Greatest I am

Would a moral God step up to his responsibilities?

God cannot do miracles. If he could, he would.

From God’s POV, all here must be perfect. He began in perfection and would not back slide to anything less. That’s scripture. It is to us to see things as he does.

From mankind’s POV, all here is not perfection. This contrary and wrong POV is promoted by religion and is generally accepted to some degree by most people. I tend to agree with God even as most do not.

From a moral stand point, most will agree, that if one sees a wrong that they can right; they will do the right thing and right the wrong. This is the right thing to do.

The fact that there are preventable human evil acts being perpetrated by mankind, supposedly created by God, and he does not act, means that a moral God does not exist.

A moral God takes responsibility and God is not stepping up. A moral God would. If he could that is. Just as all of us would. We are in his image and know that stepping up is a good idea.

Perhaps God is not the miracles working super God. You know the one. The one that man has created to hold all of his hopes and wishes, dreams and desires, loves, ---- and hates ---, and although never seen in any real way, --- believers will kill for Him. Insanity.

If God does exist, and is not moral, then what good is he to mankind or you?

Would you want life without morals?

No wonder then that Eve, the first to be as God/human, ----yes there is a difference, ---- had the wisdom to have adam/mankind, eat of it. What a wonderful myth.

Believers who follow a God without morals, Bible God, should question why they do.

God has a basis in reality but certainly not like the God without morals that has somehow been molded by what was initially, a rather beautiful ideas. The Bible.

To think and act God like, is to ----- do unto others.

If God creates man, then it should be for a best end. Not an evil end like hell. Fact is, many millions die daily of easily preventable cause. Allowed to by a miracle working God who just does not step up.

The fact that God, who by definition, would have the attribute of taking responsibility, as any good entity would, proves beyond any doubt that a moral miracle working God cannot exists.

And if there is a miracle working God, mankind should give him a thumbs down for his lack of morals.

Can a moral God exist?

Is it moral for God, who wants relevance to mankind, to not step up?

As a creator God does he have any responsibility to what he creates?

Regards

DL

When you say God is a man, do you mean with a body like ours e.g flesh and blood etc?

 

Absolutely.

 

If you know a bit of history youe will know that the ancient kings or Emperors would have themselves declared to be Gods and their sons, sons of God.

 

Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods? ---Jesus.

 

I'd like to explore 'Gnostic Christianity'. Would you be interested in starting a thread regarding this? If your position is the right one, then I'd like to know why.

Pointless, unless you are admitting that the morals of the God you follow are crap.

If you are, I am there for that and you will get your O P.

Regards

DL

It would seem from reading the Bible, but more so from what we are learning about the universe and life, that God did not create a perfect system. It may be a 'good' system, but not perfect, if by perfect you mean there would be no problems e.g death and suffering. Is God stupid to place us on a planet that is made up of plates that move and cause earthquakes? Is He stupid to create the sun that makes life possible on Earth, but will burn out one day so life won't be possible here? Obviously He is not stupid. Is He any more stupid to send the Word, into this finite set up, knowing he would be killed? No. Jesus said it is necessary to die. (unless a seed dies and is buried, it won't produce fruit).

 

Getting back to 'the perfect system', the whole 'message' of the Bible, is that God is in the process of transforming ALL His creation into a perfect system. At the moment all creation is groaning, because it is not perfect yet. The whole 'point' of Jesus, is that He is the key to perfection and immortality. We can't have 'perfect' to start with. That is a fact. Why can't we? I suspect it's to do with the knowledge of good and evil. You have to 'learn' both. The learning takes a lot of time - trial and error. Did God try to trick Adam and Eve with the trees? Of course not. He knew they would eat and He must have wanted them to eat, otherwise they could not know good, unless they knew evil. God is in full control of EVERYTHING. Nothing has gone 'off course' and is thwarting God's plan. God cannot be thwarted.

Less preaching please. It is annoying for you to speak as if you fathom the unfathomable. You just end up sounding stupid as you speak for God.

All you have to go by is hear say so act like it and not like a fool who will believe what ancients wrote in a book that begins with a talking snake. And is real.

