[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Lucifer or Satan? You’re all over the place bud. If you’re implying they are one in the same, provide references please.[/quote]
I already did provide the references.
His name in heaven was Lucifer, “Son of the Morning.” Indirectly we can deduce that after his fall he became known as Satan, “the Adversary.”[/quote]
LOL indirectly? Deduce? Aww you’re slipping Pushy.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Ezekiel definitely makes some more sense of it. It does seem to put Lucifer in the garden. Even though he isn’t named, he is described-“you were anointed as a guardian cherub”.[/quote]
My sense is that Satan was THE highest ranking angel. “Guardian cherub” may have had more to do with guarding the throne (ceremonially) than guarding the Garden of Eden.[quote]
Can you elaborate on the symbolism of the serpent’s punishment? [/quote]
Genesis 3:15, could just be the most awesome verse in the Bible. It foretells and is symbolic of the entire Bible, the plan of redemption.[quote]
Could the serpent have been a special kind of beast (more intelligent, etc.) or had a special relationship with Adam and Eve? And this is why he placed enmity between them?[/quote]
Bingo. That’s what I think. It’s logical.
Goes back to what I was saying before. Think with an open mind within the Scripture.
There’s no reason to believe that a conventional rattlesnake or cobra danced its way up to Eve and wrapped itself around her leg and started talking to her like the skeptics like to deridingly envision.
SOMETHING clearly happened to CHANGE that animal with the curse. It is now a different animal than it was then.[/quote]
Interest points Push. You are absolutely right that the entire theme of the Bible is about the prophesied seed at Genesis 3:15, how that seeds was going to be produced and once produced what is needed to gain the benefits the seeds sacrifice.
One thing I’d like to point out is that Satan could not have been THE highest ranking angel because the archangel is. I’m sure you know that the arch before angel means chief or principal and archangel is not used in the plural only in the singular. Michael is the only angel referred to as archangel in the Bible and it is Michael who kicks Satan and his demons out of heaven. So Michael as the archangel who is the chief or principal angel is the highest ranking angel in the heavenly realm.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Lucifer or Satan? You’re all over the place bud. If you’re implying they are one in the same, provide references please.[/quote]
I already did provide the references.
His name in heaven was Lucifer, “Son of the Morning.” Indirectly we can deduce that after his fall he became known as Satan, “the Adversary.”[/quote]
LOL indirectly? Deduce? Aww you’re slipping Pushy.
[/quote]
Use your Uncle Google. He can help you, Bodyguard of Tarsus.[/quote]
I disagree with your statement. provide references please. I already provided a simple reference to “satan”.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.
For example:
Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]
If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]
People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.
[/quote]
Ok. So I believe in the Camel Party, you don’t. We establish why we believe the way we do, then what? The only thing up for actual debate is the existence. Why (and how) debate the particulars before the existence is hashed out? It doesn’t make sense to debate anything else until that is resolved.
The Camel Party hates rocks, I say.
You say no, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Camel Party hate rocks? If there were a Camel Party, it only makes sense they wouldn’t hate rocks?
[/quote]
When I ask for a definition, I’m not asking for proof the Camel Party exists. I’m asking for a definition of what the Camel Party is. You would answer “a political that hates rocks”. Now we can discuss why you believe in that party, why they hate rocks, etc. That’s what I’m really after.
If a person can’t define what Camel Party stands for, how they truly believe in it, you know? They are just following it without understanding it.[/quote]
Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.
So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]
I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.
I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]
Just to clarify, I wasn’t insinuating I am following my gut in regards to God. It was more of an analogy about following something (a feeling) you can’t quite explain.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]NDucedStrength98 wrote:
There is only one God (Allah). Allah is just the Arabic word for God, Anyways, i know people are going to hate regaurdless, so it doesnt matter! . Jesus, Muhammad, Noah, Moses, were all his Messangers. They brought the message of Monotheism to the lands and the people. Even the Bible says that God is not a man. God is God. He has no partners, wives, sons, mothers, fathers, etc. He created Adam, the father of all Mankind. You think we are all on earth for what? We are all here for a reason. We didnt just pop up.
