- Status
XD, just saying how we can go to the future because P_A said that God wouldn't let this Earth get sucked into a black hole. We could go to the future to find out, in time.
Vhind
New Member
What exactly was mankind's mistake? Seeking knowledge? Being deliberately tempted by God saying "Don't eat this apple"?
ryanvergel
New Member
The way I see original sin is a bit different than most. Without the ability to discern good from evil, Eve and Adam did not know/comprehend/understand they were committing wrong actions (they had no conception of such things), and are therefore not blameworthy for their actions- even if they were explicitly told not to do something.
Furthermore, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, He should be able to foresee that Eve would eventually lead to the deception of Adam, etc. Why did He bother going through creating them, knowing their fate and their future actions (he is omniscient and omnipotent, after all, and has knowledge of the future)?
Doesn't make sense to me. Any of it.
Furthermore, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, He should be able to foresee that Eve would eventually lead to the deception of Adam, etc. Why did He bother going through creating them, knowing their fate and their future actions (he is omniscient and omnipotent, after all, and has knowledge of the future)?
Doesn't make sense to me. Any of it.
P_A
Active Member
:biggrin: I just had a stray thought. If light was alive and sentient, then for it, the trip would take a nanosecond from the sun to earth, instead of 8 minutes! :lol: Sorry, but that was a little off topic of course. Perhaps we should come back to the topic a bit more.
I suppose we're getting close to having a subject run it's course. Without faith or belief in the bible, or other 'holy' writing, it's hard to convince anyone that there is a God, but due to our own set of circumstances and beliefs, we may have an understanding which fills our needs. As far as evolution goes, again, without a faith or belief in the truth of the bible, no one can honestly say that they were there to see the evidence of creation before their eyes - however neither can evolutionists prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we were not put here through a conscious effort and will of a powerful and wise creator (who directed certain efforts). Personally I will always go with the evidence from that creator that was written in the bible, but you each have the right and obligation to conduct your own investigation into the matter. In fact your life may depend upon it. Is there any further evidence?
Who is to say that Jehovah wouldn't have given another method to illustrate the concept of morality - of good and bad, at a later date which would teach the same message without such devastating consequences, but since it did happen, this question of God's right to rulership can be settled once and for all time. The end of this period of indulgence on this matter on God's part is coming soon, thankfully.
Let's face it, there is nothing wrong with looking for knowledge, but some knowledge may not necessarily be in our best interests. You would think a loving creator (like a wise parent) would be willing to protect his creation (or child) from something that was harmful to them, but to simply allow them to run rampant without giving warning to thinks harmful to them would be criminal. God cannot be linked to unrighteousness, but rejoices with righteousness. He would have been proud of Adam and Eve if they had deliberately stood their ground against the devil. Alas that didn't happen, and our screwed up world is the consequence - FOR NOW ......
I suppose we're getting close to having a subject run it's course. Without faith or belief in the bible, or other 'holy' writing, it's hard to convince anyone that there is a God, but due to our own set of circumstances and beliefs, we may have an understanding which fills our needs. As far as evolution goes, again, without a faith or belief in the truth of the bible, no one can honestly say that they were there to see the evidence of creation before their eyes - however neither can evolutionists prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we were not put here through a conscious effort and will of a powerful and wise creator (who directed certain efforts). Personally I will always go with the evidence from that creator that was written in the bible, but you each have the right and obligation to conduct your own investigation into the matter. In fact your life may depend upon it. Is there any further evidence?
The bible makes the distinction that Eve was deceived. Adam was not. It wasn't that Eve was tempted by the fruit, but that the devil made the accusation that God was deliberately holding something essential back from her - when in actuality, he was only giving them the opportunity to prove that they accepted Jehovah's right to rule over them, and make decisions on what was right and wrong. Jehovah didn't tempt them at all. If as a parent you tell your young child to not touch a hot stove, you are doing so for their own good. Jehovah was doing the same thing. However the Devil was the one who was doing the temptation when he said, "Is it really so .....," calling into question the validity of Jehovah's rulership and making the fruit seem more desirable. When she brought the fruit to her husband, he too ate, knowing full well that he was doing what was wrong. He could have rejected the fruit, and watched for the outworking of what God would have done, instead of joining her in sin against God - perhaps God might have given Adam a new wife. Obviously he didn't care about his relationship with God, his creator, but was focused on his new wife. That in a nutshell was what the original sin in the garden was all about. Adam deliberately rejected Jehovah's rulership over him, and because of that he now knew the knowledge of good and bad - he was involved in it! Because of this they felt naked, and exposed and tried to hide in the garden.