I agree that any God would maintain control.

FYPOV, God sat there waiting for what he knew would happen and then pounced to punish.

Not much in the way of morals there and you follow that a hole.

Sigh.

And you believe that fool of a God when he tells you blood is required.

Back to your hole cave man.

Regards

DL

I watched the above video. It makes some interesting points.

 

Good.

 

Do you, as a gnostic Christian, accept the 'New Testament' books?

 

No. The Bible is a book of myths and should not be read literally.

The Bivble is a book of wisdom to me. Not a book that shows or directs one to a God.

 

Do you believe Jesus is the Saviour of the world ie the Messiah, and if you do, then in what way does He save us?

Jesus is an archetypal good man that Christianity has literalized to use to create guilt.

More $$$ in guilt than without.

Think for just a moment. Would a God create a perfect system that included his having to have his son murdered in?

Is any God that stupid?

Regards

DL

What definition?

 

 

 

 

Does it matter what God looks like?

 

 

 

 

What is a 'Gnostic Christian'?

 

 

 

'Hell' is the 'grave' where good and bad go. God does not punish people 'for ever'. God is not overcome by anything, or He wouldn't be God surely. Here's a funny short video to watch:

 

 

http://www.martinzen...f_from_hell.htm

 

Scroll down to 'report 42'.

“Does it matter what God looks like?”

It seems to matter to other animals and I think we should take a lesson from them.

The God of ants is an ant.

The God of lions is a lion.

The God of man, has always been a man.

Who but a man van put voice to the will of God?

Even an imaginary God like bible God.

Man has always spoken for whatever the word God means.

My God is the same as your God. A man.

As to what Gnostic Christians are.

Basically a group with superior reading of scriptures that mostly go against the usual immoral Christian position.

Regards

DL

IMHO it is very tempting for scientists to draw that conclusion and consider all mental processes as epiphenomena (including the emotions) so that all can be attributed to chemical processes emerging from the raging chemical sea of the brain. I think Near Death Experience experiments could be a way to explore the idea of a soul separating from the physical with which it has been intersticed up to the point of 'death'. However these experiments could be regarded as pseudoscience.

Soul Experiment

 

 

 

Well, for one, can we discard the spiritual experiences of tribal people as any less than the followers of Abrahamic faiths? For example, who is to say that shamans are not in contact with animal spirit guides? Without proof, surely their claim of a consciousness consisting of ancestors and animal spirits is as valid as your claim, or mine?

Shamans

 

Regards

Jimmy

Believing in a cosmic consciousness, I have no problem with thinking that the ancient shaman were in contact with the same entity that I found.

Why rely on animal guides when human ones sre available?

Animals, while intelligent, are not particularly bright. Man is.

The God they found though is not of the same description as what I found.

I think that the ancients, in their ignorance, added on way too many imaginary attributes.

Regards

DL

Your post is so filled with erroneous ideas about Christian theology that it can't really be addressed in a forum such as this.

Thanks for the laugh.

Regards

DL

How is this inconsistent with free will? They made a free-willed choice to do something God had told them not to. It's more of a consequence than a punishment.

 

As to the rest, I always fall back to more basic points. If God is omniscient, then He knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve would partake of knowledge, yet still He calls it the original sin and judges their descendants to be flawed. Matthew 7:2 tells us we'll be judged as we judge others, so are God's ancestors to blame for the way we turned out?

We should all step up to our own blame.

As to their free will choice, if that is what it was, after all, it was done from a position of lack of full disclosure by God and new information from the talking snake that was true.

Let us say that it was a free choice.

They could not have known it was an evil choice because they had no clue as to what good and evil were. If they did not have evil intent then it is not just to punish them.

Secular law calls that mens rea, Latin for evil mind or intent.

Without that evil intent, the courts will not punish. Neither would a just God.

Regards

DL

neither i prefer this one

 

"Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and reborn gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. Ragnarök is an important event in the Norse canon, and has been the subject of scholarly discourse and theory."