Its so hard for many to understand, but once you open your heart, and your eyes, anyone can see how and why i make sense. I do not want to get into any personal debates, im just throwing in my 2 cents. Things that go on today in this world, have been mentioned in Quran (Our book, The Word of God, Unchanged since it was revealed to the Prophet). How do i know? Allah says it himself in the Quran! That the book was sent to down to us as a mercy from him, and that till the end of time it will remain unchanged. See for yourself. Islam is also the fastest growing religion. Its not just a religion, its a lifestyle. If anybody would like to ask Q’s, feel free. I dont want to cause or start any fights, but, i will be down to debate, to a certain extent. If anybody would like to message me, feel free. I will send you links, info, w/e you want if you are curious about anything above i have stated.[/quote]
What do you do for your quads?!
:)[/quote]
Front Squats.
Smart Ass 
Sorry, I’ve been gone a few days. My wife wouldn’t let me spend too much time on the computer (jk). Now I’m back to be a defender of the faith.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Dmaddox and Mse2us - i got sidetracked by the other discussion - are you two discussing whether or not Jesus is Divine? if so, great DEBATE - goes all the way back to the 3rd century - shall we rehash the old lines or are we onto a new rationale? Bring me up to speed![/quote]
mse2us and I will always debate the Divinity of Jesus. It is the foundation of both or our religious beleifs. He is Jehovahs Witness so Jesus is just an angel. I on the other hand beleive that Jesus is God. This kind of streams over from the Catholic thread where we had a great discussion.[/quote]
Gotcha - ok - well, if you need some more input on that - or if you want to start its own thread - let me know[/quote]
It’s real tempting to start a new thread because I love talking about the Bible and trying to show people from the Bible what the Bible really teaches. Dmaddox and I went back and forth for several days about the Trinity. I’m surprised you didn’t see it. Check out the thread “Catholicism the Heart and Soul of a Nation.” If you have any input state it here. This is a “Serious Religious Debate” thread.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Says you. I don’t think so at all. [/quote]
Then you would be wrong. You need to actually sit down and read the book of Genesis. It indicates a book was being kept - even before the Flood.[quote]
First there are two creation stories, the second older than the first.[/quote]
Incorrect. Chapter 1 does have a different syntax from chapter 2 and appears to be from a different perspective; I think this means God Himself wrote chapter 1 and probably Adam wrote 2.
These are not different stories at all.[quote]
Secondly, if you derive scientific fact out of genesis, you’re going to be wrong about the facts. You have billions of years of evidence on the Earth to contend with, much less the universe. [/quote]
Simply put, you have caved. There are valid explanations for the “evidence” you cite. [quote]
It’s not a scientific account and never was meant to be. [/quote]
It’s an historical account, pure and simple. How scientific is it to distort and twist it to make it mean something both the One who inspired it and the ones who wrote it down didn’t intend. THAT is unscientific.[quote]
Plus, the original audience must be considered. You talking to slaves and uneducated masses, goat headers ad such. They would not understand a scientific account of creation. [/quote]
You don’t know what they would’ve understood. You have no idea what the pre-Flood civilizations looked like.[quote]
Here are the facts of Genesis’s creation story:
God created the Heavens.
God created the Earth.
God created life.
God create Man.
Man disobeyed God and hence sin entered the world.
The only place we differ is whether the account is a factual, historical, geologic, account. I say hell no.
[/quote]
Your facts which of course I agree with lose their value under your system of evaluating them.
[/quote]
Push,
I respect you, I don’t see a way we’re going to agree. I respectfully call a truce.
I have compelling reasons for believing what I believe, but I cannot prove them beyond a shadow of a a doubt and neither can you.
In the end, either scenario I am happy with. I also respect your faith.
