Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What are the odds?

1…1012141516

Comments

  • #332
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    santing wrote: »
    First I think you have misinterpreted the story of Genesis 3. We are not cursed by God to be sinners. Adam choose to become a sinner, and we are his descendants. God didn't do it, Adam did. Quite the opposite, God provides a way out of our misery.

    I think you should reread Genesis 3.
    Genesis 3 wrote:
    16 To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

    17 To Adam he said, Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

    18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.

    19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

    20Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

    21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

    22 And the LORD God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever.

    23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

    24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

    Adam somehow chose to "sin" by eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil (how you can choose to sin when you can't possibly know the difference between good and evil without eating the fruit in the first place I don't know, the only way this works if is good&evil are different to sin, which means it could possible be good to sin or evil not to), and as punishment God inflicts all the pains of the world on man and woman. (Even at that, Adams "sin" only resulted in him gaining the knowledge of good&evil it didn't result in him turning his back from God at all, how could the knowledge of Good&Evil result in Adam turning his back on God?).


  • #333
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I think you should reread Genesis 3.
    I think you skipped verses 6 & 7 - that's were Adam & Eve became sinners. The consequence of this you have highlighted very well.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Adam somehow chose to "sin" by eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil (how you can choose to sin when you can't possibly know the difference between good and evil without eating the fruit in the first place I don't know, the only way this works if is good&evil are different to sin, which means it could possible be good to sin or evil not to), and as punishment God inflicts all the pains of the world on man and woman. (Even at that, Adams "sin" only resulted in him gaining the knowledge of good&evil it didn't result in him turning his back from God at all, how could the knowledge of Good&Evil result in Adam turning his back on God?).
    There was one commandment given to Adam, to abstain from one tree. Adam listened to his wife and the Serpent (Satan) rather than obeying God. When he had eaten, the consequences where that they became sinners, they became aware (and ashamed) of their nakedness (v. 7) and they became afraid for God (v. 8-10).

    Every sin(ful) act is a turning against God, a rejecting of our Creator and punishable by death - eternal separation from God.


  • #334
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    santing wrote: »
    There was one commandment given to Adam, to abstain from one tree. Adam listened to his wife and the Serpent (Satan) rather than obeying God. When he had eaten, the consequences where that they became sinners, they became aware (and ashamed) of their nakedness (v. 7) and they became afraid for God (v. 8-10).

    How could they have known they where sinning if they didn't have the knowledge of Good&Evil until they ate the fruit? Is sinning different from Good&Evil? Can you sin by taking a good action, avoid sin by taking a bad action? Does this part of the bible just show that sin and Good&Evil are two seperate entities?
    santing wrote: »
    Every sin(ful) act is a turning against God, a rejecting of our Creator and punishable by death - eternal separation from God.

    If you read Genesis 3;14 onwards, it tells of God turning from Adam and Eve, the eating of the fruit didn't result in them deciding to leave, they merely decided it was wrong to be naked in Gods presence. However it seemed as God was more interested in people who obey him regardless of whether its right or wrong, and so threw them out of Eden.


  • #335
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    santing wrote: »
    Why stone age tools? Who gave you that idea.
    Why would Noah not have similar tools?

    The tools used are hardly the deal breaker in terms of credibility. For the sake of argument then, when did the flood take place? Are we talking early iron age here?
    santing wrote: »
    The building of the Pyramids, Egyptian linen, cutting granite was done a few 100s years later ... and we have never bothered to make something equivalent .

    Uhuh... I must not have spotted the ruins of the Egyptian's 700 meter tall towers, their 450 meter long ships etc etc. Come on.


  • #336
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How could they have known they where sinning if they didn't have the knowledge of Good&Evil until they ate the fruit? Is sinning different from Good&Evil? Can you sin by taking a good action, avoid sin by taking a bad action? Does this part of the bible just show that sin and Good&Evil are two seperate entities?
    The word "sin" has two meanings. It refers (1) to our nature - what Adam became after he disobeyed God and it refers (2) to every act of disobedience to God.
    (There is a third meaning where it references the remediation of sin: Christ became sin for us, meaning He became the Sin-offering.)

    So Adam did sin (disobeying) and therefore his nature became sinful.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If you read Genesis 3;14 onwards, it tells of God turning from Adam and Eve, the eating of the fruit didn't result in them deciding to leave, they merely decided it was wrong to be naked in Gods presence. However it seemed as God was more interested in people who obey him regardless of whether its right or wrong, and so threw them out of Eden.
    No, I think you take the wrong conclusion. God was left with two people who were spiritual dead - "in the day you eat thereof you will die," that could no longer enjoy fellowship with Him. To leave them in the garden would give them access to the tree of life, and they could have become sinners with everlasting life, but spiritua dead - not a nice thought. So God in His mercy decided to remove them from the garden.

    Adam and Eve had covered themselves with leaves - so they were no longer naked. However, in the sight of the Holy God, they did feel completely exposed and naked - they realised that they were not able to be in His presence no matter how beautiful the clothes were they had.

    Note that in order to continue to life Adam and Eve were covered with skins - an animal had to die in order for Adam and Eve to continue. This is the second reference of God's promised salvation. So man sinned, and God immediately promises a Saviour.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm questioning your apparent insistence that if one removes a universal standard they remove morality. That isn't true. Morality is not dependent on their being a universal standard. People can and do have their own personal morality. Morality is simply how someone ethically assesses a situation.
    But the key point is that a ‘personal morality’ is so different to a universal standard (or perceived universal standard, strictly speaking) as literally anything goes. My starting point, in that situation, is completely arbitrary. It can be anything from ‘I’ll never let the Mongol Horde down as we pillage our way across the world’ to ‘I’ll only eat lettuce and chickpeas’ to ‘I won’t eat babies on Tuesdays, because Tuesdays are for banjo practice’.

