God... Is Time.

[Boss]

I think you will find that no one is harassing the self-entitled "prophet". This is a public message board and there is, or should be, an expectation that posting your views in such a forum will generate opposing views. You or anyone else can make statements insisting that there is a supernatural realm inhabited by supernatural entities. That you may believe these supernatural entities to be extant and they created all of existence, fully formed a mere few thousand years ago is unsupportable. That such tales and fables mimic earlier tales and fables in not accidental. Humanity is evolving away from such mythology. Man's baser instincts are clearly evolving, at least for some of us. We are not as dispassionate as we once were. We are not as superstitious as we once were. We have gone from simplistic tools to seeing very nearly the instant of the expansion of the universe and down into the atom.

Belief in Arks, talking serpents, shrubbery spontaneously erupting into fire, Deities who control natural forces, etc , do not cure disease or grow crops.

You keep referring to Postmodern as a YEC although you know full well he is not. You do it just to annoy him. You either harassment because you want to get back at his God for something or you do not like Postmodern because he is religious.

I suspect her reason is simpler.....she only has one argument......unless she pretends everyone she is arguing with is saying the same thing she has nothing to say....thus she pretends everyone believes the same thing.......she has even called Boss a YEC.........

You're way too generous, Postmodern. Hollie is smart, can't deny her that. I do hate to see smart people using their intelligence to keep from hearing something they don't want to. She does change up her replies depending what will effectively aggravate the person she is replying to. Most of the time she does not have to be too creative but she can if she chooses. She either hates God for some reason, hates people who believe in God, or she just hates people in general and religious are the easiest to attack. I am guessing the first. It reminds me of when Moses is leading the congregation in the wilderness and the congregation are grumbling at Moses for lack of something, I forget what. Moses goes to the LORD and the LORD says, 'Don't take it personal, Moses. It is me they are grumbling at." I think the LORD sends poisons snakes, and then Moses lifts up the golden snake. I might be mixing up verses there though.

I totally disagree that Hollie is smart. Based on the very few times she has dared to attempt articulating a scientific point, I seriously doubt she could pass a basic high school physics exam. Her knowledge of science relies on whatever she has been told by other God Haters, and that's all that really matters to her.

I think you are right about her being angry at God. This is the case with most Atheists. I have often said, some Atheists are bigger believers in God than some Christians.

Good tactic. Avoid addressing my refutation to your "finely tuned universe™" nonsense with the obligatory "you hate my gawds™".

A reasonable person would review the conception of gawds and resolve the contradictions by acknowledging that at least part of that conception must be false. But then again, what part of a 6,000 year old earth, talking serpents and supernaturalism could possibly be false?

First of all, I can't speak for people who believe in talking serpants and 6,000 year-old earth because I don't believe that. I will get back to these people in a moment. I don't think you've offered any scientific evidence to establish humans invented the concept of God. Caveat: I mean the general concept of a spiritual power greater than self and not any specific religious incarnation. All archeological evidence shows human spirituality joined at the hip with civilization. So until you can show me the time in human history where we didn't have spirituality, I can't conclude that we invented it.

I have, on multiple occassions, posted my views that religions are the result of human spirituality and constructed by man, threfore flawed. I do not belong to a religion. I think they all have their pros and cons but it doesn't define my God. Even the word "God" might not be adequate to describe what I believe but that's the word we use. Which brings me back to your beloved YECs...

To put this in the words of your mentor, Hillary Clinton... What difference does it make? If some people believe the earth is 6k years old and God just made everything look old... how does this effect you? Do you think this causes people to think life in the womb is valuable? Are they preventing you from believing differently? Are they trying to force you to believe what they do against your will? Because you should understand, you're never going to change their beliefs.. and certainly not by attacking those who already don't believe that.

 

[BreezeWood]

[No, believing literally the "genesis fable" ... does not equal YEC, or YEV.

.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

there is no basis for the above self gratifying belief that is inimical to the commandment of Remission by the Almighty for the prevailing order of expulsion for that exact insubordination as its cause.

there is every reason in Garden Earth to distrust the biblical religions. - and their pervayours.