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ragnar%C3%B6k

As far as TOK goes, one can not be blamed or praised for ones instinctive nature, if it were natural of ourselves to eat from the TOK then god would have known we had no choice....which makes the whole thing pointless. I can only assert that by eating from the TOK we caused conflict externally (such as conflicting ideology's and ovcourse not taking A + E factually) this gave rise to a persons belief system or persona as such, like in old mythology, no 2 characters are the same, therefor eating from the TOK gave us individuality which could only cause external (perhaps once internal?) conflicts.

"Whose interpretation of Eden do you think makes more sense and is better for mankind?"

From my POV it doesnt matter which religion said what and who's right, no-one can be right if everyones wrong and no-one can be wrong if everyones right.

My TOK paragraph shows theres no exact answer for whos right, its simply two sides of one story and other explanations or perceptions do exist. mankind finds it too difficult to function as a whole which also just adds to there being no right answer, the best answer i can give is that the fact we can "interpret" at all makes us very special.

Two sides to one story. Yes.

Perhaps if you focused on the side that has done much damage to society, in terms of giving us all an original sin guilt trip, not giving woman equality, and the ongoing discrimination of Gays. All based on the Christian interpretation.

I will stick to the Jewish, civilized way. As God intended.

Regards

DL

If there is a 'God', then of course it's silly to imagine we can 'bribe' Him or sway Him in any way. He would surely be in control of EVERYTHING. As a 'reluctant' Christian, (today I am!) I struggle to understand why Jesus had to die as an atoning sacrifice. It conjures up the points that you have made, which seem to be illogical. If we 'sin', then why doesn't God 'just forgive'? Why does He require the shedding of blood? I don't think I will ever understand, unless God 'zaps' me with the truth of it. The only thing that does make sense of it though, is that 'death' is temporary as is punishment. It serves a purpose (as does evil) and as terrible as Jesus' death was, it's HIs resurrection that is possible only because of His death and thereby everyone's future reurrection to eternal life. So love prevails and remains, whereas evil and death will be 'no more'.

As a Gnostic Christian, I do not sympathy’s

When you return to the real world and stop trying to profit from the murder of an innocent man, by his father, you might see in your own bible just what God has to say about blood sacrifices.

Regards

DL

Nevertheless, even Christians will die and rot. The context of your verse:

Psalm 49:

⁵ Why should I fear when evil days come,

when wicked deceivers surround me—

⁶ those who trust in their wealth

and boast of their great riches?

⁷ No one can redeem the life of another

or give to God a ransom for them—

⁸ the ransom for a life is costly,

no payment is ever enough—

⁹ so that they should live on forever

and not see decay.

 

On a different note, can a person bribe themselves?

Sure. With anything desirable.

God though that the murder of Jesus was desirable.Regards

DL

The interesting thing about Ezekiel 18 20 is that it sort of nullifies the original sin. If the Son won't take on the fathers sin, then why did God not let Cain and Able back into the garden of Eden? They didn't eat from the tree of knowledge, that was their father and mother that did that and "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father".

 

So, maybe the son shall bear the iniquity of the mother then, that would explain it I guess .

Then you might agree with the Jewish version where Eden is our elevation and not our fall.

Christians did not usurp the Jewish interpretation when they usurped the Jewish God.

They, reversed it for the $$$$$$$$$$$.

Regards

DL

 

However, in this esteemed forum, the emphasis is on the hypothetico-deductive method and the evidence built up as a result. There is no scientific evidence of a soul, so the ineluctable conclusion that a scientist must reach is that he is a soulless but conscious creature, just like any lion, giraffe or snail.

 

I do not know of any scientist who would make such a definitive statement without proof and at the same time, fall for a logical fallacy.

 

It is impossible to show that man is without a soul. Just like it is impossible to prove that there is no God

 

 

I hope you can give me an answer on this point

 

 

 

Thanks for the thoughts. There were plants and animals before humans. Why did the Cosmic Consciousness not accept their souls or consciousness and incorporate it into itself? This seems pretty 'Hegelian' to me as if we are heading towards a fixed end as a species. Thanks for the contribution. Jimmy

 

 

.

