can do everything that is logically possible.

Is that satisfactory?

Jerry · May 1, 2006

Some more thoughts on Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?:

When I first heard it I thought “if the rock is absolutely still, then since the univerce is moving, said rock would apear to be moving as well, in the oposit vector, and atheists would exclude this rock as evidence that God could create such a thing because Man can not yet actively and continualy meashure the movment of the univerce like we can meashure a car’s movment. We would perceive the rock as moving. So even if such a thing existed, we wouldn’t likely realise it.”

Then I thought, “If God created a rock so heavy He couldn’t move it, then sertanly this rock would be far away from any other celestrial body, otherwise the rock’s immence gravity would consume it. Given that said rock is all alone in space, then since there would be no plain for God to stand on in order to atempt a lifting motion, the whole concept of lifting said rock is illogical, as that movment is not possible.”

Finaly, all matter that exists in this univerce was present in the Big-Bang..…and God moved that. So if there is an amount of matter which could exeed God’s max bench-press, then since that sum of matter does not exist in this univerce, we would not be capable of perceiving it, thus this hypothetical sum of matter can not conform to the scientific methid which means that even if such a thing did exist, atheists could not use it as evidence of a limitation of God.

Donkey1499 · May 1, 2006

The serpent wasn't really a dragon (cuz dragons are myths) the serpent was probably some kind of dinosaur or other reptile. (If you believe that Darwinist crapola then you'd know that dinosaurs and reptiles are allegedly akin anyway.)

Jerry · May 1, 2006

Donkey1499 said:
The serpent wasn't really a dragon (cuz dragons are myths) the serpent was probably some kind of dinosaur or other reptile. (If you believe that Darwinist crapola then you'd know that dinosaurs and reptiles are allegedly akin anyway.)

"Some kind of dinosaur or other reptile".....who could speak and reason.....like Quetzalcoatl.....named Gadrel.

Donkey1499 · May 3, 2006

Jerry said:
"Some kind of dinosaur or other reptile".....who could speak and reason.....like Quetzalcoatl.....named Gadrel.

Maybe a pterosaur?

Jerry · May 3, 2006

Donkey1499 said:
Maybe a pterosaur?

Hmmmm.......is there evidence or a theory that pterosaurs "evolved" into some sort of snake? That would need to have happened in order for a pterosaur to have been the one in the garden.

Donkey1499 · May 3, 2006

Jerry said:
Hmmmm.......is there evidence or a theory that pterosaurs "evolved" into some sort of snake? That would need to have happened in order for a pterosaur to have been the one in the garden.

I don't believe in evolution.
There were many different breeds of pterosaur. So it would be easy to miss one.

Jerry · May 3, 2006

Donkey1499 said:
I don't believe in evolution.
There were many different breeds of pterosaur. So it would be easy to miss one.

I have some mixed views on evolution, but I do not think that it applies to modern Man, nore how life started on earth.

kal-el · May 3, 2006

Sorry for the late reply Jerry, but I had some personal ,matters to tend to.

Jerry said:
I misunderstood.
I had assumed a distinction between the original Nephilim and their offspring. The original Nephilim turned themselves from angels into Nephilim by falling from grace. God did not create them with sin, nor did God make them sin. God created them as holy angels, not fallen angels (= Nephilim).

Ok, that's fine, but so that you're aware, Bible text does not state this explicitly.

God effected the flood because, again, they were evil.

Again, it is his fault that men were evil. if you say it's his "free will", then it's totally possible to create man with the predisposition not to sin. For example, let's say I tell you that I have a cup filled with deadly poison, and I present it to you, of course you'd say no, and turn it down, but you could still choose to drink it; hence your free will would not be hindered. But we have an inclination, or predisposition to sin, why is that? If sin is considered so terrible, then wouldn't you think it would only make common sense for God to program us not to choose sinning? Is such a thing beyond the capapbillites of an omnipotent God?

Assuming the Father knows absolutely everything, yes, He knew who was going to do what, which is why I assume that the flood was a strategic move.
He knew what the Nephilim were going to do, so He set them up.

Or a totally perverted, sadistic move. Wouldn't you say it would be more beneficial to not create the nephilium in that case? The mere fact that he knew what they would do, yet set the play in motion, means he does not care about the consequences; hence not omnibenevolent. Or if he went through with it, and is still called perfectly good, then he cannot be omniscient. If any of this is true, why call him God then?