God bless you.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Then did God give Satan free will? The thing I’m confused about is I thought only humans had free will (which separates us from angels). So how could have Satan rebelled unless he was made to do so?[/quote]
As far as I know the angles do have freewill. The angelic part separates us from angels. [/quote]
Hmmm, searching only made this more confusing:
“Islam is clear on the nature of angels in that they are messengers of God. They have no free will, and can do only what God orders them to do. Angels mentioned in the Quran and Hadith include Gabriel (the angel of revelation), Michael (Brings food), Israfel (The horn Blower; signals of the end), Izraail/Azrael ( the angel of death.), Raqib (Writes good doings), Aatid (Writes bad doings), Maalik (Guardian of Hell), Ridwan (Guardian of Heaven), Munkar and Nakir (Interrogater afterlife).”
-Wikipedia
Anyone know the answer to this. If angels don’t have free will, this leads me to believe God created Satan for the sole purpose of disobeying him and influencing others.[/quote]
And this indicates differently:
Now truly, we’ll find out when we die. We can at best speculate right now.
[/quote]
Good find. I’m going to continue to search on this one too.
Thanks pat.
[/quote]
Just keep in mind it’s speculation at best, know body really knows. What I know is this. There is something beyond and whether that experience be positive or negative is up to us.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Then did God give Satan free will? The thing I’m confused about is I thought only humans had free will (which separates us from angels). So how could have Satan rebelled unless he was made to do so?[/quote]
As far as I know the angles do have freewill. The angelic part separates us from angels. [/quote]
Hmmm, searching only made this more confusing:
“Islam is clear on the nature of angels in that they are messengers of God. They have no free will, and can do only what God orders them to do. Angels mentioned in the Quran and Hadith include Gabriel (the angel of revelation), Michael (Brings food), Israfel (The horn Blower; signals of the end), Izraail/Azrael ( the angel of death.), Raqib (Writes good doings), Aatid (Writes bad doings), Maalik (Guardian of Hell), Ridwan (Guardian of Heaven), Munkar and Nakir (Interrogater afterlife).”
-Wikipedia
Anyone know the answer to this. If angels don’t have free will, this leads me to believe God created Satan for the sole purpose of disobeying him and influencing others.[/quote]
LMAO - right - Islamic doctrine proves your point about a Christian doctrine . . . wow![/quote]
Irish, I’m asking a serious question. And in case you didn’t know (since it’s obvious you don’t), Islam and Christianity worship the same God and are based on the same stories.[/quote]
Wrong as the day is long - they do not worship the same god - had this discussion earlier and though mohammed took some details from Judaism - they are two completely separate faiths[/quote]
I disagree. They worship the creator of the universe; since it is no other, it must be the same God. Now, I will admit, it has taken i interesting[/i] forms in recent times. To many of them have displayed that they believe that they should to evil on his behalf. This is not the fault of who they believe in, it’s their own stupidity and demise. I don’t believe they are all bad. They have problems no doubt. Jesus said you could judge a tree by it’s fruit. I do believe they need to reevaluate the harvest. I can only hope that good prevails, but it has to come from with in ultimately. No outsider is going to make a ass-hair’s difference.
[quote]espenl wrote:
The trick is to believe in ALL of them.
[/quote]
To a point I do. To a point. I can understand their ideas. But admittedly I don’t put careful study in to each one; hell I have trouble keeping up with my own. What I do know I God is a Big God and he likes a whole lot of people. Even ones we don’t, or don’t think he would.
[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]
Exactly.
Or you could have just put the playboy in your room and locked the door. Or not shown it to him at all. Or any of a number of things which would have saved your son from punishment.
Fact is, what it really boils down to, is that the god of the Christian bible is evil. He wants to send people to hell.
He creates a forbidden tree to “test” his new creations (because its not enough to give them free will, now you have to play games with it), and sends his “enemy” to tempt them (of course, knowing exactly what was going to happen) to eat it. And when they do, he punishes not only them but the rest of humanity forever.
Evil.