    I think a statement that gets the kind of point I’m trying to make across is one of Scofflaw’s in the thread on the Atheism forum about what constitutes a good life, where he said the only person who can really describe a theist as wasting their life is another theist. This is the core of what I’m trying to say – not identical to the question of morality, but much the same kind of thing.

    At the end of the day, in most of the posts I’m making these days, what’s on my mind is that there is a real difference between a theist conception of the world and an atheist conception. So when a theist says things like ‘you have no meaning, or purpose or morality in your outlook’, they are essentially right. Because however an atheist uses those kinds of terms is so different, that it is a different thing.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    How does the concept of God make him not want to be a nasty person? He himself doesn't want to be a nasty person, that is a conclusion he arrived at himself.
    I’ll switch from saying ‘PDN’, just to make the same point generally.

    If a person finds that he fails to be the person he wants to be ‘on his own’, so to speak, and then adopts Christianity and finds that the practice of that faith helps him achieve the life he wants, doesn’t that illustrate that simply believing in a God may have a concrete effect?

    Look on it this way. If you believe there’s a sleeping tiger under your bed, you’ll probably tiptoe out of the room quietly. If you believe there’s no tiger, but decide to act as if there is one, you probably will be less careful about being quiet. A trivial example, I’ll admit. But hopefully its gets across that idea that people will behave differently if they have a theist conception of the world.


  • #338
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    The tools used are hardly the deal breaker in terms of credibility. For the sake of argument then, when did the flood take place? Are we talking early iron age here?
    The division into stone/bronze/iron age are based on the concept that the first human had a long way to evolve. You may have got the notion somewhere that the Bible doesn't really teach this :). The various "ages" indicate more how settled the people were that made those instrument.
    Bronze and Iron were available before the flood (Gen 4:22). The flood took place about 4000 years ago.
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Uhuh... I must not have spotted the ruins of the Egyptian's 700 meter tall towers, their 450 meter long ships etc etc. Come on.
    I remember an article on an ancient (about 3000 years old) Greek computer a few months ago ... I cannot retrieve it right now, but it was on physorg.com.


  • #339
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    santing wrote: »
    First I think you have misinterpreted the story of Genesis 3. We are not cursed by God to be sinners. Adam choose to become a sinner, and we are his descendants. God didn't do it, Adam did. Quite the opposite, God provides a way out of our misery.

    Adam did it and we are his descendants? How would that do anything on it's own?

    The reason we are drawn to sin, the reason we have a sinful nature, unlike Adam and Jesus who could choose to sin or not, is because we (the descendents of Adam) were cursed by God as punishment for Adam's disobedience.

    That at least is the interpretation I have clarified with most Christians on this forum. Posts such as PDN have said that Jesus is the only person since Adam with the ability to choose to lead a life free of sin. The rest of us can't, we will be drawn to sin because of our nature, a nature inflicted upon us by God.

    If you have a different interpretation I'm all ears.
    santing wrote: »
    We can argue what God can do to restrict our capabilities. One of the characteristics of mankind is that we are creative. This is part of us being "image bearers" of God. The problem with being creative and sinners is that we will use anything for sinful purposes. So we can breathe under water, walk through walls, and survive a fire.

    Now you are just being silly. You know perfectly well I meant breath under water and survive fire as part of our natural abilities. We can't do these things, yet amazingly that doesn't stop our free will.

    It is entirely plausible that God could have designed humans who either don't suffer or who require a lot more to suffer. Yet he choose to give us brittle bodies that are easily damaged.
    santing wrote: »
    It is God's choice to let us sinners live and provide us a way in which we can be pleasing for Him.
    Well no, it isn't God's choice, that is the point. It is that kind of self-loathing view of humanity that is the problem with your religion.
    santing wrote: »
    God had compassion, especially because the number of small children!

    God having compassion for one group over here while being evil to another group over there is not that impressive. It just makes him look human, rather than divine.

    By the say you have skipped away from the point. Originally you said that God has to give us the ability to be evil to each other for the sake of free will. When faced with my rebuttal to that you appear to just be now saying that God can give us the ability to be evil to each other because he can. Which isn't an answer. I know he can, the point is that when he does he is being evil himself.


  • #340
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    santing wrote: »
    The division into stone/bronze/iron age are based on the concept that the first human had a long way to evolve.
    Not it isn't. It has nothing to do with evolution (humans haven't evolved that much in the last 10,000 years) and everything to do with archaeology and when humans first started using iron (the hint is in the name).
    santing wrote: »
    I remember an article on an ancient (about 3000 years old) Greek computer a few months ago ... I cannot retrieve it right now, but it was on physorg.com.

    Amazing the Greeks managed to build a computer less than a thousand years after the Flood. Actually scratch that, amazing that there were Greeks in the first place a thousand years after the Flood.


  • #341
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    santing wrote: »
    The division into stone/bronze/iron age are based on the concept that the first human had a long way to evolve. You may have got the notion somewhere that the Bible doesn't really teach this :). The various "ages" indicate more how settled the people were that made those instrument.
    Bronze and Iron were available before the flood (Gen 4:22). The flood took place about 4000 years ago.

    I remember an article on an ancient (about 3000 years old) Greek computer a few months ago ... I cannot retrieve it right now, but it was on physorg.com.