However, now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, saying that it is wrong when God allows evil in the world and it is wrong when He destroys it

Not at all, if God is considered perfectly good, then 1) he wouldn't allow evil to penetrate his creation, and if #1's correct, then 2) he wouldn't need to extinguish any life forms.

Battling evil is not evil.

No, on the surface, you are correct. But it is very evil to a diety who knows what's gonna go down, and still allows it to happen, just so he could administer all kinds of biblical wrath.

If God does not run around like Q, snapping his fingers and making utopias everywhere and nullifying every choice we make per our free will, I assume that He has His reasons for not doing so, and I assume that these reasons lead to an ultimate good.

Haha, this is a classic. It is known as the defense from ignorance. "I don't know why bad things happen, but I trust God knows what he's doing." The evils that man has endured over the millenia are not compatible with a perfectly good God. There are things in his arsenal that a kind, caring, benevolent, omnipotent, God could have done to prevent so much suffering. He had an infinite amount of ways to prevent human suffering, but didn't lift a finger, instead was just a spectator. How would you feel if a capable adult was standing around, watching your kid drown, but did nothing. He could have jumped in the pool and saved him, but didn't. You would hold him accountable, wouldn't you? Then, why is it any different for your God?

Remember that anything you ask for in faith will be don.

That's really stretching the truth here Jerry. I'm sure you know that Jesus promises rewards in prayer, I think some 4 times. He says if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move a mountain. But, what would God do if 2 faithful people on opposing basketball teams prayed for a win for their team. There can only be 1 winner, so God has to let someone who is faithful down.

So if you wish for such mass heart attacks, before you blame God, blame yourself for not making that request in faith to Jesus. YOU could have don something, but YOU stood by and let it happen, knowing that Jesus would have answered had you had trust in who you hold as the authority.

Huh?

Tuff-love is not beyond God.

You're tellin me.:lol:

That's right, God does not create murderers. God creates innocent children. Through the choices made by the children’s parents, their peers, and strangers, these children may become predisposed to committing murder. That person retains the ability, through free will, to chose to not commit the murder. It is exactly one's ability to chose not to commit crime which exonerates God.

Well what is it then, he isn't omniscient, or he is not omnipotent? If he's all-knowing, he created people with the foreknowledge that they would choose to murder, and if he's all-powerful he can stop it. Since he does'nt, he's a pretty useless fellow then, hardly worthy of the name "God."

You are misrepresenting a point of view, opinion, interpretation and quotations as "speaking for".

Either you know everything about the "master plan", and thus have no questions to debate me with, or per your own quoting and interpretations have also "spoken for God".

What if it turns out there is a God. But he rewards all those who had the balls to not believe in him? If you think about it, it kinda makes sense, as the devil is sketched as being massively intelligent, but he would have to have a death wish to go up against an omnipotent God; hence Satan and God in all liklihood, could be in cohoots. Makes sense when you read Job. Maybe this God is quite the trickster. Maybe, just maybe he had a book written about himself, and made sure the people drew him up as a murderous, lying, diety, just so he could see how many people blindly adulate him? Surely, he would not want the company of those who would worship a murder. Maybe, heaven is reserved for the non-believer's?

[Fundi mode]
Jesus is different because Jesus is the Son of God.
[Fundi Mode]

So were Dyonesis, Mithra, and a host of other Pagan Gods.

Who here these 11 other deities, by the way? I suspect that some or all are one in the same with Jesus, and that they appear to be different because their story comes from a non-mainstream couture.

Non-mainstream? Dude, if you were born elsewhere in the world, you would be arguing so vehemently about some other faith. Let's briefly go over your "faith" for a minute here:
At the time when the Israelites were slaves in Babylonia, the King had many dreams. It says in Daniel 2:1-3 In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his mind was troubled and he could not sleep. So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed. When they came in and stood before the king, he said to them, "I had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it means." The king believed that dreams were God's way of communicating with us, and he had sorcers and magicians to help run his entire country. Now let me pose a question here. How do you think it would look this day and age if George Bush had these people in his White House advising him? You'd laugh it up. wouldn't ya? Sure, it would be total ludicrisy. What, pray tell, would happen if 1 of his advisors said, "I opened up a fortune cookie today, and the message said we should invade Iraq?"

That's another void which Genesis can not fulfill.

You don't say?:lol:

Would you then concede that if a woman is denied an on-demand abortion that her will is not infringed? She can, after all, still think about having an abortion.

Nope, she can still have a back-alley abortion. And there's other ways to abort the child. Just becuase some day it could very well be illegal (if fundies have their way) does not mean that her will to abort will be infringed.