Time is what is given to the Spirits physiology, nothing else.

.

 

[Hollie]

You keep referring to Postmodern as a YEC although you know full well he is not. You do it just to annoy him. You either harassment because you want to get back at his God for something or you do not like Postmodern because he is religious.

I suspect her reason is simpler.....she only has one argument......unless she pretends everyone she is arguing with is saying the same thing she has nothing to say....thus she pretends everyone believes the same thing.......she has even called Boss a YEC.........

You're way too generous, Postmodern. Hollie is smart, can't deny her that. I do hate to see smart people using their intelligence to keep from hearing something they don't want to. She does change up her replies depending what will effectively aggravate the person she is replying to. Most of the time she does not have to be too creative but she can if she chooses. She either hates God for some reason, hates people who believe in God, or she just hates people in general and religious are the easiest to attack. I am guessing the first. It reminds me of when Moses is leading the congregation in the wilderness and the congregation are grumbling at Moses for lack of something, I forget what. Moses goes to the LORD and the LORD says, 'Don't take it personal, Moses. It is me they are grumbling at." I think the LORD sends poisons snakes, and then Moses lifts up the golden snake. I might be mixing up verses there though.

I totally disagree that Hollie is smart. Based on the very few times she has dared to attempt articulating a scientific point, I seriously doubt she could pass a basic high school physics exam. Her knowledge of science relies on whatever she has been told by other God Haters, and that's all that really matters to her.

I think you are right about her being angry at God. This is the case with most Atheists. I have often said, some Atheists are bigger believers in God than some Christians.

Good tactic. Avoid addressing my refutation to your "finely tuned universe™" nonsense with the obligatory "you hate my gawds™".

A reasonable person would review the conception of gawds and resolve the contradictions by acknowledging that at least part of that conception must be false. But then again, what part of a 6,000 year old earth, talking serpents and supernaturalism could possibly be false?

First of all, I can't speak for people who believe in talking serpants and 6,000 year-old earth because I don't believe that. I will get back to these people in a moment. I don't think you've offered any scientific evidence to establish humans invented the concept of God. Caveat: I mean the general concept of a spiritual power greater than self and not any specific religious incarnation. All archeological evidence shows human spirituality joined at the hip with civilization. So until you can show me the time in human history where we didn't have spirituality, I can't conclude that we invented it.

I have, on multiple occassions, posted my views that religions are the result of human spirituality and constructed by man, threfore flawed. I do not belong to a religion. I think they all have their pros and cons but it doesn't define my God. Even the word "God" might not be adequate to describe what I believe but that's the word we use. Which brings me back to your beloved YECs...

To put this in the words of your mentor, Hillary Clinton... What difference does it make? If some people believe the earth is 6k years old and God just made everything look old... how does this effect you? Do you think this causes people to think life in the womb is valuable? Are they preventing you from believing differently? Are they trying to force you to believe what they do against your will? Because you should understand, you're never going to change their beliefs.. and certainly not by attacking those who already don't believe that.

It's an old ploy of those who feel their religious beliefs are being questioned to retreat behind the slogans you have:

You hate god™,

Questioning my religion is attacking my religion™

In the words of your mentor L. Ron Hubbard, "if I can't rope em' in with my first invented religion, I'll just invent a new one".

 

[RandomVariable]

[No, believing literally the "genesis fable" ... does not equal YEC, or YEV.

.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

there is no basis for the above self gratifying belief that is inimical to the commandment of Remission by the Almighty for the prevailing order of expulsion for that exact insubordination as its cause.

there is every reason in Garden Earth to distrust the biblical religions. - and their pervayours.

Time is what is given to the Spirits physiology, nothing else.

.

I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God.

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

 

[RandomVariable]

I suspect her reason is simpler.....she only has one argument......unless she pretends everyone she is arguing with is saying the same thing she has nothing to say....thus she pretends everyone believes the same thing.......she has even called Boss a YEC.........