Who is to say that Jehovah wouldn't have given another method to illustrate the concept of morality - of good and bad, at a later date which would teach the same message without such devastating consequences, but since it did happen, this question of God's right to rulership can be settled once and for all time. The end of this period of indulgence on this matter on God's part is coming soon, thankfully.
Let's face it, there is nothing wrong with looking for knowledge, but some knowledge may not necessarily be in our best interests. You would think a loving creator (like a wise parent) would be willing to protect his creation (or child) from something that was harmful to them, but to simply allow them to run rampant without giving warning to thinks harmful to them would be criminal. God cannot be linked to unrighteousness, but rejoices with righteousness. He would have been proud of Adam and Eve if they had deliberately stood their ground against the devil. Alas that didn't happen, and our screwed up world is the consequence - FOR NOW ......
Last edited:
Sin is misguidance that is the literal meaning of sin. The sin was the sin of listening to the temptation of the Devil over the wisdom and prudence of God. Chapter 3 of Genesis is key to the 'Fall' The tree of 'Good and Evil' caused 'sight' and loss
'...And the eyes of them both (Adam and Eve) were opened, and they knew that they were naked...' Genesis Ch.3 v.7 Please note I added the '(Adam and Eve)' part to make context clear. In his 'Companion Bible' E.W. Bullinger mentions in a side note that 'knew' in that verse resulted in the following 'They knew before, but their knowledge now received a new meaning. Adam becomes "naked" by losing something of Elohim's glorious likeness.' C.B. pg.7 ch.3v7.
A very bizarre verse is put near the end of Ch.3 the 22nd verse which states 'And the Lord God said, "Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever...' Ch.3v.22.
The verse hints very strongly on 'partnership' of Gods which goes so against monotheistic faiths. Who or what is God addressing and even more does God have fear of Man becoming God and not merely like God as he was when fashioned from the clay of the ground and the breath of God?
The Tree of Good and Evil gave knowledge of 'God/s' the tree of life the other forbidden tree in the midst of the garden wasn't taken 'yet' though Elohim in its wisdom did foresee such an even and casted man and his counterpart out of the garden and for double assurance placed a flaming sword turning every which way and Cherubims which are not christianized-cupids portrayed as chubby young children as so many think they are but are ferociously frightful guardians of the greatest treasures of heaven.
Bullinger briefly explains the verse away as saying God wanted to have eternal life in and through Christ as savior and no other way. But the verse quoted above, verse 22. doesn't seem so it seems to speak more if not only of a fear and a disruption of the hierarchy and 'great chain of being'.
Though all of this is myth and myth fulfills the role of story with a purpose or messages/s that resonate throughout the ages changing frequency of 'meaning' throughout time to those who are to receive it i.e 'us'.
'...And the eyes of them both (Adam and Eve) were opened, and they knew that they were naked...' Genesis Ch.3 v.7 Please note I added the '(Adam and Eve)' part to make context clear. In his 'Companion Bible' E.W. Bullinger mentions in a side note that 'knew' in that verse resulted in the following 'They knew before, but their knowledge now received a new meaning. Adam becomes "naked" by losing something of Elohim's glorious likeness.' C.B. pg.7 ch.3v7.
A very bizarre verse is put near the end of Ch.3 the 22nd verse which states 'And the Lord God said, "Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever...' Ch.3v.22.
The verse hints very strongly on 'partnership' of Gods which goes so against monotheistic faiths. Who or what is God addressing and even more does God have fear of Man becoming God and not merely like God as he was when fashioned from the clay of the ground and the breath of God?