    It was an astronomy teaching tool, not a computer.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Schuhart wrote: »
    But the key point is that a ‘personal morality’ is so different to a universal standard (or perceived universal standard, strictly speaking) as literally anything goes.

    I don't know what you mean. If a person has a personal morality then that is the opposite to "anything goes". For example I don't believe the State has the right or authority to terminate a life such as the execution of criminals. That is a moral assessment on my part. I'm not sure where you think "anything goes" fits into that.
    Schuhart wrote: »
    This is the core of what I’m trying to say – not identical to the question of morality, but much the same kind of thing.

    Well yes but the issue you are missing is that even universal morality is subjective. I'm not going to convince a Christian that they are following the wrong moral path, but then I would question how successful a Christian could convince another Christian that they are following the wrong moral path. Look at someone like the Phelps. And this also applies with people from different religions. A Jew is not going to have much more success convincing a Christian that they are right than I am.

    The idea that a universal morality ties people together is largely a myth. If gives believers the illusion that they are all following a unified belief system, but at the end of the day they are all still making up their own morality just like the rest of us. If it matches the universal standard this just makes them feel good as they think they are correct. If it doesn't they more often than not simply reinterpret the moral lesson until it does.
    Schuhart wrote: »
    So when a theist says things like ‘you have no meaning, or purpose or morality in your outlook’, they are essentially right.
    From their point of view, but then their point of view is often limited to such a degree as to be almost irrelevant. A die hard Man United fan may think supporting any other team is pointless and silly and be unable to see why anyone would bother to do that, but that is more a reflection on the fan than the worth of supporting another team.
    Schuhart wrote: »
    If a person finds that he fails to be the person he wants to be ‘on his own’, so to speak, and then adopts Christianity and finds that the practice of that faith helps him achieve the life he wants, doesn’t that illustrate that simply believing in a God may have a concrete effect?

    Oh I've not doubt that believing in God has a concrete effect, but I would question the beneficial that effect is. Replace Christianity with Scientology and the example becomes a lot clearer. Scientology has a profound effect on a lot of its followers (look at Mr. Cruise) but it is questionable that this effect is positive, or that similar positive results could not be achieved with something like counciling or support groups. Religion to me seems often to be the easy answer for people who have a sense of self-loathing already and who don't trust themselves. I would question how much this actually "fixes" people (look at the divorce rates of Christians, or something like the Christian groups that try to convert gay people)


  • #343
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    santing wrote: »
    The division into stone/bronze/iron age are based on the concept that the first human had a long way to evolve.

    Talk about getting it backwards. The idea that humans had a long way to evolve is based on our archeological and paleontological observations. The observations came first, the theory came second.
    santing wrote: »
    Bronze and Iron were available before the flood (Gen 4:22). The flood took place about 4000 years ago.

    The pyramids of the Egyptian Old Kingdom were built 4700 years ago. So they predate your flood and show no signs of having been submerged. The Egyptian people of that time seem to have survived the flood in sufficient numbers to found the Middle Kingdom... apparently they did this immediately following the flood or actually during it. I'm sorry man, but the numbers really don't add up. Even pushing the flood back to 3000 BC gives us just a few hundred years for the Egyptians to multiply enormously and found an empire. Just how many people were on that ark?

    And, though I'm slow to return to the evolution thing again, just how did we get so many species evolving from the ark kinds within 4000 years? 16,000 kinds up to hundreds of thousands of species? I'm only counting the land species in that. You'd think that kind of rapid change would have prompted comment in the ancient texts of... well everyone really.


  • #344
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    Wicknight wrote: »
    For example I don't believe the State has the right or authority to terminate a life such as the execution of criminals. That is a moral assessment on my part. I'm not sure where you think "anything goes" fits into that.
    Because its as arbitrary an assessment as Genghis Khan's that he has a perfect right to rape the relatives of his defeated enemies.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well yes but the issue you are missing is that even universal morality is subjective.
    No, I accept that (from our perspective) we are talking about people who feel they are following an objective standard, rather than people who have actually discovered such a standard.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    From their point of view, but then their point of view is often limited to such a degree as to be almost irrelevant.
    I'm not sure about 'irrelevant'. I feel we brush by this kind of discussion too quickly, and I have a suspicion that people avoid conversations that take them where they'd rather not go. I feel we avoid discussions about what theists mean by purpose and morality because we essentially know we have nothing to replace them.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Religion to me seems often to be the easy answer for people who have a sense of self-loathing already and who don't trust themselves.
    Lets assume your point is valid for a moment.

    How does atheism help people with a sense of self-loathing, who don't trust themselves?


  • #345
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    It was an astronomy teaching tool, not a computer.
    Yeah, I found it again. It's called the Antikythera Mechanism
    The Antikythera Mechanism is now understood to be dedicated to astronomical phenomena and operates as a complex mechanical "computer" which tracks the cycles of the Solar System.


  • #346
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    santing wrote: »
    Yeah, I found it again. It's called the Antikythera Mechanism

    Yes, not a computer and also not 3000 years old. 2000 ish. It's a more complex device than many would have expected to find from that time, but it's not outrageously so.


  • #347
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    santing wrote: »
    The word "sin" has two meanings. It refers (1) to our nature - what Adam became after he disobeyed God and it refers (2) to every act of disobedience to God.
    (There is a third meaning where it references the remediation of sin: Christ became sin for us, meaning He became the Sin-offering.)

    So Adam did sin (disobeying) and therefore his nature became sinful.