You're way too generous, Postmodern. Hollie is smart, can't deny her that. I do hate to see smart people using their intelligence to keep from hearing something they don't want to. She does change up her replies depending what will effectively aggravate the person she is replying to. Most of the time she does not have to be too creative but she can if she chooses. She either hates God for some reason, hates people who believe in God, or she just hates people in general and religious are the easiest to attack. I am guessing the first. It reminds me of when Moses is leading the congregation in the wilderness and the congregation are grumbling at Moses for lack of something, I forget what. Moses goes to the LORD and the LORD says, 'Don't take it personal, Moses. It is me they are grumbling at." I think the LORD sends poisons snakes, and then Moses lifts up the golden snake. I might be mixing up verses there though.

I totally disagree that Hollie is smart. Based on the very few times she has dared to attempt articulating a scientific point, I seriously doubt she could pass a basic high school physics exam. Her knowledge of science relies on whatever she has been told by other God Haters, and that's all that really matters to her.

I think you are right about her being angry at God. This is the case with most Atheists. I have often said, some Atheists are bigger believers in God than some Christians.

Good tactic. Avoid addressing my refutation to your "finely tuned universe™" nonsense with the obligatory "you hate my gawds™".

A reasonable person would review the conception of gawds and resolve the contradictions by acknowledging that at least part of that conception must be false. But then again, what part of a 6,000 year old earth, talking serpents and supernaturalism could possibly be false?

First of all, I can't speak for people who believe in talking serpants and 6,000 year-old earth because I don't believe that. I will get back to these people in a moment. I don't think you've offered any scientific evidence to establish humans invented the concept of God. Caveat: I mean the general concept of a spiritual power greater than self and not any specific religious incarnation. All archeological evidence shows human spirituality joined at the hip with civilization. So until you can show me the time in human history where we didn't have spirituality, I can't conclude that we invented it.

I have, on multiple occassions, posted my views that religions are the result of human spirituality and constructed by man, threfore flawed. I do not belong to a religion. I think they all have their pros and cons but it doesn't define my God. Even the word "God" might not be adequate to describe what I believe but that's the word we use. Which brings me back to your beloved YECs...

To put this in the words of your mentor, Hillary Clinton... What difference does it make? If some people believe the earth is 6k years old and God just made everything look old... how does this effect you? Do you think this causes people to think life in the womb is valuable? Are they preventing you from believing differently? Are they trying to force you to believe what they do against your will? Because you should understand, you're never going to change their beliefs.. and certainly not by attacking those who already don't believe that.

It's an old ploy of those who feel their religious beliefs are being questioned to retreat behind the slogans you have:

You hate god™,

Questioning my religion is attacking my religion™

In the words of your mentor L. Ron Hubbard, "if I can't rope em' in with my first invented religion, I'll just invent a new one".

Strawman. Can you reference a single post that does as you claim?

 

[PostmodernProph]

I think you will find that the self-entitled " prophet" is about as literalist as they come. Why don't you take the time to have him explain his views to you regarding biblical tales and fables?

easy enough....I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1..........I believe Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:1 to be poetry, to be understood as poetry........but I am curious Hollie......I have explained this to you dozens of times.....why didn't you just tell him yourself?......

 

[Hollie]

You're way too generous, Postmodern. Hollie is smart, can't deny her that. I do hate to see smart people using their intelligence to keep from hearing something they don't want to. She does change up her replies depending what will effectively aggravate the person she is replying to. Most of the time she does not have to be too creative but she can if she chooses. She either hates God for some reason, hates people who believe in God, or she just hates people in general and religious are the easiest to attack. I am guessing the first. It reminds me of when Moses is leading the congregation in the wilderness and the congregation are grumbling at Moses for lack of something, I forget what. Moses goes to the LORD and the LORD says, 'Don't take it personal, Moses. It is me they are grumbling at." I think the LORD sends poisons snakes, and then Moses lifts up the golden snake. I might be mixing up verses there though.