Yes. Evil must be involved at some point, in some way, to some degree.

I take it you're conceding that God cannot give us pleasure without tossing in evil? Why is that? We don't need suffering to know pleasure. I can be of good health without knowing of disease.

kal-el · May 3, 2006

continued...

Adam and Eve had successfully resisted Satan and not eaten "the fruit", evil would have still had to be present in order to give the challenge of temptation to be overcome.

So, the Adam and Eve legend is futile then? I mean, if we have to overcome evil anyway, why make such a fuss about Eve taking a bite from a bannanna?(It doesn't say what kind of fruit, it could've been an apple?)

I interpret references to "Lord" to refer to a personified being.

So in this verse, it was'nt referring to God? Or is it just when the Lord appears in a good light? You can't pick and choose which "Lord" means "Holy Spirit". What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Lack of omnimax is not a fault,

Sure it is when we are talking about God.

because a void of knowledge is not filled with evil (= guilt of crime). Prier to eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were sinless despite their lack of mastering nuclear power and space flight. Also, a new born child is totally void of evil despite their lack of knowledge of quantum theory, or Windows source code.

Correct.

Jesus clearly does not possess the attribute of omnimax because he claimed to not know the day or time of the Lord's return to earth (Jesus was also surprised by a women who touched his robe from the back.....I forget the passage off-hand); yet despite this, Jesus is innocent of crime, and despite having many powerful emotions, Jesus retained his " perfect" status, making him a suitable sacrifice as "the Lamb".

Well, since when does perfect mean violating the Mosaic Commandments?

In Matthew 21:35-39; Jesus himself hints that the Father is also absent of the attribute of omnimax, because in the Parable of the Tenants, the Father of the Son assumed that the tenants would respect His son. The Father was wrong.

In that parable, the lesson is that obedience is better than words alone. That was a parable about servants and tenents, where do you get that he hints that God is without the omnimax attributes?

God is perfect to His nature, but apparently this nature does not extend to knowing every choice that will be made.

The he is far from omniscient. Why would a perfectly good God give man free will, that he will misuse, which is the cause of evil? He is not benevolent.

Emotion is not an imperfection, so one is not in error by experiencing it.

Sure it is, emotions come from new found knowledge.

This is, of coarse, unless you are saying that 1; it is wrong for a woman to feel anger at her rapist, or 2: loving your child is a mistake and should be avoided.

Well first of, humans are not omniscient; hence show emotion abundantly. If a woman knew she would be raped, she would avoid the raper at all costs, hence no need to show animosity. And, a perfect being does not need to feel love, or anger, or anything, as it needs nothing in order to exist, it just does; it is totally content.

I don't believe that Genesis is the complete story, not by far, nor is Genesis represented well in any non original language.

O good. There is some light at the end of the tunnel.:lol:

That's the fault of one's own insecurity, not of an unexpected event.

I beg to differ. If you know he is gay, you can be the most insecure person in the world, you would not be angry, as you would know that he would consider it "icky" to touch a female like so.

Anger is a level of hate which is felt when an event occurs which is contrary to your will, not to your foresight.

If you are omniscient and omnipotent nothing goes down contrary to your will. Hence no practical need for emotions.

The teacher would be angry over the lack of homework because s/he wishes the student to do his/her part in learning. When the teacher learns that the homework was not don due to, say, a family death, the teacher's anger will subside if s/he does not wish for students to complete their work at-all-costs.

Yep, the bolded part is after the fact. You said it there yourself. "When the teacher learns that homework wasn't done due to a family death, the teacher's anger will subside." Of course, if the teacher knew that there was a family death, she would not be expecting the work to be done, hence no use for an emotion.

Likewise, the afore mentioned jealousy comes from the boyfriend's will to keep his relationship with his girlfriend exclusive, his assumption that the relation ship between his girlfriend and this other guy is romantic, and of jumping to his own conclusions rather than investigating the matter.

Well, if he knew all the circumstances, he would know the relationship wasn't romantic, and he would'nt show jealousy.

Allowing people to make their own choices is not wrong.

If you know they are going to make the wrong choices, and just pull up a chair and watch the choice play out, doing nothing to stop it, it is wrong.

As above....did God know, or did He not?

If he knew ahead of time it is wrong however you care to spin it. If God knew of the Tsunami in Asian that drowned a quarter of a million people, but although had the means at his disposal to prevent it, did not. He could have restrained the earthquake that caused it, noone would know he did it. God does alot of things that if mere humans did we'd be imprisoned for crimes against humanity.