    All you're saying here is that the word sin can be used as a noun and an adjective, as having a sinful nature means having a nature predisposed to sin. The problem here is how could Adam and Eve know it was evil to disobey God without eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil?
    santing wrote: »
    No, I think you take the wrong conclusion. God was left with two people who were spiritual dead - "in the day you eat thereof you will die," that could no longer enjoy fellowship with Him. To leave them in the garden would give them access to the tree of life, and they could have become sinners with everlasting life, but spiritua dead - not a nice thought. So God in His mercy decided to remove them from the garden.

    So by gaining the wisdom of Good&Evil you becom spiritually dead?
    His mercy? He punished Adam and Eve, (gave them pain, expelled them from Eden etc). What kind of mercy is that? Surely mercy would be to let them live out their days in Eden, rather than discard them?
    santing wrote: »
    Adam and Eve had covered themselves with leaves - so they were no longer naked. However, in the sight of the Holy God, they did feel completely exposed and naked - they realised that they were not able to be in His presence no matter how beautiful the clothes were they had.

    Note that in order to continue to life Adam and Eve were covered with skins - an animal had to die in order for Adam and Eve to continue. This is the second reference of God's promised salvation. So man sinned, and God immediately promises a Saviour.
    Funny though that Adam and Eves first inclination was to use fig leaves to cover their nakedness, and it was God that decided to make garments from skin (Genesis 3:7 & 21). Could God not have just used leaves like Adam and Eve tried to do? Could he just told them not to worry about being naked? Do you have any explanation for why, after eating the fruit rom the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil, Adam and Eve decided it was wrong to be naked?, (so wrong that they decided to try to cover up in front of God, who had created them and seen them naked for a long time )


  • #348
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Adam did it and we are his descendants? How would that do anything on it's own?

    The reason we are drawn to sin, the reason we have a sinful nature, unlike Adam and Jesus who could choose to sin or not, is because we (the descendents of Adam) were cursed by God as punishment for Adam's disobedience.

    That at least is the interpretation I have clarified with most Christians on this forum. Posts such as PDN have said that Jesus is the only person since Adam with the ability to choose to lead a life free of sin. The rest of us can't, we will be drawn to sin because of our nature, a nature inflicted upon us by God.

    If you have a different interpretation I'm all ears.
    I am surprised that you perceive a difference... I rechecked with a couple
    of commentaries on genesis, but they all say the same thing. Eve was deceived, Adam sinned. Adam knowingly, consciously rejected his Creator and disobeyed Him. The immediate consequence was that they became sinners, and for the first time they experienced fear, and Adam's mindset became dim. He who could name (the characteristics of) an animal by looking at it, couldn't recall the attributes of God: omnipresent and omniscient.

    God didn't curse Adam or Eve. He gave them suffering as punishment for their act. He cursed the serpent and He cursed the earth because of what Adam had done ... All creation suffers because of mankind! The sinful nature was a direct consequence of eating of the forbidden fruit. Now they (we) know good and evil - and with our "free will" decide to do as much evil as we can get away with.
    (I don't really believe in free will for sinful man, because that would mean that we would be able to always choose good; but we can't because we are sinners. We are bound to sin - we have no choice. God's way out is compared to receiving a new nature!)
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Now you are just being silly. You know perfectly well I meant breath under water and survive fire as part of our natural abilities. We can't do these things, yet amazingly that doesn't stop our free will.

    It is entirely plausible that God could have designed humans who either don't suffer or who require a lot more to suffer. Yet he choose to give us brittle bodies that are easily damaged.
    That's right. Strong humans don't need God. Those who are not sick don't need a doctor. It is through suffering that people are drawn to God.
    The third named son of Adam and Eve is called "Seth" who got a son named Enosh (Gen 4). Now "Enosh" means "frail and miserable man;" (Nice name to give your son!) and then we read immediately: "At that time people began to worship the Lord."

    Through suffering, through being weak we realise that we can't do it on our own and return back to our Creator God.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    ...
    By the say you have skipped away from the point. Originally you said that God has to give us the ability to be evil to each other for the sake of free will. When faced with my rebuttal to that you appear to just be now saying that God can give us the ability to be evil to each other because he can. Which isn't an answer. I know he can, the point is that when he does he is being evil himself.
    I am not sure if I get the above completely ...
    But I believe...
    • That God cannot make mankind less sinfull or less cruel. It basically would mean defeat from Satan.
    • That God will work out all things for the good
    • That God will punish Satan and every Sinner
    • That sinful mankind cannot choose to do good - we will always prefer evil over good
    • That the punishment of eternal separation from God far exceeds any suffering we ever could face on earth.
    • That God has a special place for little children ... Their angels always see the face of God the Father (Mat 18:10)


  • #349
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    santing wrote: »
    I am surprised that you perceive a difference... I rechecked with a couple
    of commentaries on genesis, but they all say the same thing. Eve was deceived, Adam sinned. Adam knowingly, consciously rejected his Creator and disobeyed Him. The immediate consequence was that they became sinners, and for the first time they experienced fear, and Adam's mindset became dim. He who could name (the characteristics of) an animal by looking at it, couldn't recall the attributes of God: omnipresent and omniscient.
    But why give them the opportunity in the first place? It obviously irritated him. Are you say that the all seeing, all powerful & all knowing god didn't see it coming?
    santing wrote: »
    God didn't curse Adam or Eve. He gave them suffering as punishment for their act.

    He did not curse them? He just gave them pain and suffering. Got it.
    Dictionary.com wrote:
    curse /kɜrs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kurs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, cursed or curst, curs·ing.