I totally disagree that Hollie is smart. Based on the very few times she has dared to attempt articulating a scientific point, I seriously doubt she could pass a basic high school physics exam. Her knowledge of science relies on whatever she has been told by other God Haters, and that's all that really matters to her.

I think you are right about her being angry at God. This is the case with most Atheists. I have often said, some Atheists are bigger believers in God than some Christians.

Good tactic. Avoid addressing my refutation to your "finely tuned universe™" nonsense with the obligatory "you hate my gawds™".

A reasonable person would review the conception of gawds and resolve the contradictions by acknowledging that at least part of that conception must be false. But then again, what part of a 6,000 year old earth, talking serpents and supernaturalism could possibly be false?

First of all, I can't speak for people who believe in talking serpants and 6,000 year-old earth because I don't believe that. I will get back to these people in a moment. I don't think you've offered any scientific evidence to establish humans invented the concept of God. Caveat: I mean the general concept of a spiritual power greater than self and not any specific religious incarnation. All archeological evidence shows human spirituality joined at the hip with civilization. So until you can show me the time in human history where we didn't have spirituality, I can't conclude that we invented it.

I have, on multiple occassions, posted my views that religions are the result of human spirituality and constructed by man, threfore flawed. I do not belong to a religion. I think they all have their pros and cons but it doesn't define my God. Even the word "God" might not be adequate to describe what I believe but that's the word we use. Which brings me back to your beloved YECs...

To put this in the words of your mentor, Hillary Clinton... What difference does it make? If some people believe the earth is 6k years old and God just made everything look old... how does this effect you? Do you think this causes people to think life in the womb is valuable? Are they preventing you from believing differently? Are they trying to force you to believe what they do against your will? Because you should understand, you're never going to change their beliefs.. and certainly not by attacking those who already don't believe that.

It's an old ploy of those who feel their religious beliefs are being questioned to retreat behind the slogans you have:

You hate god™,

Questioning my religion is attacking my religion™

In the words of your mentor L. Ron Hubbard, "if I can't rope em' in with my first invented religion, I'll just invent a new one".

Strawman. Can you reference a single post that does as you claim?

Why straw man? It was your comment in post #449 that spoke to " hating god". Did you forget what you wrote?

 

[RandomVariable]

I totally disagree that Hollie is smart. Based on the very few times she has dared to attempt articulating a scientific point, I seriously doubt she could pass a basic high school physics exam. Her knowledge of science relies on whatever she has been told by other God Haters, and that's all that really matters to her.

I think you are right about her being angry at God. This is the case with most Atheists. I have often said, some Atheists are bigger believers in God than some Christians.

Good tactic. Avoid addressing my refutation to your "finely tuned universe™" nonsense with the obligatory "you hate my gawds™".

A reasonable person would review the conception of gawds and resolve the contradictions by acknowledging that at least part of that conception must be false. But then again, what part of a 6,000 year old earth, talking serpents and supernaturalism could possibly be false?

First of all, I can't speak for people who believe in talking serpants and 6,000 year-old earth because I don't believe that. I will get back to these people in a moment. I don't think you've offered any scientific evidence to establish humans invented the concept of God. Caveat: I mean the general concept of a spiritual power greater than self and not any specific religious incarnation. All archeological evidence shows human spirituality joined at the hip with civilization. So until you can show me the time in human history where we didn't have spirituality, I can't conclude that we invented it.

I have, on multiple occassions, posted my views that religions are the result of human spirituality and constructed by man, threfore flawed. I do not belong to a religion. I think they all have their pros and cons but it doesn't define my God. Even the word "God" might not be adequate to describe what I believe but that's the word we use. Which brings me back to your beloved YECs...

To put this in the words of your mentor, Hillary Clinton... What difference does it make? If some people believe the earth is 6k years old and God just made everything look old... how does this effect you? Do you think this causes people to think life in the womb is valuable? Are they preventing you from believing differently? Are they trying to force you to believe what they do against your will? Because you should understand, you're never going to change their beliefs.. and certainly not by attacking those who already don't believe that.

