[quote]pushharder wrote:
Saul of North Philly?
Or
Bodyguard of Tarsus?
It could happen…
http://popup.lala.com/popup/432627073616193028[/quote]
You forgot
Mak of New Zealand
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I disagree. Man would still have free will – just not a giant temptation in front of him.[/quote]
I disagree with your disagreement. With out the opportunity to do “wrong” you cannot do wrong. Furhter, Eve wasn’t tempted till the serpent tempted her.
I don’t know why God chose to do things the way he did.[/quote]
Ahh, the ol’ God tempted man to sin by forcing him to make the wrong choice line . . and endless variations thereof . . .
Here’s the simplest outline possible
God Created
God Gave a Rule and also gave man the choice to obey the rule and outlined the consequences for breaking the rule - man was given the capacity to choose, the knowledge of the choice and the assurance of the outcome by direct communication with the creator himself.
Man Chose
God did not tempt man, the serpent tempted Eve,
Adam was not tempted - he simply chose. He could have continued to choose not to disobey for eternity - that is free will, but he did not choose this path.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?
Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]
I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.
Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm[/quote]
Pat, do you believe in Jesus? If you believe in Jesus then you should believe in the Genesis account because Jesus mentions both the creation of man and Noah and the flood.
At Mark 10:6-9 Jesus states:
“However, from the beginning of creation 'He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”
In the verses mentioned above Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 where it states “He made them male and female” and he mentions “from the beginning of creation” which of course is the creation account in Genesis.
At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus refers to the Noah and the flood account and paralells what happened in the days and years leading up to the flood with what will happened during the days and years during Jesus’ presence leading up to Armageddon.
Matthew 24:37-39 states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
It’s clear that Jesus believed in the Genesis account not only because he quotes specific verses from Genesis but he also had a first hand account because he was in heaven when both of the above accounts took place.
You are right that Genesis took place before Moses wrote it. The creation of Adam in Genesis took place about 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. And the flood event took place about 850 years before the writing in Genesis. Apparently, God told Moses either directly or through holy spirit about what took place from the beginning of creation up until Moses’ time.[/quote]
I do not think that Pat is saying that the Genesis did not take place.
I will say that Jesus quotes the Old Testament all the time. Why? Because he was talking to the Jewish people. These are the stories that they grew up on and understand. Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time. Jesus also uses the term “I AM” which to a Jewish person means that he is God. Is he speaking literally or figuratively here?[/quote]
D, I don’t think you really understand the use of Jesus illustrations and the purpose of when he quoted scriptures. I’ll try to clarify this for you.
Jesus used illustrations when he was teaching something new to his listeners to paint a mental picture so they could better grasp what he was teaching. Most of his illustrations were of story length and had characters. Jesus generally drew his illustrations from the surrounding creation, from familiar customs of everyday life such as sheep and shepards, harvest, slaves, or fishing. Or from occasional happenings or not-impossible situations, and from recent events well known to his hearers. None of the famous illustrations such as the Wheat and the Weeds, the neighborly Samaritan, the prodigal son, the rich man and Lazarus do you see Jesus quote from the Hebrew scriptures. You can’t find any of these stories in the Bible so Jesus most likely made them up to help his listeners understand his teaching.
You’re using the wrong word when you say “figuratively.” When one speaks figuratively, the figure of speech or metaphoric statement in its entirety means something else and is not to be taken literally. Such as when someone says “I’m going to kill you” when you’ve upset that person. Jesus’ illustrations were not like this because when he used illustrations they represented a truth Jesus was trying to teach and if the listeners were able to understand what the illustration was teaching they were to take it literally. The characters, setting and story represented different parts of something literal. So Jesus spoke symbolically not figuratively. For example, the Wheat and the Weeds illustration mentioned at Matthew 13:24-30. Jesus explains what each part of the illustration means at Matthew 13:36-42. Another example is at Matthew 9:11-13 when Jesus was eating with with tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees criticized him for doing so. Jesus told them that persons in good health do not need a physician but the ailing do. In this illustration Jesus was the physician and the ailing are the tax collectors and sinners. Even when he spoke in hyperbole such as at Matthew 7:1-5 which talks about removing a straw from someone’s eye when there is a rafter in your eye. The straw represents a small weakness or small sin and the rafter represents an even bigger weakness or bigger sin. So when one understood this they would get the sense that he should not judge or try to correct someone when he has a big glaring weakness that he needs to work on. Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Jesus quoted from the Bible because the people of his day were versed in the law and the Bible available at that time. As you stated in one of your post the Jewish religious leaders even had the Bible memorized. So when Jesus quoted from the Bible the listiners were more likely to believe what Jesus was saying the same way we hope people believe us when we quote scripture to back up a belief. When Jesus quoted from the Bible he did this usually to help the listeners discern that he just fulfilled a Bible prophecy, to condemn the hardhearted based on Bible prophecy or to explain why something must occur based on the passage he’s quoting. Jesus did not use any quotes from the Hebrew scriptures in his illustrations. At Mark 10:6-9 when Jesus quotes from the Genesis account he is answering a question about divorce; no illustration was used. At Matthew 24:37-39 when Jesus compares the days and years during his presence leading up to Armageddon with the days and years in Noah’s day leading up to the flood he does state it in an illustrative manner because he compares to things but this is unlike any of the illustrations I listed above and unlike any of the illustrations Jesus is famous for.