He creates the world in a way that is totally impossble according to the way the world works now. He creates plants first, then then sun, then makes plants dependant on the sun for survival – leading any rational, thinking person to believe that the sun had to come first.
He “pre-dates” the earth, so that things on it will show themselves to be much older than his holy book says they are. This totally unnecessarily causes the observable data about the world around us to conflict with the Bible (why couldn’t god just make things that are 6000 years old LOOK like they’re 6000 years old? why the games?). This causes humans to choose between an ancient book and the reliable data in front of them - and if they choose the data (which God has chosen to make confusing)? They go to hell.
The christian god is apparently full of setting his “most loved” creations up for excuses to send them to eternal pain and torment.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.
For example:
Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]
If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]
People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.
[/quote]
Ok. So I believe in the Camel Party, you don’t. We establish why we believe the way we do, then what? The only thing up for actual debate is the existence. Why (and how) debate the particulars before the existence is hashed out? It doesn’t make sense to debate anything else until that is resolved.
The Camel Party hates rocks, I say.
You say no, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Camel Party hate rocks? If there were a Camel Party, it only makes sense they wouldn’t hate rocks?
[/quote]
When I ask for a definition, I’m not asking for proof the Camel Party exists. I’m asking for a definition of what the Camel Party is. You would answer “a political that hates rocks”. Now we can discuss why you believe in that party, why they hate rocks, etc. That’s what I’m really after.
If a person can’t define what Camel Party stands for, how they truly believe in it, you know? They are just following it without understanding it.[/quote]
Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.
So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]
I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.
I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]
I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt 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]
Exactly.
Or you could have just put the playboy in your room and locked the door. Or not shown it to him at all. Or any of a number of things which would have saved your son from punishment.
Fact is, what it really boils down to, is that the god of the Christian bible is evil. He wants to send people to hell.
He creates a forbidden tree to “test” his new creations (because its not enough to give them free will, now you have to play games with it), and sends his “enemy” to tempt them (of course, knowing exactly what was going to happen) to eat it. And when they do, he punishes not only them but the rest of humanity forever.
Evil.
He creates the world in a way that is totally impossble according to the way the world works now. He creates plants first, then then sun, then makes plants dependant on the sun for survival – leading any rational, thinking person to believe that the sun had to come first.
He “pre-dates” the earth, so that things on it will show themselves to be much older than his holy book says they are. This totally unnecessarily causes the observable data about the world around us to conflict with the Bible (why couldn’t god just make things that are 6000 years old LOOK like they’re 6000 years old? why the games?). This causes humans to choose between an ancient book and the reliable data in front of them - and if they choose the data (which God has chosen to make confusing)? They go to hell.
The christian god is apparently full of setting his “most loved” creations up for excuses to send them to eternal pain and torment. [/quote]
Do you have children? I am going to assume no. Watch a child when you tell them do not touch that it is hot. If you do not grab them they will look at you and at the same time reach their hand closer to the fire until it burns them. I told him not to touch the flame, but he did it anyway. He disobeyed me on purpose. Was this my fault or was it his? I would say this is the same thing that God did with Adam and Eve.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt 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]
Exactly.
Or you could have just put the playboy in your room and locked the door. Or not shown it to him at all. Or any of a number of things which would have saved your son from punishment.
Fact is, what it really boils down to, is that the god of the Christian bible is evil. He wants to send people to hell.
He creates a forbidden tree to “test” his new creations (because its not enough to give them free will, now you have to play games with it), and sends his “enemy” to tempt them (of course, knowing exactly what was going to happen) to eat it. And when they do, he punishes not only them but the rest of humanity forever.
Evil.
He creates the world in a way that is totally impossble according to the way the world works now. He creates plants first, then then sun, then makes plants dependant on the sun for survival – leading any rational, thinking person to believe that the sun had to come first.
He “pre-dates” the earth, so that things on it will show themselves to be much older than his holy book says they are. This totally unnecessarily causes the observable data about the world around us to conflict with the Bible (why couldn’t god just make things that are 6000 years old LOOK like they’re 6000 years old? why the games?). This causes humans to choose between an ancient book and the reliable data in front of them - and if they choose the data (which God has chosen to make confusing)? They go to hell.