It's an old ploy of those who feel their religious beliefs are being questioned to retreat behind the slogans you have:

You hate god™,

Questioning my religion is attacking my religion™

In the words of your mentor L. Ron Hubbard, "if I can't rope em' in with my first invented religion, I'll just invent a new one".

Strawman. Can you reference a single post that does as you claim?

Why straw man? It was your comment in post #449 that spoke to " hating god". Did you forget what you wrote?

Yeah, I hit 'send' and saw your reply. Someone besides yourself. Don't play dumb to someone who just called you intelligent. And to quote my post #444, "I am guessing the first." 'Guessing' being the key word here. You will not tell us why you attack Postmodern and others. Please tell us and we can quit guessing. And you are not questioning the religion, you are attacking the person.

 

[BreezeWood]

[No, believing literally the "genesis fable" ... does not equal YEC, or YEV.

.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

there is no basis for the above self gratifying belief that is inimical to the commandment of Remission by the Almighty for the prevailing order of expulsion for that exact insubordination as its cause.

there is every reason in Garden Earth to distrust the biblical religions. - and their pervayours.

Time is what is given to the Spirits physiology, nothing else.

.

I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God.

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.

The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.

I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?

Why would god be only one of the dimensions?

Oh, and of course we perceive the present - it is all we truly perceive.

 

[Hollie]

Good tactic. Avoid addressing my refutation to your "finely tuned universe™" nonsense with the obligatory "you hate my gawds™".

A reasonable person would review the conception of gawds and resolve the contradictions by acknowledging that at least part of that conception must be false. But then again, what part of a 6,000 year old earth, talking serpents and supernaturalism could possibly be false?

First of all, I can't speak for people who believe in talking serpants and 6,000 year-old earth because I don't believe that. I will get back to these people in a moment. I don't think you've offered any scientific evidence to establish humans invented the concept of God. Caveat: I mean the general concept of a spiritual power greater than self and not any specific religious incarnation. All archeological evidence shows human spirituality joined at the hip with civilization. So until you can show me the time in human history where we didn't have spirituality, I can't conclude that we invented it.

I have, on multiple occassions, posted my views that religions are the result of human spirituality and constructed by man, threfore flawed. I do not belong to a religion. I think they all have their pros and cons but it doesn't define my God. Even the word "God" might not be adequate to describe what I believe but that's the word we use. Which brings me back to your beloved YECs...

To put this in the words of your mentor, Hillary Clinton... What difference does it make? If some people believe the earth is 6k years old and God just made everything look old... how does this effect you? Do you think this causes people to think life in the womb is valuable? Are they preventing you from believing differently? Are they trying to force you to believe what they do against your will? Because you should understand, you're never going to change their beliefs.. and certainly not by attacking those who already don't believe that.

It's an old ploy of those who feel their religious beliefs are being questioned to retreat behind the slogans you have:

You hate god™,

Questioning my religion is attacking my religion™

In the words of your mentor L. Ron Hubbard, "if I can't rope em' in with my first invented religion, I'll just invent a new one".

Strawman. Can you reference a single post that does as you claim?

Why straw man? It was your comment in post #449 that spoke to " hating god". Did you forget what you wrote?

Yeah, I hit 'send' and saw your reply. Someone besides yourself. Don't play dumb to someone who just called you intelligent. And to quote my post #444, "I am guessing the first." 'Guessing' being the key word here. You will not tell us why you attack Postmodern and others. Please tell us and we can quit guessing. And you are not questioning the religion, you are attacking the person.

I addressed your "hating god" comment from your post #449.

 

[RandomVariable]

First of all, I can't speak for people who believe in talking serpants and 6,000 year-old earth because I don't believe that. I will get back to these people in a moment. I don't think you've offered any scientific evidence to establish humans invented the concept of God. Caveat: I mean the general concept of a spiritual power greater than self and not any specific religious incarnation. All archeological evidence shows human spirituality joined at the hip with civilization. So until you can show me the time in human history where we didn't have spirituality, I can't conclude that we invented it.