So when Jesus quotes from the Hebrew scriptures one should have more faith in the Hebrew scriptures as being still valid for today and inspired by God. The point I was trying to make to Pat was since Jesus quoted the two specific events Pat said were made up and not to be factual in his post if one has faith in Jesus then you should believe the two specific events Jesus referenced from the Hebrew scriptures as actual events and not moral stories or figurative stories as you stated.
I hope that helps.[/quote]
First, my questions were rhetorical. I wanted you to think about what you are saying.
Second, if you are going to take the Bible as 100% literal then you have to look at the verses as what they say. You can not pick and choose what fits your doctrine and what doesn’t and dismiss it. I have told you my reasoning for every verse you have put down. You may not like my reasoning, but it is. You just dismiss my verses as translation errors.
Third, you say that the parables were easy stories for the people to understand. I would like to argue the opposite. Jesus tells a parable the disciples do not understand what they mean. Jesus a lot of the times have to pull the disciples aside to explain to them what he is talking about. His parable about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in 3 days. The disciples did not know the meaning until after the resurrection. This is when their eyes were open. All the gospels were written after the resurrection of Jesus, so by then they understood everything, but during the stories they did not. It is amazing when you see who Jesus is, God, your eyes are open and the entire Bible makes perfect sense.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You’re fast out the gate with biting criticism, but slow to finish, because you argue from shaky ground. The writers you mention and their works are not claimed to be divinely inspired. For something that is divinely inspired, I see the mess of man all over it - which is hardly troubling if we were truly speaking of the works of Plato et als.[/quote]
No, I simply illustrated that the same techniques/reasoning you seek to employ would have mankind abandoning every ancient manuscript as unreliable - that is the crux of your position - that the ancient biblical manuscripts are unreliable, when it has been demonstrated that no single copyist error within the biblical manuscripts is unexplainable/correctable - the very reason that we know the copyists made errors is because of the sheer preponderance of manuscripts not containing that copyist’s error. Divine inspiration applied to the original writer and we have the exact copies of those inspired words preserved for us in the thousands of copies so that we can verify the veracity of each individual copy.
You see a mess, I see a wonderful preservation of a written record unprecendented in the history of mankind. We have copies of the gospels that were written within a century of the original documents, some even closer than that - and this from an era where preservation of documents was not even a consideration. You see a mess, because you do not want to see anything else.[/quote]
Well, again, I’ll repeat, we’re not just talking copy errors. We’re talking authorship and inconsistencies among the Gospels and among other things. For the record, I have not chosen to see anything but what the evidence suggests to me. There was no grand scheme in my life to be baptized Catholic, become Christian and then later question the veracity and divinity of the Bible. I kinda happened with some study 
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I disagree. Man would still have free will – just not a giant temptation in front of him.[/quote]
I disagree with your disagreement. With out the opportunity to do “wrong” you cannot do wrong. Furhter, Eve wasn’t tempted till the serpent tempted her.
I don’t know why God chose to do things the way he did.[/quote]
Ahh, the ol’ God tempted man to sin by forcing him to make the wrong choice line . . and endless variations thereof . . .
Here’s the simplest outline possible
God Created
God Gave a Rule and also gave man the choice to obey the rule and outlined the consequences for breaking the rule - man was given the capacity to choose, the knowledge of the choice and the assurance of the outcome by direct communication with the creator himself.