    –noun
    .
    .
    .
    10.to wish or invoke evil, calamity, injury, or destruction upon.
    I don't know. Kind of looks like a curse.

    santing wrote: »
    He cursed the serpent and He cursed the earth because of what Adam had done ... All creation suffers because of mankind!
    So basically the all powerful being who created Adam and by extension his nature basically threw the toys out of the pram when his creation disobeyed him. Is that about right?
    santing wrote: »
    The sinful nature was a direct consequence of eating of the forbidden fruit.
    The sinful nature is a direct result of a flaw which was built in by the creator who would have known what the result would be unless he either was not the creator or was not all knowing and all powerful.
    santing wrote: »
    Now they (we) know good and evil - and with our "free will" decide to do as much evil as we can get away with.
    But why do we have to know evil? Why does it have to exist? What purpose does it serve?
    santing wrote: »
    (I don't really believe in free will for sinful man, because that would mean that we would be able to always choose good; but we can't because we are sinners. We are bound to sin - we have no choice. God's way out is compared to receiving a new nature!)
    We have no choice? We are bound to sin? Well that is kind of the point we are making. Why should we be punished for something we can't help but do? Further, why should the being doing the punishing be the same one that made sure we would definitely sin?

    santing wrote: »
    Those who are not sick don't need a doctor. It is through suffering that people are drawn to God.
    This is another aspect I have a problem with. I am suffering so I go to the being that is responsible for my suffering? How does that make sense?
    santing wrote: »
    Through suffering, through being weak we realise that we can't do it on our own and return back to our Creator God.
    I have suffered, I turn to no such thing.
    santing wrote: »
    I am not sure if I get the above completely ...
    But I believe...

    That God cannot make mankind less sinfull or less cruel. It basically would mean defeat from Satan.
    I am afraid I am not all that bright. Can you explain why this would be so please?
    santing wrote: »
    That God will work out all things for the good
    Great. Obviously too late for those that are suffering now. What about those that have never heard of your god and know only suffering? Not very fair on them.[/FONT]
    santing wrote: »
    That God will punish Satan and every Sinner
    Again, great. And by the way, what was satan doing in the garden of eden anyway? It seems like god knew his creation had a flaw built in AND allowed them to be tempted by his arch enemy knowing all the time what the consequences would be. Even more objectionable TBH.
    santing wrote: »
    That sinful mankind cannot choose to do good - we will always prefer evil over good
    Speak for yourself.
    santing wrote: »
    That the punishment of eternal separation from God far exceeds any suffering we ever could face on earth.
    I am not sure I would want anything to do with him, even if I did believe he existed. And again, what of those that know nothing of your god. And I still think it is little comfort.
    santing wrote: »
    That God has a special place for little children
    Yes, at the hands of rapists it would seem.



    MrP


  • #350
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Talk about getting it backwards. The idea that humans had a long way to evolve is based on our archeological and paleontological observations. The observations came first, the theory came second.
    Yes backward it is .... I know you love reading CreationOnTheWeb articles. Here is one on this topic
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    The pyramids of the Egyptian Old Kingdom were built 4700 years ago. So they predate your flood and show no signs of having been submerged. The Egyptian people of that time seem to have survived the flood in sufficient numbers to found the Middle Kingdom... apparently they did this immediately following the flood or actually during it. I'm sorry man, but the numbers really don't add up. Even pushing the flood back to 3000 BC gives us just a few hundred years for the Egyptians to multiply enormously and found an empire. Just how many people were on that ark?
    The egyptian dating is at odd with the Biblical dating and poses impossible dates for say Joseph and Moses.
    I am not an expert in Pyramids, reading through some fascinating articles I find people claiming that the Great Pyramid might be build before the flood - I doubt that it is true though! We do however find that the great Pyramid must have been build by a people who at technology level where equal to say the 19th century - and some of their capabilities are still beyond our wildest dreams. But the same can be said about Stonehenge or Newgrange.

    For your information there were 8 people in the ark, as is attested by the
    biblical record and the Chinese symbol for "save."

    Noah had three sons. These three sons had 16 (named) sons together, so if we take the fertility rate to be 5 sons per generation, you get over 1 million people in 8 generations. Take 40 years for one generation, that gives you 200 years. I could be out by a great margin, but it gives you the idea of how fast you can repopulate the earth!
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    And, though I'm slow to return to the evolution thing again, just how did we get so many species evolving from the ark kinds within 4000 years? 16,000 kinds up to hundreds of thousands of species? I'm only counting the land species in that. You'd think that kind of rapid change would have prompted comment in the ancient texts of... well everyone really.
    That's an interesting point worth looking into...