The Tree of Good and Evil gave knowledge of 'God/s' the tree of life the other forbidden tree in the midst of the garden wasn't taken 'yet' though Elohim in its wisdom did foresee such an even and casted man and his counterpart out of the garden and for double assurance placed a flaming sword turning every which way and Cherubims which are not christianized-cupids portrayed as chubby young children as so many think they are but are ferociously frightful guardians of the greatest treasures of heaven.
Bullinger briefly explains the verse away as saying God wanted to have eternal life in and through Christ as savior and no other way. But the verse quoted above, verse 22. doesn't seem so it seems to speak more if not only of a fear and a disruption of the hierarchy and 'great chain of being'.
Though all of this is myth and myth fulfills the role of story with a purpose or messages/s that resonate throughout the ages changing frequency of 'meaning' throughout time to those who are to receive it i.e 'us'.
ryanvergel
New Member
But the two had no idea of what it was to BE misguided, what it meant to choose one thing over the other, what it meant to do something wrong, what their actions would entail, etc etc.
I don't see how they could be held responsible.
@ryanvergel True they did not know, the concept of sin was inherent in the gift of 'free will'. God's word had to have been taken on faith and faith alone. Adam and Eve and their descendants 'us' are not omniscient there is space for both salvation and sin.
The problem with the above explanation that I have just stated gives rise to the hint of an 'either or' problem: Either God isn't omniscient or God is, and wanted the 'Fall' to occur and caused its occurrence by allowing it to happen.
The playwright Bernard Shaw in his 'Back to Methuselah' took the 'Creative-Evolustionist' approach and theorized that God or the world works by 'trial and error' each creation better or more 'accomplished' than the last. Though Shaw's approach acknowledges God as full of mistakes, the difference between God making mistakes and us making mistakes is twofold first God has all the time in the world to 'play with plado' and second God is removed from time and the world itself i.e. the brining about of consequences and where and how they're brought about.
God it is important to note is connected to 'Divine-Names' the two of the most important is 'Elohim' and 'Jehovah' ; the former is God as Creator, the latter as God as covenant and Lord i.e. the One who protects/covers and oversees the gift of 'bread' or spiritual nutrition. Why is this important? it is important because on one side God is an all powerful demiurgic principle that creates simply because that is what it does and on the other God makes a 'conscious' effort to help guide and place 'His' most treasured creation.
I have mentioned before that the only thing greater than God was God's 'Word' this begins to make more sense when one looks upon the 'Jehovahistic' approach that creates contracts that bind the parties. It is my theory that God gave Christ to the world not to save only us but to save 'Himself' for both humanity and God has erred. Christ on the cross was like a big 'X' on the contract that made it null and void removing any responsibility from either side of the party. Even further evidence is the fact that God will make an entirely 'New Heaven an New Earth' removing once and for all any further mistakes on 'his' par or on 'ours'
One can be 'saved' only one way by accepting christ as savior who suffered and died for the sins of the world. The other way was following the Laws that Moses and the people received especially those from Mt. Sinai like the 10 commandments. However the second approach isn't feasible because the second approach required the 'Ark or house of the holy-covenant' which became 'lost' when the Temple of Solomon was destroyed which also had laws that were indispensable. In fact according to quite a few Scholars of Judaism the ruin of the Temple gave rise to the Rabbinic teachings and traditions that needed to 'replace' the 'laws' that fell with the fall of the temple.
The problem with the above explanation that I have just stated gives rise to the hint of an 'either or' problem: Either God isn't omniscient or God is, and wanted the 'Fall' to occur and caused its occurrence by allowing it to happen.
The playwright Bernard Shaw in his 'Back to Methuselah' took the 'Creative-Evolustionist' approach and theorized that God or the world works by 'trial and error' each creation better or more 'accomplished' than the last. Though Shaw's approach acknowledges God as full of mistakes, the difference between God making mistakes and us making mistakes is twofold first God has all the time in the world to 'play with plado' and second God is removed from time and the world itself i.e. the brining about of consequences and where and how they're brought about.
God it is important to note is connected to 'Divine-Names' the two of the most important is 'Elohim' and 'Jehovah' ; the former is God as Creator, the latter as God as covenant and Lord i.e. the One who protects/covers and oversees the gift of 'bread' or spiritual nutrition. Why is this important? it is important because on one side God is an all powerful demiurgic principle that creates simply because that is what it does and on the other God makes a 'conscious' effort to help guide and place 'His' most treasured creation.