Man Chose
God did not tempt man, the serpent tempted Eve,
Adam was not tempted - he simply chose. He could have continued to choose not to disobey for eternity - that is free will, but he did not choose this path. [/quote]
I would like to expound on Adam not being tempted. When the serpent was talking with Eve wasn’t Adam sitting right there? Once she eats the fruit she does not run to Adam saying eat this fruit. She seems to hand it directly to him which would mean he is sitting or standing right there. I think he could have spoken up and said hey this is not right and pulled Eve away, but he did not. Eat just took the fruit and ate it. To me this means he was tempted by the serpent also. I might be reading too much into the story, but this is my hypothesis and people here might eat me alive.
The text simply says that the serpent spoke to Eve - thus by default negating the immediate presence of Adam (within earshot). She takes and eats the fruit and then gives some to Adam - now, he may have been nearby, he mave have been out riding a buffalo - but he was not the one tempted by the serpent - that much is clear to me.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I would like to expound on Adam not being tempted. When the serpent was talking with Eve wasn’t Adam sitting right there? Once she eats the fruit she does not run to Adam saying eat this fruit. She seems to hand it directly to him which would mean he is sitting or standing right there. I think he could have spoken up and said hey this is not right and pulled Eve away, but he did not. Eat just took the fruit and ate it. To me this means he was tempted by the serpent also. I might be reading too much into the story, but this is my hypothesis and people here might eat me alive.[/quote]
Weird, I thought she was sitting by the pond having a post coital cigarette. Shows what I know.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]
Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil. [/quote]
But according to the bible, man (technically woman first) allowed sin into the world because God put a forbidden tree within reach, then allowed a demon (in the form of a snake) to convince them to eat the forbidden fruit. Keep in mind that God, being all knowing, knew exactly what was going to happen. Following this original sin, God not only punished Adam and Eve, but the rest of humanity forever.
Does this sound like the act of a loving God?
In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment[/quote]
What God did in the Garden is the furthest thing from entrapment.
[/quote]
It’s exactly entrapment. Read the above definition, esp. the “which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit” part.
If God had… I dunno… NEVER CREATED THE FORBIDDEN TREE IN THE FIRST PLACE… maybe, just maybe, Adam and Eve would have been “unlikely” to commit the crime of eating its fruit.
I’m done debating this though, it’s a stupid story and anyone who takes it literally is substituting a book for their own brain. [/quote]
But man would be with out freewill with out the tree which is what the story is about in the first place.[/quote]
I disagree. Man would still have free will – just not a giant temptation in front of him.[/quote]
If he has free will, he will always have temptation in front of him. If he can experience pleasure, the satisfaction of vengeance, the envy of others, he will always, always, have giant temptations. You’re getting stuck on a piece of fruit.[/quote]
And if your fairy tale was about Adam and Eve giving each other oral against Gods wishes, or Adam and Eve stealing from each other, or lying to each other, or something else that would have happened naturally from them existing, it would be one thing. But the actual story in your book is that God went out of his way to create a temptation that had no purpose for existing other than to be that temptation. That’s where my problem is. [/quote]
Capped, I explained this before but since my post are long you probably did not read them. Or since I’m not the most gifted grammatically (I am usually rushing when I write these post) maybe people have a hard time understanding my post.
God did not create the tree to be a temptation. He put the tree there to be a test of his new creations obedience. If he forbid them from having sex which God created as a natural desire for a human, then that would be a temptation. If the tree of knowledge of good and bad was the only source of food and they had to starve to remain obedient then that would be a temptation. If God flipped the restriction and said they could only eat from the one tree and all of the other trees they could not touch so that everywhere they looked they were in front of a forbidden tree then that would be a temptation. That would also be entrapment as one poster pointed out. But God did not do that. God did not even tell Adam and Eve the significance of the two trees in center of the Garden. Because there was a tree of life and according to Genesis 3:22 had they eaten from that tree they would have lived forever even after they ate the fruit from the forbidden tree.
What God did was test their obedience and devotion to him. God put them in the best possible conditions with many other food sources. So the restriction was not an enticement in any way because the restriction did not deprive them of anything. To Adam and Eve there was nothing special about the tree of knowledge of good and bad. When they got hungry God said they could eat from any other tree until they were satisfied. So again no burden was put on Adam and Eve by prohibiting them from eating from the forbidden tree. God had the right as their creator to test their obedience but he did it in a way that did not tempt or entrap and was not burdensome.