What makes you think that the lower consciousness would be discernable under the consciousness of mankind. I would think that, if there, we just match what would be there and could not discern it as a lower form. Don’t get me wrong. Neither one of us can know the answer to this one. While in apotheosis. I did not discern a lower consciousness than man’s.

Regards

DL

I agree with "greatest i am", if one cannot judge god by its so called actions then its not a level playing field, god too must be accountable to the so called morals it itself created in all the so called holy books.

 

Thanks.

 

God is however supposed to be all forgiving depending on which book you want to read which means we too could be of its contradictions.

 

 

An all forgiving God would, by definition, never punish.

 

I know of no God but mine that does not have the carrot and stick.

 

 

The concept of hell should never be seen as good, but it doesnt mean it wont be, from a subjective view point i could wish hell upon someone which in return makes hell good for me...ovcourse i would wholly have to believe hell exists in the first place which i dont.

 

what really confuses me is the definition "the greatest i am" gave to god, if god is an imaginary place holder for our dreams, aspirations and idea's then why base an argument on scriptures you obviously dont follow?

 

Because it is out dated and doing damage. To women, Gays and generally being divisive to society.

Further, how else to engage a thumper without thumping on his door?

 

 

(if you do claim too then your contradicting yourself, scriptures do specify god as an actual being rather than an imaginary place holder)

 

 

Of course. What should our God look like if not a man?

 

http://imgur.com/3C7G1

 

Who do you think our first God was if not a man?

 

In the real world.

 

Who but a man can put words to God’s will?

 

 

 

perhaps your trying to provoke a reaction from someone who holds an opposed opinion but dont forget the ONLY ammo you have is theirs.

 

That is all I need. As a Gnostic Christian, I can be ahead of their thinking.

 

By this i mean your not going persuade someone that god is evil for punishing the innocent or ignorant or that god (as most religions depict) is self contradictory. I mean all you can do is twist what the scriptures say to contradict their belief, you do not convey your own belief which is a very .... condescending approach, you attack weak parts and leave out any good

 

Believers will believe what they will.

I just show that O T God is immoral and that N T God is rhetorical garbage.

 

The duality that you find in scripture is there for a reason.

 

Two creation stories, two flood myths etc.

 

The reason is to tell you that the authors did not know what truth was. If they did, they would not have bothered writing lies.

 

It is not to be read literally.

 

i got into a fight last week, well it was forced on me somewhat but i could have ran in retrospect, he went for me like a pitbull but i got a good punch in and put him down, i could tell he was partially intoxicated, his friend starting shouting "do it bro dont take that", the next thing i know he had a 7" butterfly knife in his hand and was approaching rapidly, without a conscious thought he was on his back with blood pouring down the nearest drain pipe, i tried to run but got knocked over by a car with extreme pressure. this is all i remember.

 

when i went to heaven god said to me "ahhh, alas, here he is, how was hell?" i replied rather shocked "it was awful, from the moment of birth i was forced to have thought, yet the choice too kill didnt feel like mine, how can i be in heaven?" god replied to me with a smile "heaven was never a test, just a safe house for your deepest thoughts, now back to hell with you boy and be more careful what you think this time"

 

moral of the story? heaven and hell are what you make of them......

I agree with you that hell is not supposed to be a good place.

That is one of my points.

God used it going against scripture.

God was overcome by evil.

Regards

DL

How is this relevant?

 

 

It blow hell out of your omni everything.

 

I thought my point was that His moral sense does not apply to His actions. The fact that our morality is supposed to be received from God emphasizes the point, since it means Gods actions are by definition moral. He who writes the rules decides what constitutes their violation.

Exactly.

If we receive our moral sense from God, then it is in the image of his, we can thus judge his.

If all of his actions are moral and we as you say have the same moral sense, then all our actions must be moral as well.

Does your moral sense tell you that genocide is good or evil?

Regards

DL

!

Moderator Note

Personal attacks are against the rules and won't be tolerated. This is not your first warning.

I spoke to his morals. Not him.