  • #351
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    All you're saying here is that the word sin can be used as a noun and an adjective, as having a sinful nature means having a nature predisposed to sin. The problem here is how could Adam and Eve know it was evil to disobey God without eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil?
    The Tree of knowledge gave them indepent knowledge on good and evil. They must have known that disobeying God was evil - the only evil they knew of.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So by gaining the wisdom of Good&Evil you becom spiritually dead?
    Yes.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    His mercy? He punished Adam and Eve, (gave them pain, expelled them from Eden etc). What kind of mercy is that? Surely mercy would be to let them live out their days in Eden, rather than discard them?
    No, in Eden was the tree of life of which they were no longer allowed to eat. Eden was created for innocent people, now they were guilty.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Funny though that Adam and Eves first inclination was to use fig leaves to cover their nakedness, and it was God that decided to make garments from skin (Genesis 3:7 & 21). Could God not have just used leaves like Adam and Eve tried to do? Could he just told them not to worry about being naked?
    God used animal skins to teach them that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you have any explanation for why, after eating the fruit rom the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil, Adam and Eve decided it was wrong to be naked?, (so wrong that they decided to try to cover up in front of God, who had created them and seen them naked for a long time )
    The shame for their nakedness came from their sinful nature.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    MrPudding wrote: »
    But why give them the opportunity in the first place? It obviously irritated him. Are you say that the all seeing, all powerful & all knowing god didn't see it coming?
    He did foresee it.
    1Pe 1:18-20 ESV knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, (19) but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. (20) He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
    MrPudding wrote: »
    He did not curse them? He just gave them pain and suffering. Got it.
    I don't know. Kind of looks like a curse.
    Got it. Now tell the judge to stop cursing in court.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    So basically the all powerful being who created Adam and by extension his nature basically threw the toys out of the pram when his creation disobeyed him. Is that about right?
    Somewhat crudely put though.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    The sinful nature is a direct result of a flaw which was built in by the creator who would have known what the result would be unless he either was not the creator or was not all knowing and all powerful.
    You may call it a flaw... God has created us this way because He is the creator. He did not want robots that could not but obey and love Him. Do you find any comfort in an inflatable doll?
    MrPudding wrote: »
    But why do we have to know evil? Why does it have to exist? What purpose does it serve?
    Satan is the origin of evil, he was one of the three (?) top angels before pride corrupted him.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    We have no choice? We are bound to sin? Well that is kind of the point we are making. Why should we be punished for something we can't help but do? Further, why should the being doing the punishing be the same one that made sure we would definitely sin?
    When God made mankind he declared that it was "very good." Can we argue with Him? Can we tell Him it was a lousy design? Can we make improvements? I don't think so.
    The one who is the judge is the same one who died for us so that we will not see judgment ... I think He is very capable and well suited for the job.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    This is another aspect I have a problem with. I am suffering so I go to the being that is responsible for my suffering? How does that make sense?

    I have suffered, I turn to no such thing.
    God is not reponsible for your suffering, just as the Garda or the judge is not repsonsible for your time in jail after you get caught killing someone while driving under influence.
    God is the only one who can provide a meaning to life, hope and fulfillment. He is calling you in many ways, including, so not exclusive, through suffering.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Originally Posted by santing viewpost.gif
    I am not sure if I get the above completely ...
    But I believe...

    That God cannot make mankind less sinfull or less cruel. It basically would mean defeat from Satan.
    I am afraid I am not all that bright. Can you explain why this would be so please?
    If God had to relieve the consequences of sins He would have said to Satan, "You win this round, but I modify the design so it is better suited to my purpose." He would have changed the rules during the game, which is called cheating.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Great. Obviously too late for those that are suffering now. What about those that have never heard of your god and know only suffering? Not very fair on them.
    Suffice to say that everyone will have more than a fair chance. Leave that up to God!
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Again, great. And by the way, what was satan doing in the garden of eden anyway? It seems like god knew his creation had a flaw built in AND allowed them to be tempted by his arch enemy knowing all the time what the consequences would be. Even more objectionable TBH.
    It was no flaw. God had foreseen that Adam would sin, He had already decided that He himself would enter His creation to die for the evil of His creatures. And that before He created anything. You may not like the plot, but this is how I perceive it.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Speak for yourself.
    I did, and spoke out my experience as well. You might be different, but I haven't met you!
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I am not sure I would want anything to do with him, even if I did believe he existed. And again, what of those that know nothing of your god. And I still think it is little comfort.
    I extend his invitation to you ... If you think He is unfair, tell Him. He will respond if you ask Him in honesty - don't be afraid to hurt His feelings!
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Originally Posted by santing viewpost.gif
    That God has a special place for little children
    Yes, at the hands of rapists it would seem.
    If you knew God's character you would known that He suffers more with each molested child, with each hurting creature than even the closest relative does. Somewhere in the Psalms it says that He keeps all our tears in a bottle. We are precious to Him, that's why He died for us.



    MrP[/quote]


  • #353
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    santing wrote: »
    The Tree of knowledge gave them indepent knowledge on good and evil. They must have known that disobeying God was evil - the only evil they knew of.

    They must have known? How must they have known it was evil before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good&Evil? What exactly do you mean by "independent knowledge on Good&Evil"? God created the tree, so surely the fruit was hardly lying to them when they discovered it was wrong to be naked. But when God finds out they know about it being wrong to be naked, he throws a wobbler and banishs them to a life of pain.
    santing wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Mark Hamill
    So by gaining the wisdom of Good&Evil you becom spiritually dead?
    Yes.

    Care to explain how wisdom of Good&Evil makes you spiritually dead?
    santing wrote: »
    No, in Eden was the tree of life of which they were no longer allowed to eat. Eden was created for innocent people, now they were guilty.

    The Tree of Life was guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword to stop Adam and Eve from getting the fruit after they where banished, surely God could have justed guarded the tree if they stayed.
    santing wrote: »
    God used animal skins to teach them that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

    Where did you get that from?
    santing wrote: »
    The shame for their nakedness came from their sinful nature.

    Can you explain that? Do you believe it is sinful to feel shame if naked? Do you believe the bible tells that to cover our nakedness is sinful?


  • #354
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    santing wrote: »
    God didn't curse Adam or Eve. He gave them suffering as punishment for their act.
    I didn't say he curse Adam or Eve, I said he cursed the rest of us. He gave us a sinful nature. Do you think Adam gave us a sinful nature? Is he a god now, can he alter the nature of reality?
    santing wrote: »
    The sinful nature was a direct consequence of eating of the forbidden fruit.
    And would have ended when Adam and Eve died except God decided we would inherit it, for a laugh.