The temptation did not come about until Satan deceived Eve and told her that she would be like God if she ate from tree. At that moment the tree became a temptation because she then looked at the tree over time and being like God is what enticed her and caused the desire to eat from the forbidden tree. So it was Satan that did the tempting and not God.
Unfortunately, belief that God did the tempting and not Satan is a belief of many. Many are actually taught this and it causes them to become alienated, lose faith or not believe in God. Because they reason why would God tempt man and then punish him for succumbing to the temptation. If God did that then that would not be fair. But God did not. This belief is a work of Satan. Satan’s goal is to turn as many people away from God as possible and believing something like God tempting his creation is one way to do it. The Bible prophesies at Revelation 12:9 that when Satan is cased out of heaven he will be misleading most of earth’s population. This teaching and many others that are not Bible based is doing exactly that.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The text simply says that the serpent spoke to Eve - thus by default negating the immediate presence of Adam (within earshot). She takes and eats the fruit and then gives some to Adam - now, he may have been nearby, he mave have been out riding a buffalo - but he was not the one tempted by the serpent - that much is clear to me.[/quote]
For clarification, do you literally believe a serpent spoke to “Eve”?
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?
Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.
See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I disagree. Man would still have free will – just not a giant temptation in front of him.[/quote]
I disagree with your disagreement. With out the opportunity to do “wrong” you cannot do wrong. Furhter, Eve wasn’t tempted till the serpent tempted her.
I don’t know why God chose to do things the way he did.[/quote]
Ahh, the ol’ God tempted man to sin by forcing him to make the wrong choice line . . and endless variations thereof . . .
Here’s the simplest outline possible
God Created
God Gave a Rule and also gave man the choice to obey the rule and outlined the consequences for breaking the rule - man was given the capacity to choose, the knowledge of the choice and the assurance of the outcome by direct communication with the creator himself.
Man Chose
God did not tempt man, the serpent tempted Eve,
Adam was not tempted - he simply chose. He could have continued to choose not to disobey for eternity - that is free will, but he did not choose this path. [/quote]
I would like to expound on Adam not being tempted. When the serpent was talking with Eve wasn’t Adam sitting right there? Once she eats the fruit she does not run to Adam saying eat this fruit. She seems to hand it directly to him which would mean he is sitting or standing right there. I think he could have spoken up and said hey this is not right and pulled Eve away, but he did not. Eat just took the fruit and ate it. To me this means he was tempted by the serpent also. I might be reading too much into the story, but this is my hypothesis and people here might eat me alive.[/quote]
I need to ask you to for clarity; do you too believe in this story literally such that you’re wondering the relative positions of “Adam” and “Eve”?
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Since I can’t get our resident Catholic apologist to explain his meaning of the origin of sin and death (unless Pat can help me out here) let’s switch tracks…can anyone explain the Islamic origins of sin and death?[/quote]
Man allowed sin into the world by his own freewill, and death followed as a result. Because of this decision, we have become the battle ground between good and evil. [/quote]
But according to the bible, man (technically woman first) allowed sin into the world because God put a forbidden tree within reach, then allowed a demon (in the form of a snake) to convince them to eat the forbidden fruit. Keep in mind that God, being all knowing, knew exactly what was going to happen. Following this original sin, God not only punished Adam and Eve, but the rest of humanity forever.
Does this sound like the act of a loving God?
In criminal law, entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment[/quote]
What God did in the Garden is the furthest thing from entrapment.
[/quote]
It’s exactly entrapment. Read the above definition, esp. the “which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit” part.
If God had… I dunno… NEVER CREATED THE FORBIDDEN TREE IN THE FIRST PLACE… maybe, just maybe, Adam and Eve would have been “unlikely” to commit the crime of eating its fruit.
I’m done debating this though, it’s a stupid story and anyone who takes it literally is substituting a book for their own brain. [/quote]
But man would be with out freewill with out the tree which is what the story is about in the first place.[/quote]
I disagree. Man would still have free will – just not a giant temptation in front of him.[/quote]
If he has free will, he will always have temptation in front of him. If he can experience pleasure, the satisfaction of vengeance, the envy of others, he will always, always, have giant temptations. You’re getting stuck on a piece of fruit.[/quote]
And if your fairy tale was about Adam and Eve giving each other oral against Gods wishes, or Adam and Eve stealing from each other, or lying to each other, or something else that would have happened naturally from them existing, it would be one thing. But the actual story in your book is that God went out of his way to create a temptation that had no purpose for existing other than to be that temptation. That’s where my problem is. [/quote]
Capped, I explained this before but since my post are long you probably did not read them. Or since I’m not the most gifted grammatically (I am usually rushing when I write these post) maybe people have a hard time understanding my post.
God did not create the tree to be a temptation. He put the tree there to be a test of his new creations obedience. If he forbid them from having sex which God created as a natural desire for a human, then that would be a temptation. If the tree of knowledge of good and bad was the only source of food and they had to starve to remain obedient then that would be a temptation. If God flipped the restriction and said they could only eat from the one tree and all of the other trees they could not touch so that everywhere they looked they were in front of a forbidden tree then that would be a temptation. That would also be entrapment as one poster pointed out. But God did not do that. God did not even tell Adam and Eve the significance of the two trees in center of the Garden. Because there was a tree of life and according to Genesis 3:22 had they eaten from that tree they would have lived forever even after they ate the fruit from the forbidden tree.
What God did was test their obedience and devotion to him. God put them in the best possible conditions with many other food sources. So the restriction was not an enticement in any way because the restriction did not deprive them of anything. To Adam and Eve there was nothing special about the tree of knowledge of good and bad. When they got hungry God said they could eat from any other tree until they were satisfied. So again no burden was put on Adam and Eve by prohibiting them from eating from the forbidden tree. God had the right as their creator to test their obedience but he did it in a way that did not tempt or entrap and was not burdensome.
The temptation did not come about until Satan deceived Eve and told her that she would be like God if she ate from tree. At that moment the tree became a temptation because she then looked at the tree over time and being like God is what enticed her and caused the desire to eat from the forbidden tree. So it was Satan that did the tempting and not God.
Unfortunately, belief that God did the tempting and not Satan is a belief of many. Many are actually taught this and it causes them to become alienated, lose faith or not believe in God. Because they reason why would God tempt man and then punish him for succumbing to the temptation. If God did that then that would not be fair. But God did not. This belief is a work of Satan. Satan’s goal is to turn as many people away from God as possible and believing something like God tempting his creation is one way to do it. The Bible prophesies at Revelation 12:9 that when Satan is cased out of heaven he will be misleading most of earth’s population. This teaching and many others that are not Bible based is doing exactly that.[/quote]
God created Satan so he is just as guilty.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?
Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.
See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]
Because you’re obviously talking to some people that believe literally, instead of the allegorical, which is crystal clear to me. You have people that have taken an allegorical story and are now wondering about the relative physical positions of “Adam” and “Eve” and defending talking serpents. It is alarming. And that’s why it doesn’t pass the logic test - it’s not a literal story.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?
Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.
See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]
Because you’re obviously talking to some people that believe literally, instead of the allegorical, which is crystal clear to me. You have people that have taken an allegorical story and are now wondering about the relative physical positions of “Adam” and “Eve” and defending talking serpents. It is alarming. And that’s why it doesn’t pass the logic test - it’s not a literal story.
[/quote]
Well said, BG.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
God created Satan so he is just as guilty.
[/quote]
The Hebrew word for Satan means “adversary”. So did God really create a little evil devil with horns and a pitchfork? As for reading the Bible literally, one could then say it was God himself that CONSPIRED with “Satan”, actually ha-satan (“the accuser”), to tempt Job.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?
Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.
See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]
Good point, but I think there is more to the story than just that. I would say the Garden was much bigger than just a bedroom. You placed the playboy right next to your son, while I think Adam and Eve had to go out of their way to get to the tree. This is what free will is. Your son could listen to you over your brother, but I guess your son would prefer to give into temptation. That is our choice. I sin and that is my choice.
God never said that the tree was his. God told them that if they were to eat from the tree they would surely die. The snake, serpent, Satan is the one that said, “you would become like God.” Does that mean that they would die immediately or just would die? By kicking your kid out of the house does that mean you would not help him out? God made clothes for Adam and Eve, and helped them start out on the right foot. He also made a way for them to come back to him through Jesus. So I would say there is more to the story than just God kicking them out of the house.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?
Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.