I was just wondering if you had yet heard a satisfactory answer. Would you like one? Let me give it a shot.....

Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?
No.
Anything that God can make, He can also move.

This question is a classic straw man that has most Christians looking like the proverbial dear in headlights. At best, it challenges God's omnipotence. At worst, it challenges His existence.

First, there is a problem with the premise of the question. While it is true that God can do anything which is consistent with His nature, it is absurd to suggest that He can do everything. He can not lie ( Hebrews 6:18); He can not be tempted ( James 1:13); He can not cease to exist ( Psalm 102:25-27).

Furthermore, just as it is imposable to make a one-sided triangle, so it is imposable to make a rock so heavy it can not be moved. What an all-powerful God can create He can also move. Put another way, God can do everything that is logically possible.

Is that satisfactory?

I never really liked this particular argument anyway, as there are a number of different ways to show defects in omnipotence.

Jerry · May 4, 2006

Kal-el,
Don't dissect this post, take it as a whole, or it's meaning will be lost.

There are so many things in your last post which possess false premises that it would take me 3 posts to retype every answer to your statements and questions, which I have already given. Since I do not participate is circular discussions, I recommend that we change our style.

Instead of arguing complex problems, let us start with simple truths and work our way forward.

If you’re game, then I have a way of coming to the logical conclusion of Christian ideology relatively quickly.

I'm having trouble grasping your concept of what God is (or should be).
In post 45 you tell me "Yes it is, any emotion is a limitation." So if god is limitless, then He can not possess any emotion.

In post 59 you tell me "The evils that man has endured over the millennia are not compatible with a perfectly good God. There are things in his arsenal that a kind, caring, benevolent, omnipotent, God could have done to prevent so much suffering. He had an infinite amount of ways to prevent human suffering, but didn't lift a finger, instead was just a spectator."

Per your premise of emotion being a limitation, then if God is limitless, He dos not possess compassion or empathy, and would necessarily naturally stand by in indifference while Man suffers.

However, you seem to be upset that God does not take a more compassionate, empathic, caring role in the everyday lives of Man. So, per your premise, you are upset at God for not acting in a limited, fallible way by expressing compassion and empathy.

If this is true, then I know how the Father Archetype in you’re life acted: An iron tower, uncaring, uninvolved and indifferent, for the most part. But that is only speculation.

Anyway, you seem to want God to be fallible. Without judgment I ask: is this true? Emotionally, do you need God brought "down to your level", taken off His "high horse" and made equal with you, so that you mite touch and commune with a father? Is there a matter of vengeance, of you’re seeking to express your anger at your father?

If I'm of-the-planet wrong on this then just tell me to smurff-off. In any event, don't feel as though you must answer if you don't wish to. I'll not take it as an implied concession.

I've been wrong with these things before, but then, I was dead-on with a few other bloggers here.

kal-el · May 4, 2006

Jerry said:
Kal-el,
Don't dissect this post, take it as a whole, or it's meaning will be lost.

There are so many things in your last post which possess false premises that it would take me 3 posts to retype every answer to your statements and questions, which I have already given. Since I do not participate is circular discussions, I recommend that we change our style.

Instead of arguing complex problems, let us start with simple truths and work our way forward.

If you’re game, then I have a way of coming to the logical conclusion of Christian ideology relatively quickly.

I'm having trouble grasping your concept of what God is (or should be).
In post 45 you tell me "Yes it is, any emotion is a limitation." So if god is limitless, then He can not possess any emotion.

In post 59 you tell me "The evils that man has endured over the millennia are not compatible with a perfectly good God. There are things in his arsenal that a kind, caring, benevolent, omnipotent, God could have done to prevent so much suffering. He had an infinite amount of ways to prevent human suffering, but didn't lift a finger, instead was just a spectator."

Per your premise of emotion being a limitation, then if God is limitless, He dos not possess compassion or empathy, and would necessarily naturally stand by in indifference while Man suffers.

However, you seem to be upset that God does not take a more compassionate, empathic, caring role in the everyday lives of Man. So, per your premise, you are upset at God for not acting in a limited, fallible way by expressing compassion and empathy.

If this is true, then I know how the Father Archetype in you’re life acted: An iron tower, uncaring, uninvolved and indifferent, for the most part. But that is only speculation.

Anyway, you seem to want God to be fallible. Without judgment I ask: is this true? Emotionally, do you need God brought "down to your level", taken off His "high horse" and made equal with you, so that you mite touch and commune with a father? Is there a matter of vengeance, of you’re seeking to express your anger at your father?