    The was his curse to the rest of us. Otherwise how else do you explain everyone having a sinful nature except Jesus who was not born of Adam but born of God?
    santing wrote: »
    Now they (we) know good and evil - and with our "free will" decide to do as much evil as we can get away with.

    "They" and "we" are different people Santing. I am not the same person as my father, and he can't decide what I inherit.

    If a sinful nature is transfered through genetics that must have been something God decided to do (the curse for future generations). If it is transfered some other way, again that must have been something God decided.

    I can't through my actions decide to pass traits onto my descendants, and neither could Adam. Nothing Adam did on his own could determine that his descendants would have a sinful nature that he didn't have. It was God's act of punishment.

    God puts it better himself in Exodus

    You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand of those who love me and keep my commandments.
    santing wrote: »
    (I don't really believe in free will for sinful man, because that would mean that we would be able to always choose good; but we can't because we are sinners. We are bound to sin - we have no choice. )

    Do you not think it is funny that God would set it up like this and then decide to punish us for something we have no choice over?

    Also you have jumped quite significantly from your original assertion only a few posts ago that God has to allow us to inflict suffering and pain on each other because otherwise he would be curtailing our free will. But he is already curtailing our free will, and punishing for it as well!
    santing wrote: »
    That's right. Strong humans don't need God. Those who are not sick don't need a doctor. It is through suffering that people are drawn to God.

    Which makes God pretty damn evil.

    An ethical doctor doesn't sit around thinking "man I hope a lot of people get sick and suffer so I have someone to talk to" and a loving God would either. A doctors happiest day is when he sees no patents, and Gods happiest day would be when no one needed him.

    The idea that God would introduce suffering and pain into the world so that we would then inflict it on each other and the victims would need him to couple, like a jealous husband breaking his wifes legs so she needs him for everything, just makes God seem like a horrible needy tyrant.
    santing wrote: »
    Through suffering, through being weak we realise that we can't do it on our own and return back to our Creator God.

    Well yes but we cannot do it on our own because God made us that way

    The wife with the broken legs locked in the house needs her husband but only because he broke her legs and locked her in the house so she would need him. Does that sound "loving" to you?

    Love isn't about need it is about want. It is about freely choosing something.

    God made us to need him, and to top it off he then cursed us with a sinful nature, trapped to sin no matter what while punishing in a lake of fire for eternity those who did.

    No where in that is there "love"

    I don't (thankfully) believe your god exists, but even if I did I would not worship him. I would be terrified of him for sure, and the universe would be a much scarier place with the idea of something like that existing, but I wouldn't (I hope, if I was strong enough) worship him.
    santing wrote: »
    [*]That God cannot make mankind less sinfull or less cruel. It basically would mean defeat from Satan.
    Yes he could have.

    For a start he could have not made Satan. That would have been a good start. He could have also made humans to be able to with stand suffering and pain, or simply without the concept of pain and suffering at all. That would have been easy. There is no reason why we have to have these frail bodies that break and suffer so easily. We might not need God then, but why would he care if he truly loved us as he is supposed to?

    He also could have punished Adam and Eve and left it at that, rather than cursing all of humanity as punishment for what they did, forcing us to a life of sin which he then goes on to punish us for with eternal suffering and pain.
    santing wrote: »
    [*]That God will work out all things for the good
    I see no evidence of that, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
    santing wrote: »
    [*]That God will punish Satan and every Sinner
    Why if they don't have a choice and are only this way because God decided so? Also what purpose does punishment serve after all the horrible things have happened? The purpose of punishment in modern justice systems is to stop someone doing the thing again. Punishing people at the end of time is largely pointless, particularly if you are punishing them for simply being the way you made them.
    santing wrote: »
    [*]That sinful mankind cannot choose to do good - we will always prefer evil over good
    Good thing God throws them into a lake of fire over something they can't control isn't it. That sounds fair and just. Which is why we execute the mentally handicap. Oh wait ...
    santing wrote: »
    [*]That the punishment of eternal separation from God far exceeds any suffering we ever could face on earth.
    Wonderful. Your god certainly sounds very "loving" when he decided to curse most of humanity to that fate without giving them a choice not to sin.
    santing wrote: »
    [*]That God has a special place for little children ... Their angels always see the face of God the Father (Mat 18:10)
    [/LIST]
    I'm sure the estimate 5 million children currently enslaved by the under age sex industry take a lot of comfort in that.


  • #355
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    I'd have to wonder how much sin there was in the world before this (alleged) great flood compared with the utter depravity found in every corner of the world today?

    i can't imagine noah's peers to be more sinful than today's civilisation is, so why are we still here? why doesn't he do his big etch-a-sketch shake thing again and start over?

    what about the second coming, when's that supposed to be? again, why the long wait?

    what about the vast majority of people in the world (66% apparently) who aren't of a christian faith?

    why is it that the numbers of people who ARE of a christian faith is falling the world over?

    you talk on one hand about god giving us free will but then on the other you talk about him making us sinful and giving us no choice but to sin and only adam and jesus having the choice to sin or not. how's that giving us free will?

    you know the real irony of all of this is that I had grown up going from being born into a non practicing CofE household thinking I was an agnostic right through my life up until before I started in this thread.

    I had lots of questions about christianity, but the more deluded answers I get and the more I read and debate about it all, the more I realise that no god exists.