See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]
Good point, but I think there is more to the story than just that. I would say the Garden was much bigger than just a bedroom. You placed the playboy right next to your son, while I think Adam and Eve had to go out of their way to get to the tree. This is what free will is. Your son could listen to you over your brother, but I guess your son would prefer to give into temptation. That is our choice. I sin and that is my choice.
God never said that the tree was his. God told them that if they were to eat from the tree they would surely die. The snake, serpent, Satan is the one that said, “you would become like God.” Does that mean that they would die immediately or just would die? By kicking your kid out of the house does that mean you would not help him out? God made clothes for Adam and Eve, and helped them start out on the right foot. He also made a way for them to come back to him through Jesus. So I would say there is more to the story than just God kicking them out of the house.
[/quote]
Can we agree that God created the serpent (Satan)? If so, that means the God wanted them to be tested and ultimately knew they would fail. I knew my son would give into wanting that playboy cause I was his age once I know what he’s thinking inside. God in the adam and eve story knew that the serpent would succeed in tempting them. Free will or not, people have breaking points. God knew theirs.
“By kicking your kid out of the house does that mean you would not help him out? God made clothes for Adam and Eve, and helped them start out on the right foot.”
I wouldn’t kick them out of my house. I would apologize for creating/inviting over something that would tempt them. I would also apologize for putting something they can’t resist right next to them rather in some other place they couldn’t get to.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
God created Satan so he is just as guilty.
[/quote]
The Hebrew word for Satan means “adversary”. So did God really create a little evil devil with horns and a pitchfork? As for reading the Bible literally, one could then say it was God himself that CONSPIRED with “Satan”, actually ha-satan (“the accuser”), to tempt Job.[/quote]
God was pure evil for we he did to that man and his family. This story is absolutely fucked up. I talked about this before, but this is a terrible story. What kind of father would test their son’s loyalty by killing their family? Absolutely terrible and imaginary.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?
Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.
See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]
Because you’re obviously talking to some people that believe literally, instead of the allegorical, which is crystal clear to me. You have people that have taken an allegorical story and are now wondering about the relative physical positions of “Adam” and “Eve” and defending talking serpents. It is alarming. And that’s why it doesn’t pass the logic test - it’s not a literal story.
[/quote]
I am personally on the fence of whether it is literal or allegorical. God created everything is literal. The story of Adam and Eve might be allegorical, but it does explain where sin comes from which is literal. I can not discount the two sides of this issue. We have a talking serpent, but we also in other parts of the Bible a talking donkey. We have spirits, a hand writing on the wall, and demon posessed people. I would say this is where mysticism comes into play. Hard for enlightened people to believe logical? There must be a logical reason. You see it today with people on their death beds, and science can not explain why a person was miracously healed. Ask a PhD and they are more likely to think like BodyGuard and BackinAction, but ask an MD and they are more likely to think like me. The PhD does research, but does not see the works done, so they can not wrap their hands around what God does for his people. The MD sees the works done, but not the research, so they are not bogged down with what is logical and what is not. You kind of see my point?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?
Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.
See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]
Good point, but I think there is more to the story than just that. I would say the Garden was much bigger than just a bedroom. You placed the playboy right next to your son, while I think Adam and Eve had to go out of their way to get to the tree. This is what free will is. Your son could listen to you over your brother, but I guess your son would prefer to give into temptation. That is our choice. I sin and that is my choice.
God never said that the tree was his. God told them that if they were to eat from the tree they would surely die. The snake, serpent, Satan is the one that said, “you would become like God.” Does that mean that they would die immediately or just would die? By kicking your kid out of the house does that mean you would not help him out? God made clothes for Adam and Eve, and helped them start out on the right foot. He also made a way for them to come back to him through Jesus. So I would say there is more to the story than just God kicking them out of the house.
[/quote]
Soooo, lemme see here…I’m a bit dense but if I’m following you correctly:
The garden of eden was very large, and the tree very far away.
God owned a certain tree, that was his. Only God could eat from this tree because, well, Gods get hungry from time to time.
Along comes a talking snake and, instead of running as fast as you can from this talking snake (did all animals talk back then maybe?), Eve, perhaps the only woman ever to be unafraid of snakes, held a discourse on fruit, when an abundance of said fruit was readily available. Hmm.
Clothing them was a step “in the right direction”.
He made a way for them to come back thru Jesus. So, following this bit of logic, Adam and Eve were alive during the time of Jesus?
You’re not serious are you? I ask again, do you believe the biblical story of Adam and Eve literally occurred?