Zone1 The original lie in the Garden of Eden

Look ding, you think that I am just another garden variety non-believer who is mad at God or just doesn't understand or know the bible. I have debated theologians, apologists, ignorant Christians and everyone in between. It's what I do. Not so much anymore. I know people like you. You are a diverter and deflector and like many politicians who when asked a question divert to something else or hone in on a word. In this manner you don't have to answer because you and I know your answer. You know it and I know it, but you are playing to the crowd, one of whom suggested that I was no match for ding. He has since disappeared because he saw he was wrong.

So instead of answering the question of "What exactly does "inspired by God" mean to you?" you divert and deflect to the meaning of inspired and completely ignore the rest of the question of ."..by GOD" You think that's slick and maybe some ignoramus before me doesn't realize your apologist game.
No. I think you are pissed off at life and have found a convenient scapegoat so you don’t have to face some hard truths.

And I did answer your question. Inspired to me is exactly how it is defined in dictionaries.
 
he didn't have much to write about------take for instance me----I didn't have much to read as
a kid-----but you can ask me any question about baby superman---like clark kent. Likewise----
Joseph knew everything Abraham and Isaac wrote Isaac wrote in Hebrew/aramaic braille)-----a form
of cuneiform in wet clay
 
he didn't have much to write about------take for instance me----I didn't have much to read as
a kid-----but you can ask me any question about baby superman---like clark kent. Likewise----
Joseph knew everything Abraham and Isaac wrote Isaac wrote in Hebrew/aramaic braille)-----a form
of cuneiform in wet clay
no one knows-----sending out wedding invitations is sheeeer hell----for my
son's bar mitzvah a just resorted to POSTING NOTICE
Playing coy?
 
No. I think you are pissed off at life and have found a convenient scapegoat so you don’t have to face some hard truths.

And I did answer your question. Inspired to me is exactly how it is defined in dictionaries.
FYI, Mr. knowitall. I am writing a book about morals as we speak. So much for not wanting to face what you call "hard truths" eh. What you are really pissed off about is that you can't get away with portraying nonbelievers off as immoral people because then you can't preen that you are moral and going to heaven and they are not.
 
FYI, Mr. knowitall. I am writing a book about morals as we speak. So much for not wanting to face what you call "hard truths" eh. What you are really pissed off about is that you can't get away with portraying nonbelievers off as immoral people because then you can't preen that you are moral and going to heaven and they are not.
Most will go to 'heaven'. The church first, others later.
 
FYI, Mr. knowitall. I am writing a book about morals as we speak. So much for not wanting to face what you call "hard truths" eh. What you are really pissed off about is that you can't get away with portraying nonbelievers off as immoral people because then you can't preen that you are moral and going to heaven and they are not.
Am I portraying atheists as immoral? Can you show me where I said that? Because in the thread that asked why atheist don’t believe in God the following quote was my answer. Please note that nowhere in my answer did I say it was because they are immoral.

Five bucks says you will never get it published.

To me the answer is different for each person. Each person is unique and has had their own experiences and expectations which has shaped their choices. Rather than being judgmental about their choices and making it personal, we should be curious instead without judgement without making it personal. It’s not hard to do as long as we remember that they are people the same as us. So while we are all unique with different experiences and expectations, we are all traveling the same journey.

To me the more important question is why do the choices of others offend us if we are secure in our choices?

And in case no one noticed, this post was not addressed to just atheists. It was addressed to theists as well. Is it really that hard to do unto others as we would have them do unto us?

Be curious, not judgmental. You’ll be much happier and successful in your journey.
 
Scholarly consensus holds that the Genesis creation and flood narratives were influenced by and participated in the worldview of older Mesopotamian myths, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh, though the biblical authors transformed these themes to establish a unique monotheistic creation account and convey different theological messages about God and humanity. Rather than simply "borrowing," Genesis engaged with these traditions, adapting familiar narrative structures and imagery to present a distinct Israelite perspective on the cosmos and God's relationship with it.
YUP!
From when they were in captivity in Babylon, exposed to earlier Sumerian "mythology" and also supposedly learning writting and establishing the Hebrew written language.