Regards

DL

We may be created in His image as Genesis says, but we do not play the same role that He plays. A statue of Napoleon is not a great emperor or general, regardless of the detail and care put into the statue. Also, Adam and Eve were not omniscient or omnipotent.

 

The nature of received morality -- that is, human morality being defined by God -- implies that it is impossible to judge God's actions as good or evil, since God sets the definitions for humans and clearly does not establish standards of conduct for supernatural beings.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

HOW does an omnipotent being suddenly regret anything he had ever done? Is he not supposed to be perfect and all knowing?

You can con yourself into being less than you can be but God definitely said that A & E had his moral sense and thast means we can jusdge that genocidal A hole.

You have judged him good with your foolish morals so let's keep a level playing field where I can do as you do and judge.

Regards

DL

You still haven't explained why God is obligated to follow his own word to mere mortals when he is vastly different.

As above so below.

A & E became as Gods. God's own words, so your vastly different, does not agree with God's own words.

We are in his mental image.

Wouls you vote for a law maker who you know will ignore his own laws?

If so, remain blind.

Regards

DL

who is god?

A figment of the imagination.

A catch all word for human hopes and dreams.

Regards

DL

I recall that was written as a law for humans, not for Himself.

All do as I say and not as I do eh? A good law for a tyrant.

Your statement is a lie.

Go get the quote.

Regards

DL

Does God accept bribes, ransoms, indulgences and sacrifice of Jesus?

Eze 18 20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psa 49 7

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

Man has worked hard to try to put in place a system of justice where the guilty pay for their crimes/sin and the innocent go free. This actually seems to follow the scriptures above and if you are doing unto others what you would like done to you, then you will applaud our present legal forms.

God on the other hand, and those theists that want to ride their scapegoat Jesus as a sacrifice for their sins and not step up to their responsibilities, seem to prefer to have the innocent punished and let the guilty walk.

Scripture says that God cannot be bribed and will not accept a ransom of an innocent party to redeem another. Yet that is exactly what God is said to have done when he intentionally had his son murdered. Some call it a sacrifice. God wanting or needing a blood sacrifice also goes completely against scriptures but he and his followers don‘t seem to know that.

The other bribes or ransoms that God seems to accept are indulgences given by the church and were ironically what created the reformation movement and sects that now somehow embrace that immoral notion. Martin Luther must be spinning in his grave. I will grant that that practice is not as widespread as it once was, but to me, the idea that a man can sin against another man, and by just placing a few $$$ in a church strong box without even having to seek forgiveness from his victim, and expect with church guarantee a shorter stay in purgatory, is just too immoral for me.

All these bribes, ransoms and indulgences are for the forgiveness of sins.

His murder or sacrifice of his son is for the same reason and also has the innocent being punished while the guilty go free.

As the great law maker and executor of justice, do you think it moral for God to accept and demand such instead of making the guilty pay and letting the innocent live?

Secular law generally follows the bible’s idea of justice, in many cases, as shown in the verses above. Should secular law reverse itself and follow God’s ideas of justice instead in accepting bribes, ransoms and sacrifices of innocent men?

Regards

DL

Yes.

I think we have evolved a soul.

I also hold a firm belief in a cosmic consciousness that evolve from the first true human.

This cosmic consciousness has no choice but to accept all of us our souls, after death, but does have a choice in accepting some before death if the conditions are right.

A quick visit, so to speak.

Like all apotheosis or things of the spiritua realm, I have no proof to offer.

Regards

DL

I already did months ago. I'm not going to just say it over and over again. Look in the dictionary. Here's what I have: 1. The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

 

So that there isn't any dispute about retribution, here it is too:

n.

1. Something justly deserved; recompense.

2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

3. Theology: Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.

 

Source: googled "define retribution" and "define punishment"

 

There is no reason that punishment is only given for changing behavior. Even if it was, you could still make an argument that God would then be able to point to those in hell and warn any other creations of His, beware! And then He would possibly be influencing someone's behavior.

So hell is a tool of fear mongering and infinite torture without purpose for the victim, but a good lesson for potential sinners.

What a pathetic view.

Especially when you have God not following his own WORD of not using evil against evil.

Regards

DL

No. Not always.

I'm waiting for the other shoe.

Or will you just let that hang without an explanation, which of course make it a useless statemnent?

Debate training is free. Learn.

Regards

D:

If the purpose of Hell is to deter people from committing sins, then it obviously serves a good purpose. Just as jails deter people from committing crimes.

 

The snag is, Hell might be better than Heaven, for some people. People such as masochists, who enjoy having pain inflicted on them. They'd be eternally experiencing pain in the traditional Hell. So they'd find it a place of eternal enjoyment. And therefore, from their point of view, a "good" place to be in.

 

This would of course, detract from the deterrent and "punishment" function of Hell. If you're actually enjoying the Hell experience, you're not really being punished.

 

To get round this, perhaps God sends the souls of masochists, not to Hell - but to Heaven. There, they will experience eternal freedom from pain. This pain-deprivation will make them eternally miserable.

 

So the traditional dichotomy - all the saved souls go to Heaven, all the damned souls go to Hell, may be too simplistic. God is more subtle in His punitive policy.

 

He sends each damned soul to whichever place they'd least enjoy being in.

I agree that punishment is given to deter crimes or sins bit it is hard to see who the sinner will sin against after he is dead. That would be deterrent enough would it not?

Further, punishment is given to change attitudes and thus prevent reoccurrence but removing the source of the inclination.

If that does not happen then the torture is pointless.

Right?

Would killing that soul be the more moral thing to do then?

Regards

DL

A and E could not know love without eating of the TOK.

There are many discussions centered around the story of Eden regardless of whether you read it literally, as allegory, figurative or myth.

Some believe that Satan lied, some that God lied.

Some see it as man’s fall while others, the Orthodox Jews who wrote the O T, see it as man’s elevation.

Some think becoming as Gods is good, Jews, some not. Christians.

Some give A & E free will yet the first time it is used, God punished them.

A & E are supposed to be autonomous yet cannot know they are without doing their will instead of the will of God.

Some see the punishments and original sin given as unjust and unbiblical.

Some point to the fact that disobedience to God deserves anything God wants to do too them as well as all their descendents. Again contradicted by scripture.

Some think that to become as Gods with a moral sense is worth any punishment or hardship.

The terms used in Eden are always in dispute.

What did God mean with, you shall surely die? A death innocence, there eyes were opened? Or a physical death that is passed on to all men?

Who or what was the serpent or what does he represent?

In other words, in 2000 years of debate, Eden and a fall or elevation, has not moved to any accepted conclusions.

That is why I would like to focus on the issue of love and what Eden would be like if A & E had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. A & E could not know love as it is good and they had no knowledge of good.

Perhaps by entering the story from this angle, some progress might actually be gained.

Certainly none has been gained by any other means.

The oldest tradition started with Eden as our elevation from ignorance to having a moral sense.

http://www.mrrena.com/misc/judaism2.php

Christianity later usurped the Jewish scriptures, embraced them as a part of the bible, and promptly turned the moral of the story from what the Jews had in place, to the fall of man. Blamed for bringing death to the earth and cursed with original sin. A guilt trip that all were to share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man

Where Jews empowered man, the Christians as Bishop Spong says, went into the guilt producing business.

Now, on to speaking of love.

I see Eden, before our elevation or fall, depending on your POV, as resembling this clip that shows, in a good analogy, what Eden may have been like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv7J9LtT95w&feature=related

You have seen that love certainly was not about in that clip and without it, people would not care for each other. I contend therefore that in Eden, if A & E had not gained a moral sense, thus enabling them to know love as something good, life for man would not be worth living.

The Jewish interpretation the gain of love as a huge plus while Christianity would shun this virtue and instead opt for blind obedience as the more valuable virtue. They chose to make slavery a virtue, instead the notion of rebellion against tyranny. You may have noted that nowhere in scripture is slavery condemned. In fact Paul teaches just how to beat your slaves. Nowhere in scripture is woman given equality because Eve was made from Adam’s rib and is declare to be the head of woman. This is also contrasted by the opposing view that the Jews had of Lilith, Adams first mate who is given, or better said, takes full equality.