The christian god is apparently full of setting his “most loved” creations up for excuses to send them to eternal pain and torment. [/quote]
God is evil? Not even close. Notice what God inspired Peter to write at 2 Peter 3:5-8:
"5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.
8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.
God does not desire any to be destroyed but desires people to repent and live.
I thought I explained it pretty well in one of my post that that test was not unfair, tempting or burdensome. The test did not become a temptation until Satan tempted Eve. The Playboy analogy was not even close to the test God set up in the garden.
Yes the penalty of death given to Adam did pass to all of his descendants but God has provided a way to undo the effects of sin and death by given his only begotten son. Exercising faith in Jesus and following whats outlined in the Bible allows our sins to be continually forgiven.
Act 3:19 states:
“19 Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out.”
Ezekiel 33:16 states:
“16 None of his sins with which he has sinned will be remembered against him. Justice and righteousness are what he has carried on. He will positively keep living.”
1 John 1:7 states:
“However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”
Those are just a few scriptures that shows that once God forgives us of a sin they are blotted out just like you would use Wite-Out to remove text on a piece of paper. They are wiped away and not called to God’s mind. And if you’re walking in the light meaning if you’re in an approved state by God, Jesus’ sacrifice continually cleanses us of sin. Now that is a loving God.
God would never burn and torment even the worst sinner forever in a place called Hell. Capped, there is no place called Hell mentioned anywhere in the Bible. When one dies and pays the penalty that they inherited from Adam they are given a clean slate. There sins are blotted out, wiped away. Acts 24:15 states “that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” So people who were bad before they died are going to get a second chance. How can that be? Roman 6:23 states that the “wages sin pays is death” so once one has died they have payed the price for sinning by dying. That’s why Romans 6:7(NIV) states “anyone who has died has been freed from sin.”
Capped, can you see how loving that is? The penalty that was given to Adam was dying and returning to dust not burning forever in a place of torment. Romans 5:12 states that through one man sin entered into the world and death(returning back to dust)through sin, thus death spread to all men. This death that spread to all Adam’s descendant passed to us due to no fault of our own. So that is why when one dies God is going to give that person a second chance and if one is in an approved state with God, when he removes the wicked that are still alive(ones who have not paid the Adamic penalty) at armegeddon those in an approved state will survive. That is love.
I can understand you thinking a God that would burn sinners forever in Hell is evil. But this is not what the Bible teaches. That teaching slanders and maligns God because it is false. The teaching that God takes a mother or father from a child to be with him in heaven is another teaching that slanders and maligns God because it is not what the Bible teaches and it is false.
The God I’ve come to know and love from what’s in the Bible is a loving God that is patient and quick to forgive. He would never burn someone for all eternity for being bad 30 or 40 years and he would never cause the death of someone to be with him in heaven.
Capped, God created the universe along with the sun and earth before he created anything on earth. So yes the sun was necessary for plants to grow. And just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that it’s not true. Scientist do not understand the whole birth process. They don’t understand what makes sperm travel to the egg and what causes the egg to divide and start to form a fetus. They can observe the process but they don’t understand and can’t explain exactly what starts it and why. You still believe that humans are born everyday don’t you? So just because we can’t fully explain or understand something does not mean that it is not true.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt 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]
Exactly.
Or you could have just put the playboy in your room and locked the door. Or not shown it to him at all. Or any of a number of things which would have saved your son from punishment.
Fact is, what it really boils down to, is that the god of the Christian bible is evil. He wants to send people to hell.
He creates a forbidden tree to “test” his new creations (because its not enough to give them free will, now you have to play games with it), and sends his “enemy” to tempt them (of course, knowing exactly what was going to happen) to eat it. And when they do, he punishes not only them but the rest of humanity forever.
Evil.