I have, on multiple occassions, posted my views that religions are the result of human spirituality and constructed by man, threfore flawed. I do not belong to a religion. I think they all have their pros and cons but it doesn't define my God. Even the word "God" might not be adequate to describe what I believe but that's the word we use. Which brings me back to your beloved YECs...

To put this in the words of your mentor, Hillary Clinton... What difference does it make? If some people believe the earth is 6k years old and God just made everything look old... how does this effect you? Do you think this causes people to think life in the womb is valuable? Are they preventing you from believing differently? Are they trying to force you to believe what they do against your will? Because you should understand, you're never going to change their beliefs.. and certainly not by attacking those who already don't believe that.

It's an old ploy of those who feel their religious beliefs are being questioned to retreat behind the slogans you have:

You hate god™,

Questioning my religion is attacking my religion™

In the words of your mentor L. Ron Hubbard, "if I can't rope em' in with my first invented religion, I'll just invent a new one".

Strawman. Can you reference a single post that does as you claim?

Why straw man? It was your comment in post #449 that spoke to " hating god". Did you forget what you wrote?

Yeah, I hit 'send' and saw your reply. Someone besides yourself. Don't play dumb to someone who just called you intelligent. And to quote my post #444, "I am guessing the first." 'Guessing' being the key word here. You will not tell us why you attack Postmodern and others. Please tell us and we can quit guessing. And you are not questioning the religion, you are attacking the person.

I addressed your "hating god" comment from your post #449.

Yes, but I said I was guessing you hated God. I was not saying you did hate God. One is an questioning while the other is an accusation. See the different? You are accused me of making an accusation which I did not. Please, do tell us if you hate God? How is it you can tell us what we think but you can't tell us what you think?

 

[Hollie]

It's an old ploy of those who feel their religious beliefs are being questioned to retreat behind the slogans you have:

You hate god™,

Questioning my religion is attacking my religion™

In the words of your mentor L. Ron Hubbard, "if I can't rope em' in with my first invented religion, I'll just invent a new one".

Strawman. Can you reference a single post that does as you claim?

Why straw man? It was your comment in post #449 that spoke to " hating god". Did you forget what you wrote?

Yeah, I hit 'send' and saw your reply. Someone besides yourself. Don't play dumb to someone who just called you intelligent. And to quote my post #444, "I am guessing the first." 'Guessing' being the key word here. You will not tell us why you attack Postmodern and others. Please tell us and we can quit guessing. And you are not questioning the religion, you are attacking the person.

I addressed your "hating god" comment from your post #449.

Yes, but I said I was guessing you hated God. I was not saying you did hate God. One is an questioning while the other is an accusation. See the different? You are accused me of making an accusation which I did not. Please, do tell us if you hate God? How is it you can tell us what we think but you can't tell us what you think?

Why would I spend any amount of time hating some invention of "god"? I no more have your gawds than I do the gawds of others. The haters seem to be angry religionists who can't force their gawds on others. Just look at the posts from the angry religionists in this thread.

 

[Boss]

I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.

The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.

I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?

Why would god be only one of the dimensions?

Oh, and of course we perceive the present - it is all we truly perceive.

You are taking the lazy way out and not reading the thread because all of this has been discussed and explained.

"God ...is Time" is intentionally vague... God is actually greater than time, or light, energy, space, other dimensions, dark matter, etc. Omnipotent God can create the entire universe every nanosecond in order to create a "present" which we cannot observe until physics happens.

You say that we can only perceive the present but we can't, physics won't allow it. What we're perceiving as the present has already happened and is forever in the past.

Now.. "perceptions" are funny things... we can be all over the board with what we perceive as "now." ...I've been single my whole life but I think I'd like to marry now... do I mean immediately? Is it the same as "we need to get him to the hospital now!" And is that the same as saying "the time is now!" How about "the solar eclipse is happening now!" So, you see... our perception on "now" can vary greatly.