I have mentioned before that the only thing greater than God was God's 'Word' this begins to make more sense when one looks upon the 'Jehovahistic' approach that creates contracts that bind the parties. It is my theory that God gave Christ to the world not to save only us but to save 'Himself' for both humanity and God has erred. Christ on the cross was like a big 'X' on the contract that made it null and void removing any responsibility from either side of the party. Even further evidence is the fact that God will make an entirely 'New Heaven an New Earth' removing once and for all any further mistakes on 'his' par or on 'ours'
One can be 'saved' only one way by accepting christ as savior who suffered and died for the sins of the world. The other way was following the Laws that Moses and the people received especially those from Mt. Sinai like the 10 commandments. However the second approach isn't feasible because the second approach required the 'Ark or house of the holy-covenant' which became 'lost' when the Temple of Solomon was destroyed which also had laws that were indispensable. In fact according to quite a few Scholars of Judaism the ruin of the Temple gave rise to the Rabbinic teachings and traditions that needed to 'replace' the 'laws' that fell with the fall of the temple.
Nick15
Member
Err... even if we could time travel, I don't think it would be such a wise thing to do... :/
Back on topic now...
Here's a simple (flawed?) logic test I think disproves the possibility of time travel: There is an infinite amount of time from now until... the end of time. That gives someone an infinite amount of time to not only work out how to time travel, but to also share their invention with the rest of the possible universe. However, seeing as our lives have not been bombarded with approximately billions upon billions (no more than 10^26) random time travelers, I'd argue that time travel is impossible.
Anyways... back to the subject of God... just because "pain" and "evil" exists, it doesn't deny the existence of (a) God. If anything, it only denies the existence of ONE kind of God: the "all loving" variety. Furthermore, "bad" and "evil" are merely relative terms we humans construct, and I'd imagine (a) God to be above aligning Him/Herself with our "primitive" human constructs.
Consider for example a world where EVERYONE has all the same things (same possessions, same qualities, same flaws, etc), except that one group of people own BMWs and another group doesn't. The ones who don't own BMWs would consider their lives to be the lesser-off of the lot... and worse, would probably use their lack of BMW ownership as proof that (a) God doesn't exist... because, like, if God DID exist, S/He wouldn't have allowed them to live without BMWs, right?
The fact that people die does not deny (nor prove, for that matter) that (a) God exists. Frankly it's no different than saying that because if, say, your pet died, it means that your own parents don't exist... because if your parents are supposed to be loving and caring, they are supposed to protect you always and never put you through any pain in life, and therefore wouldn't have ALLOWED your pets to die. Yes I realize how silly this sounds, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to get at; it's equally silly sounding to say "just because people are put through pain and misery, God must not exist".
There are plenty of ways (a) God could exist, despite the fact that logical discussion can explain away certain types of Gods. Look up "Deism", as well as the Aristotelian view of (a) god. Those two camps tend to use Logic to surmise the possibility of an existence of (a) God. Then there's also what Jakob Böhme thought of when he pondered what God was like.
Personally, I believe (a) God exists. I'd like to think it's "THE" God... but personally I think God is more than any one particular God. In fact, I feel as if ALL religions that discuss the idea of a "head" or "top tier" God/Creator are all basically worshiping the same God. The best way I can explain my belief in God is that God is the set--as in mathematical sets, used in set theory--that contains the union of the Universal set {U} and is complement {U'}, where this universe and everything else that "exists" within it is a subset of the Universal set, and everything that doesn't "exist" is a subset of U'.
And I don't think this concept of God that I described can be "disproven", as it's merely the way I observe the manner by which the universe as we know it "exists", HOW it "exists" and WHERE it "exists", as well as whether anyone can actually say {U'} (aka U-complement) DOESN'T exist. But then again, if anyone says U-complement DOESN'T exist, then they don't know what mathematical sets are and the rules governing them. ... Unless maybe there's something *I* missed; to which, correct me if I'm wrong.