He creates the world in a way that is totally impossble according to the way the world works now. He creates plants first, then then sun, then makes plants dependant on the sun for survival – leading any rational, thinking person to believe that the sun had to come first.
He “pre-dates” the earth, so that things on it will show themselves to be much older than his holy book says they are. This totally unnecessarily causes the observable data about the world around us to conflict with the Bible (why couldn’t god just make things that are 6000 years old LOOK like they’re 6000 years old? why the games?). This causes humans to choose between an ancient book and the reliable data in front of them - and if they choose the data (which God has chosen to make confusing)? They go to hell.
The christian god is apparently full of setting his “most loved” creations up for excuses to send them to eternal pain and torment. [/quote]
God is evil? Not even close. Notice what God inspired Peter to write at 2 Peter 3:5-8:
"5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.
8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.
God does not desire any to be destroyed but desires people to repent and live.
I thought I explained it pretty well in one of my post that that test was not unfair, tempting or burdensome. The test did not become a temptation until Satan tempted Eve. The Playboy analogy was not even close to the test God set up in the garden.
Yes the penalty of death given to Adam did pass to all of his descendants but God has provided a way to undo the effects of sin and death by given his only begotten son. Exercising faith in Jesus and following whats outlined in the Bible allows our sins to be continually forgiven.
Act 3:19 states:
“19 Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out.”
Ezekiel 33:16 states:
“16 None of his sins with which he has sinned will be remembered against him. Justice and righteousness are what he has carried on. He will positively keep living.”
1 John 1:7 states:
“However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”
Those are just a few scriptures that shows that once God forgives us of a sin they are blotted out just like you would use Wite-Out to remove text on a piece of paper. They are wiped away and not called to God’s mind. And if you’re walking in the light meaning if you’re in an approved state by God, Jesus’ sacrifice continually cleanses us of sin. Now that is a loving God.
God would never burn and torment even the worst sinner forever in a place called Hell. Capped, there is no place called Hell mentioned anywhere in the Bible. When one dies and pays the penalty that they inherited from Adam they are given a clean slate. There sins are blotted out, wiped away. Acts 24:15 states “that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” So people who were bad before they died are going to get a second chance. How can that be? Roman 6:23 states that the “wages sin pays is death” so once one has died they have payed the price for sinning by dying. That’s why Romans 6:7(NIV) states “anyone who has died has been freed from sin.”
Capped, can you see how loving that is? The penalty that was given to Adam was dying and returning to dust not burning forever in a place of torment. Romans 5:12 states that through one man sin entered into the world and death(returning back to dust)through sin, thus death spread to all men. This death that spread to all Adam’s descendant passed to us due to no fault of our own. So that is why when one dies God is going to give that person a second chance and if one is in an approved state with God, when he removes the wicked that are still alive(ones who have not paid the Adamic penalty) at armegeddon those in an approved state will survive. That is love.
I can understand you thinking a God that would burn sinners forever in Hell is evil. But this is not what the Bible teaches. That teaching slanders and maligns God because it is false. The teaching that God takes a mother or father from a child to be with him in heaven is another teaching that slanders and maligns God because it is not what the Bible teaches and it is false.
The God I’ve come to know and love from what’s in the Bible is a loving God that is patient and quick to forgive. He would never burn someone for all eternity for being bad 30 or 40 years and he would never cause the death of someone to be with him in heaven.
Capped, God created the universe along with the sun and earth before he created anything on earth. So yes the sun was necessary for plants to grow. And just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that it’s not true. Scientist do not understand the whole birth process. They don’t understand what makes sperm travel to the egg and what causes the egg to divide and start to form a fetus. They can observe the process but they don’t understand and can’t explain exactly what starts it and why. You still believe that humans are born everyday don’t you? So just because we can’t fully explain or understand something does not mean that it is not true.[/quote]
I was reading your post, and was trying to think what happens to a person who dies and does not follow Jesus. I remembered what you said. They just turn to dust. Nothing else happens to them. Have I interpreted you right this time?