The Super Bowl example I presented earlier... You're watching the game happen "live" on TV, but the actual game is 12 seconds ahead because of network delay. Your perception is that it is happening in the present, even though you know it isn't. Furthermore, let's say you're watching "live" in the stadium... your perception of "present" in the nosebleed section is different than your perception of "present" on the line of scrimmage or the sidelines... light has to travel further... physics has to happen. We simply cannot observe the present, we can only have faith in our perception which is bound to the past by physics.

 

[RandomVariable]

[No, believing literally the "genesis fable" ... does not equal YEC, or YEV.

.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

there is no basis for the above self gratifying belief that is inimical to the commandment of Remission by the Almighty for the prevailing order of expulsion for that exact insubordination as its cause.

there is every reason in Garden Earth to distrust the biblical religions. - and their pervayours.

Time is what is given to the Spirits physiology, nothing else.

.

I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God.

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

 

[RandomVariable]

Strawman. Can you reference a single post that does as you claim?

Why straw man? It was your comment in post #449 that spoke to " hating god". Did you forget what you wrote?

Yeah, I hit 'send' and saw your reply. Someone besides yourself. Don't play dumb to someone who just called you intelligent. And to quote my post #444, "I am guessing the first." 'Guessing' being the key word here. You will not tell us why you attack Postmodern and others. Please tell us and we can quit guessing. And you are not questioning the religion, you are attacking the person.

I addressed your "hating god" comment from your post #449.

Yes, but I said I was guessing you hated God. I was not saying you did hate God. One is an questioning while the other is an accusation. See the different? You are accused me of making an accusation which I did not. Please, do tell us if you hate God? How is it you can tell us what we think but you can't tell us what you think?

Why would I spend any amount of time hating some invention of "god"? I no more have your gawds than I do the gawds of others. The haters seem to be angry religionists who can't force their gawds on others. Just look at the posts from the angry religionists in this thread.

But Postmodern is definitely not an angry religionist. So if you don't hate "Postmodern's invention of god" and Postmodern is obvious not an angry religionist, it must be personal. So why do you hate Postmodern so much? You don't think he is God, do you?

I'm all for hating angry religionists, by the way. God is not some angry guy in the sky looking for sin to punish. He is looking from people who want to great things, and follow Him of course. Just look at the building of the tabernacle. God is meticulous in how he wants everything just right. Exodus 36:1 might just be the one verse that describes God the best: Then wrought Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whom the LORD put wisdom and understanding to know how to work all manner of work for the service of the sanctuary, according to all that the LORD had commanded. God was happy then, exceedingly happy.

Since I have apparently just gone random here, how about a movie review? In the zombie movie World War Z (2013) Israel has walled off the zombies but because someone starts singing on a loudspeaker the zombies swam and invade. Singing is what God wants so for a movie to say signing will get you killed is the work of the devil (something like that anyway).

 

[Hollie]

[No, believing literally the "genesis fable" ... does not equal YEC, or YEV.

.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

there is no basis for the above self gratifying belief that is inimical to the commandment of Remission by the Almighty for the prevailing order of expulsion for that exact insubordination as its cause.

there is every reason in Garden Earth to distrust the biblical religions. - and their pervayours.

Time is what is given to the Spirits physiology, nothing else.

.

I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God.

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

 

[RandomVariable]

[No, believing literally the "genesis fable" ... does not equal YEC, or YEV.

.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

there is no basis for the above self gratifying belief that is inimical to the commandment of Remission by the Almighty for the prevailing order of expulsion for that exact insubordination as its cause.

there is every reason in Garden Earth to distrust the biblical religions. - and their pervayours.

Time is what is given to the Spirits physiology, nothing else.

.

I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God.

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

 

[Hollie]

.
there is no basis for the above self gratifying belief that is inimical to the commandment of Remission by the Almighty for the prevailing order of expulsion for that exact insubordination as its cause.

there is every reason in Garden Earth to distrust the biblical religions. - and their pervayours.

Time is what is given to the Spirits physiology, nothing else.

.

I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God.

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.

your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.

As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid.

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)

"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing:

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness").

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that.

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies.

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.

random, you apparently forgot that Holly is a literalist......