Ultimately though, depending on how you want to define it, there is no way to conclusively prove that (a) God exists or not. You can only try to postulate whether or not a particular variety of (a) God exists and see if it can be logically proven, disproven, or left alone. But frankly, I'd say that this universe itself has made the decision for us concerning the existence of God: the universe is agnostic.
Last edited:
@Nick15
I'm not sure if the time travel that I was talking about had anything to do with going into the past. The Biocentrism book only discussed the future. There may be a way for it to be reversed.
Also, on the topic of God, our parents have NO control over our pets's lifetime and when they die(unless they killed it) God is different because people are saying he can do ANYTHING.
I'm not sure if the time travel that I was talking about had anything to do with going into the past. The Biocentrism book only discussed the future. There may be a way for it to be reversed.
Also, on the topic of God, our parents have NO control over our pets's lifetime and when they die(unless they killed it
) God is different because people are saying he can do ANYTHING.Ghost spread
New Member
I just have to post this. READ THE BIBLE! It has all the proof you need tobealive in God.
ryanvergel
New Member
READ THE THREAD!
That "argument" has been dismantled and crushed many times in this thread. It relies on circular logic. If the Bible is evidential because it is the word of God, but is being used to prove that a God exists, then it is begging the question by assuming the very conclusion it is seeking to prove.
ilikegengar
Member
Humans seem to be hard-wired for a god. Every culture, primative and modern, have some sort of belief in a spirit or God. Why is that if there were no God?
ryanvergel
New Member
A way to definitely explain the unexplained, to appeal to morals and ethics in an absolute way by appeal to a god, to assure oneself against one's own loss of ego (death) with the promise of an afterlife, etc.
@ilikegengar's post#336: There is no 'hard-wiring' in anything we do or believe in. If there was Religious belief it would be fairly universal but it's not and it never has been. Since the development of culture there have been those who believe in One God, many gods, no God, God/s controling the laws of the universe, God/s at the mercey of beckon call of the universe and even at our own beckon-call!
@ryanvergel's post #337: The concept of 'death' in religion is quite interesting, especially when one factors in that many of the 'old-faiths' didn't incorprate too much of it in their belief-systems or if they did it wasn't how many think of it today in the two extremes of eternal-paradise or eternal-torment. The pentateuch or 'five books of Moses' i.e. the Torah if I recall does not mention an afterlife at all, also the early vedic-texts of India do not mention an afterlife. Some early faiths do have an afterlife like the Summerians, Greeks and Romans, however 'most' of their descriptions seem pretty bleak, like Enkindu's dream he tells to his friend Gilgamesh and Odessyus's journey to the afterlife and dialouge with the 'dead' Achilies. However the fear of death and the concept of ritual-burial is older than we can possibly know.
The history of religious study is perhaps one of the most complex and multifaceted studies of our times or anytime for that matter and as a mutlifacted study it's really only a couple centuries old and as an 'unbiased' as unbiased can be I'd say it's a little under a hundred years old.
@ryanvergel's post #337: The concept of 'death' in religion is quite interesting, especially when one factors in that many of the 'old-faiths' didn't incorprate too much of it in their belief-systems or if they did it wasn't how many think of it today in the two extremes of eternal-paradise or eternal-torment. The pentateuch or 'five books of Moses' i.e. the Torah if I recall does not mention an afterlife at all, also the early vedic-texts of India do not mention an afterlife. Some early faiths do have an afterlife like the Summerians, Greeks and Romans, however 'most' of their descriptions seem pretty bleak, like Enkindu's dream he tells to his friend Gilgamesh and Odessyus's journey to the afterlife and dialouge with the 'dead' Achilies. However the fear of death and the concept of ritual-burial is older than we can possibly know.
The history of religious study is perhaps one of the most complex and multifaceted studies of our times or anytime for that matter and as a mutlifacted study it's really only a couple centuries old and as an 'unbiased' as unbiased can be I'd say it's a little under a hundred years old.
headsrcool
New Member
True that the Bible relies on circular logic, but rationalism also relies on circular logic. We use the Bible to prove the Bible, you use rationality to prove rationalism. Though it is not possible to use circular logic to prove something, once you prove something in the circle the rest follows. Then again, no one lived back when the world was either created or exploded into existence so we can never prove anything.
- Status