If I'm of-the-planet wrong on this then just tell me to smurff-off. In any event, don't feel as though you must answer if you don't wish to. I'll not take it as an implied concession.

I've been wrong with these things before, but then, I was dead-on with a few other bloggers here.

Look Jerry, by no means am I upset at God or anything. I am merely not attempting to "prove" God doesn't exist, I am simply trying to understand why so many people believe such an entity does. The Bible is his book; it is the only source in which to know God. Am I wrong here or does the Bible depict God as having several emotions? But by no means is the Bible God incomprehensible, we can know and understand him. Scripture sketches God in many different ways across it. The scriptures contradict themselves at every single corner, what can we possibly think of a God who allows his word to be mangled? O, well, it's been fun, But I really don't see any point to continuing this discussion. I'll end my part by noting some key contradictions in the "holy" book:

The plants grew before the sun was made Gen 1:12-16
Talking snakes Gen 3:1-5
Talking donkeys Numbers 22:21-39
God loses a main event Gen 32:21-30

Jerry · May 5, 2006

Well. I came to know God while I followed (not worshiped) Thor, long before I read the bible, so I guess I just can’t relate to needing the bible to know God.

It’s been fun. I’ll be loosing my internet access for a bit, so I’ll see ya around.

Jerry · May 5, 2006

Another thought,
Even though I do not believe that any non-ancient Hebrew version of Genesis will be 100% perfect, here are my thoughts on your “contradictions”:

kal-el said:
The plants grew before the sun was made Gen 1:12-16

The first thing that God made was light (Genesis 1:3), so even though the sun and moon hadn't yet been put into their current motions, or even if they did not yet exist at all, there was still light, so plant's could have grown.

Talking snakes Gen 3:1-5

The "snake" was not yet a "snake". In the garden, before God punished it, it was simply described as a "serpent", which is not synonymous with "snake". See post #6 on this thread for more.

In any event, a talking snake does not contradict anything.

Talking donkeys Numbers 22:21-39

"Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth.." contradicts nothing.

God loses a main event Gen 32:21-30

God lost if He meant to defeat Jacob, but not if He meant to present a challenge. Surly, given the awesome power of God, had God meant to win, He would have. So God did not intend to win, but to present a challenge.
This passage does not contradict anything.

Aurora151989 · May 7, 2006

*coughs* catholic priests *coughs* the bible has been translated and edited so many timesi i'm not sure that what we see today is even the original. There were also books that were supposedly taken out or never put in. I believe god told people what to write, but just like man, they messed with it.

kal-el · May 11, 2006

Jerry said:
The first thing that God made was light (Genesis 1:3), so even though the sun and moon hadn't yet been put into their current motions, or even if they did not yet exist at all, there was still light, so plant's could have grown.

Jerry, in all actuality here. How can there be light for which the plants can grow, if there is no source of light. What did God provide a giant heatlamp or something? This is cleary a scientific error made on the part of your God.

The "snake" was not yet a "snake". In the garden, before God punished it, it was simply described as a "serpent", which is not synonymous with "snake". See post #6 on this thread for more.

In any event, a talking snake does not contradict anything.

Well serpent or snake, whatever you wanna call it, you're right it's not a contradiction, it's an absurdity. Isn't it weird that there's no documented cases of snakes talking nowadays? The people that fashioned together the bible seem to be insulting our intelligence here.

"Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth.." contradicts nothing.

Right not a contradiction, an absurdity. God can do anything, right? I mean he created the universe out of nothing, yet needed dust to make Adam, and a rib to make Eve. And gave the task to a fallible human on fabricating an enormous ark, at a time when there surely was no tools.

God lost if He meant to defeat Jacob, but not if He meant to present a challenge. Surly, given the awesome power of God, had God meant to win, He would have. So God did not intend to win, but to present a challenge.
This passage does not contradict anything.

Jacob did not know at first it was God. And God suppossedly touched Jacob's knee, and threw it out. One can assume that because of that, Jacob either suffered a hip or knee dislocation. BTW, those are both terrible, extremely painful plights to endure, and Jacob brushes this match off, and emits no side effects, huh, that kinda makes one wonder if this little story has any truth to it at all.

Awesome! · May 13, 2006

kal-el said:
Look Jerry, by no means am I upset at God or anything. I am merely not attempting to "prove" God doesn't exist, I am simply trying to understand why so many people believe such an entity does.

What else could of happened, other than creation? A big bang? Matter and energy created us? If you don't believe in God, what do you prescribe to?

Satan in the garden?

Active member