    This thread has actually turned me into a steadfast atheist and I have to say, it's very liberating, so thanks (to both sides). :)


  • #356
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm sure the estimate 5 million children currently enslaved by the under age sex industry take a lot of comfort in that.

    Especially the ones who don't believe in Jesus and so can look forward to eternal damnation after death. Rough deal for them.


  • #357
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Charco wrote: »
    Especially the ones who don't believe in Jesus and so can look forward to eternal damnation after death. Rough deal for them.
    Well, no one ever said he was a fair and just god..... oh wait.....

    MrP


  • #358
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    vibe666 wrote: »
    This thread has actually turned me into a steadfast atheist and I have to say, it's very liberating, so thanks (to both sides). :)

    excellent, one more for the minions of Satan to toil in the underground mi ... er ... I mean ... thats is good carry on


    :p


  • #359
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    lol. how do you like my new sig?

    think it's quite a good one myself. :)

    I'm just amazed that in the 21st century wityh so many leaps and bounds in science that so many people still insist on following it all without question.

    i can understand how simpler people in simpler times would follow such things without question, but with the huge growth in globalisation ans scientific discoveries i just think people ought t cop on a bit more to the reality of the physical world and stop relying on fantasy to bring meaning to their existence rather than learning to grow a pair and doing it for themselves.

    the quicker all forms of religion can be relegated to the history books the better off mankind will be.

    look at the US and the middle east right now, still on the verge of starting world war 3 with GWB at the head of it on one side waving his bible and blathering on about god the whole time and muslim fundamentalists on the other side doing their thing in pretty much exactly the same way. both sides I'm sure think that they are on the side of good and doing what's right by their god but at the same time posing a real threat to the safety of all of us, religious (of any kind) or not.

    i know in a lot of respects that it's just being used as an excuse, but it doesn't change the fact that without religion there would be no 'valid' excuse for any of it and it just wouldn't happen in the modern (21st century) world.

    a lot of you religious types seem to think that there are no moral standards without god, but i very much beg to differ. it seems to me that it's much easier to hide immoral acts behind percieved religious beliefs to hide apply misplaced morality to them.

    as I've said before, the crusades, the inquisition, the troubles in northern ireland, the nazi's and many more were all following what they perceived to be their gods great plan for them (and the rest of us).

    to be fair, I'm happy to give you stalin and mao to play with, both atheists and both completely barking but I don't think people capable of genocide like that would get to power any more without religious backing. all the most recent nut jobs seem o have some sort of religious fervour of some kind. with our new found global village there's very little to hate about each other aside from differing religious beliefs.

    can't we all just learn form past mistakes and get along? :)


  • #360
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    santing wrote: »
    Yes backward it is .... I know you love reading CreationOnTheWeb articles. Here is one on this topic

    There's nothing in that article but an attack on the guy who proposed the three age system. Typical of these websites. All attack on established work and no original research. I'm fully aware that the system is not clear cut across the world and depends on access to materials. However a clear division between stone tool usage and more advanced tech is visible across most of the world. The transition times differ with the middle east tending to get there first in every major tech development. The date ranges in which these were used in various places are quite well established by a considerable number of dating methods which despite being very different, all give us the same answers.
    santing wrote: »
    The egyptian dating is at odd with the Biblical dating and poses impossible dates for say Joseph and Moses.
    I am not an expert in Pyramids, reading through some fascinating articles I find people claiming that the Great Pyramid might be build before the flood - I doubt that it is true though! We do however find that the great Pyramid must have been build by a people who at technology level where equal to say the 19th century - and some of their capabilities are still beyond our wildest dreams. But the same can be said about Stonehenge or Newgrange.

    19th century technology? Are you kidding me? It's already been shown how very primitive technology can be used to move megaliths. That's primary school history stuff. Just because such masonry work wasn't common in say the middle ages does not mean they couldn't do it at all. Medieval stone work was of vastly superior quality to prehistoric works. They'd found that it was far more practical to build large stone structures by, shock horror, cutting the stones into manageable pieces. The builders of stone henge would have constructed forts from wood because stone work was such a chore for them. As to the Ancient Egyptians having skills we can't replicate today... name one.
    santing wrote: »
    For your information there were 8 people in the ark, as is attested by the
    biblical record and the Chinese symbol for "save."

    Noah had three sons. These three sons had 16 (named) sons together, so if we take the fertility rate to be 5 sons per generation, you get over 1 million people in 8 generations. Take 40 years for one generation, that gives you 200 years. I could be out by a great margin, but it gives you the idea of how fast you can repopulate the earth!

    But the very latest that humans could have settled America for example predates the flood by 6000 years or more. If we assume those settlers were wiped out in the flood, what you're telling us is that 8 people repopulated the entire world within 200 years? So not only did they get over the crippling genetic issues associated with a starting mono-ethnic population size of 8, they also healthily bred like rabbits whilst migrating over literally thousands of kilometres, filling out North and South America, China and India, Africa and Europe, setting up empire-sized civilisations as they went...

    I have no doubt that 8 people can become 1 million within 200 years, but only under ideal circumstances. It could happen in the modern world, but under all of the stresses described above? And in a post-flood world? Salted soil and decaying ruin everywhere? Not to mention poor hunting due to the destruction of all but 2 of each kind of animal. Does none of this strike you as something worthy of scepticism at the very least?


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    not to mention that the continents were pretty much exactly laid out the way they are now (give or take a few feet here and there). how did these new bunny breeding souls get across the vast oceans when noah seems to have taken his 20th century boat building skills to the grave for them to remain un-re-discovered for several thousand years??


Advertisement