The Christian Eden began devoid of love. When A & E gained the ability to love, through the gain of knowledge and wisdom, God shoes clearly that there is no love in his heart and that he is a jealous God who is culpable for allowing death to enter the world by locking away the tree of life. That same tree which he had already told A & E they could eat from, thus in effect, killing them. Some would say murdering them.

What would you do if you were Adam or Eve?

Create the conditions where love nor death could be found on earth and live as in that clip of The Time Machine, or would you follow Eve and choose knowledge and wisdom and become as Gods, God’s words, and disobey a command that you could not know, without first eating of the tree of knowledge, that that would be an evil act?

Whose interpretation of Eden do you think makes more sense and is better for mankind?

The Jewish interpretation of man’s elevation, or the Christian one of the fall and promotion of blind obedience?

Regards

DL

P S. Which tune do you like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVbLNPwi_r0

Or.

Is there any reason that God, an omnipotent and omniscient being, should follow advice He gives to puny mortals? Presumably, when you're God, you have to behave a bit differently than most people.

If omnipotent, having infinite pursuasive powers, then he would not need a hell at all would he?If God will not act in an omnipotent way, why should we even think he is omnipotent.

Just another attribute we give our imaginary construct.

Regards

DL

No.

Yes.

Regards

DL

It's a question of perspective. If it really had been the worst place in space, Then I suspect the obvious. Someone or something wants to feel safe tonight, and I don't recommend anyone to so much as move a muscle out of line. A such a place would've been built for a good reason, and that's why there would probably be a very risky thing here on earth that needs safety. Simply the hammer of Thor. That is why I believe that it may very well be true that hell is the worst place in space, thus we aren't in a safe place of the galaxy. This is really a sucky place to be in. So if you figure hell should be sorta like a paradise then you should hitchhike out of the planet. If anyone would dare take you.

 

 

The only place that we know of for sure where man can survive and you call it a suchy place.

Start sucking.

Regards

DL

Is hell a good place?

We cannot know how the first iniquity demonstrated itself but we can know that rebellion begins with questioning the status quo.

The moment God was questioned in any way, he responded with an evil punishment.

Evil as I class it in any case. He does not tolerate anyone doing their will, if it does not comply with his will. Obey or else. Not quite what scriptures say he should be doing.

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

It would seem that God let himself be overcome by evil and responded with evil. Or evil must be good. God created the first division in his once united kingdom.

It appears that God does not follow his own good advise. Or does he? If God was following his WORD, then hell must be a good place somehow.

Strange but true.

Are their any theists who would like to show how this is not back sliding?

That is of course, a rhetorical question as back sliding cannot be denied.

Was God overcome by evil?

Did God follow his literal WORD or not?

Should we?

Is hell a good place or is Gods WORD worthless since he himself ignores them and breaks his own laws?

Regards

DL

od

I should have added, except what God had told them (that they couldn't eat from either of the two trees.)

God did not disallow the eating of the tree of life before A E ate of the tree of knowledge.

In effect, he directly caused them to die and is thus guilty of murder IMO.

Regards

DL

DL,The scripture simply means you must be willing to put him ahead of everything you hold dear,it does not mean you must actually hate the people mentioned.DL,I take it you are angry with God about something or you have bought into some lie the devil has told you.Jesus said " love your enemies and do good to those who hate you" could a line like that ever come from anybody else on this earth.

 

Please don't be angry at God,but seek him whole heartedly and you will find him because he said he would never let you seek him in vain.

Strange that you can take your quote literally and trash mine for doing the same as you.

Quite the level playing field.

As to the rest of your psychoanalysis, preaching and thinking that I hate a God I do not believe in.

Garbage.

Regards

DL

 

You make vague generalizations, so please explain yourself.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9

Promoting death to Gays.

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

Fight them when you can.

All of the above are basically cause by belief in fantasy, miracles, magic and witches.

If you do not see it, I can break it down further for you.

Regards

DL