I provide more details in the following thread (haven't time to chase down the specific posts)
The Geminga Scenario
Also see the books by Zecharia Sitchin.
 
There is no devil in Genesis Jews who wrote this dont believe in a devil. Genesis is an allegory there is no original sin or fall of man. Its the moral teaching of man and the trial for mans freedom
God drove Adam out of the garden (Gn 3:24). He had fallen. The first one of the Adamic peoples whom Jesus calls righteous is Abel (Mt 23:35).

Adam's sin was a sin that would haunt all their generations until reconciled with God through a messiah or savior. The original sin does not include you or me or anyone else who wasn't of the line of Adam or Jacob. Their history of idolatry, or partaking of the fruit of another, was their sin and theirs alone.

No need for any nebulous explanations regarding morals or freedom or anything like that. It's straight from the narrative.
 
15th post
Abraham lived in a time when polytheism was the norm. There was a shared heritage and culture.
Abram made his Pact/Covenant with JHWH about 2000 BC, at which time his name changed to Abraham, and his clan would become the Hebrews/Jews.
Abram/Abraham was from the Sumerian city of Ur.
 
What exactly does "inspired by God" mean to you? Please elaborate and submit any proof (not claims) that it was.

Is it just a hope, a wish, a belief passed down by your elders, something written that you believe only because of that?
While at it, ask the Mormons about their book and how it's human author was "inspired".
 
Scholarly consensus holds that the Genesis creation and flood narratives were influenced by and participated in the worldview of older Mesopotamian myths, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh, though the biblical authors transformed these themes to establish a unique monotheistic creation account and convey different theological messages about God and humanity. Rather than simply "borrowing," Genesis engaged with these traditions, adapting familiar narrative structures and imagery to present a distinct Israelite perspective on the cosmos and God's relationship with it.
And the Babylonian Enuma Elish was a latter day version of the earlier Sumerian accounts.
....
Enūma Eliš (Akkadian Cuneiform: 𒂊𒉡𒈠𒂊𒇺, also spelled "Enuma Elish"), meaning "When on High", is a Babylonian creation myth (named after its opening words) from the late 2nd millennium BCE and the only complete surviving account of ancient near eastern cosmology. It was recovered by English archaeologist Austen Henry Layard in 1849 (in fragmentary form) in the ruined Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (Mosul, Iraq). A form of the myth was first published by English Assyriologist George Smith in 1876; active research and further excavations led to near completion of the texts and improved translation.

Enūma Eliš has about a thousand lines and is recorded in Akkadian on seven clay tablets, each holding between 115 and 170 lines of Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform script. Most of Tablet V has never been recovered, but, aside from this lacuna, the text is almost complete.
....
 
God drove Adam out of the garden (Gn 3:24). He had fallen. The first one of the Adamic peoples whom Jesus calls righteous is Abel (Mt 23:35).

Adam's sin was a sin that would haunt all their generations until reconciled with God through a messiah or savior. The original sin does not include you or me or anyone else who wasn't of the line of Adam or Jacob. Their history of idolatry, or partaking of the fruit of another, was their sin and theirs alone.

No need for any nebulous explanations regarding morals or freedom or anything like that. It's straight from the narrative.
Not even close. After Adam ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil he acquired morals to control his free will. It was Gods will that he eat the fruit. God was teaching Adam and then a free Adam experienced the trial for mans freedom. God then said "let us make the man" use of the royal we indicates a major announcement. Adam wasnt expelled he out grew the garden a metaphor for childhood.
You cant sin if you obey Gods plan to eat the fruit
You cant sin if you cant know what sin is. Before the fruit Adam had no idea what a sin was.

The Jews wrote this beautiful insightful allegory and the Christians turned into something ugly.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom