Proofish That God is Directly Responsible for Sin/Evil (From a Biblical Perspective)

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Icyblackflame, Aug 5, 2007.

  1. Icyblackflame

    Icyblackflame Registered Member

    EDIT: I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but please don't qyuote the whole OP if it isn't revalent! It's annoying when one has to scroll down 50 pages to get to a point that does not benefit from quoting the OP.


    Okies. My friend typed all this up and I'll just copy and paste it and edit some thing into there. There would be no point in me typing everything again because I'd be saying exactly what she said with different words. It doesn't matter anyways 'cause we were discussing this online as she typed, so we both thought this up, though she typed and made sense of it. (The ramblings beforehand are her thoughts) I was debating with myself for a very long time whether or not to include her long complaints at the end since they can come off as very offensive. EDIT: Okay, I did, but I tried to edit some of the blatantly rude comments out. The bible she used is the Student's Application Bible. Fell free to not read all of this, though it might make you confused at the points.

    -----
    Please take note that my main point does not appear until chapters 2 and 3. The verses quoted prior to are for your enjoyment and confusion.

    Now, I’m not trying to disprove anything here. I’m just here to show how it doesn’t make sense. The timing of all this stuff is what will murder the bible’s purpose one day. If the bible is the true Word of God, then He made an unbelievable amount of mistakes and is directly responsible for sin and evil. According to Him. I have no choice to believe that the bible is not completely the Word of God because God is perfection and the bible is not.

    GE 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
    “Heavens” is an important term that I’ll (hopefully remember to) get back to later. (EDIT: Which I didn’t, but whatever)

    GE 1:2 The Earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the spirit of God was hovering over its surface.
    Okay. Everything about this verse makes no sense. First of all, you cannot have an “empty” mass. If there is nothing inside of it, then there is no mass. Secondly, if it is “empty” and “formless,” then it has no surface, so you can’t be “hovering over” it, even if you are God. Thirdly, if it is “empty” and “formless,” then there is plainly nothing there. Unless God kind of made a weird, empty outline type thing of Earth.

    GE 1:3-5 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that it was good. Then He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness “night.” Together these made up one day.
    Interesting. Okay, so we have random light coming from nowhere (which is fine. I can accept that God is capable of making light “happen”) and shining into this formless, empty “mass” with no surface (i.e. nothing). But it’s interesting how He made “day” and “night” without the sun. And how do you "separate light from the darkness"? You can either have one or the other.

    GE 1:6-8 And God said, “Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water. And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. And God called this space “sky.” This happened on the second day.
    First off, where did the “waters” come from? I don’t recall him “speaking it into existence.” And then, I suppose we can assume that the water is now the Earth’s “mass” since there is nothing else as of yet. Apparently, the layout is this: waters (top), sky (middle), and waters (bottom).

    GE 1:9-10 And God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear.” And so it was. God named the dry ground “land” and the water “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
    Wait a minute. Shouldn’t one assume that the “waters beneath the sky” were already in one place? Well, whatever. So now He has gathered the waters into one place. So now, we have random water hovering over nothing. Remember that the land is not under the water, but rather, beside it. We’ll come back to this point in a little bit.

    GE 1:11-13 Then God said, “Let the land burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing fruit. The seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And so it was. The land was filled with seed-bearing plants and trees, and their seeds produced plants and trees of like kind. And God saw that this was good. This all happened on the third day.
    Nothing wrong with this thus far. We’re going to have to play along and accept that God can still speak this stuff into existence, which I have no problem doing. If He’s God, then shouldn't He be able to?

    GE 1:14-19 And God said, “Let bright lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs to mark off the seasons, the days, and the years. Let their light shine down upon the earth.” And so it was, for God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down upon the earth. The greater one, the sun, presides during the day; the lesser one, the moon, presides through the night. He also made the stars. God set these lights in the heavens to light the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. This all happened on the fourth day.
    Okay, there’s a lot to say about this one. It’s interesting how God speaks of the moon as its own light source, and its interesting how people used to believe the same thing back when the bible was written until modern(ish) science proved that its light came from the sun. And then He made the stars to “govern [direct, supervise, etc.] the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.” I thought that the sun and moon were supposed to do those things? Sure, the sun is a star, but one star doesn’t need another to “govern” it. And it’s also interesting how God “set these lights in the heavens to light the earth,” and yet the only star capable of doing such is the sun. Why make stars to “light the earth” and put them too far away to do so? And does this mean that space is one layer of “the heavens"? And why is much of the bible based upon geocentric views?

    Now, God just made the sun and the moon (and He has yet to make the Earth revolve around the sun, but I suppose we’re just suppose to assume this from now on), which technically makes everything that has happened thus far one day. Plainly having light does not constitute day and night. (I hope that) everyone knows that, in order to have “one day,” the Earth must rotate so that all "sides" may “face the sun.” Once again, light can’t “separate” itself from the darkness. It’s either one or the other. And what of the waters above the sky? I don’t recall him ever doing anything with those previously or in the future. One can only assume, I guess.

    GE 1:20-23 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” So God created great sea creatures and every sort of fish and every kind of bird.” And God saw that it was good. Then God blessed them, saying, “Let the fish multiply and fill the oceans. Let the birds increase and fill the earth. This all happened on the fifth day.
    Firstly, one cannot create “birds of every kind” and “every sort of fish” at once. Given endless evolution possibilities and God’s “creative” measures, that literally is an endless amount of fish and birds. Earth would not be able to hold all of these at once unless it was infinite. And, one can imagine that each of these birds and fish must have been amazingly huge due to zero toxins (i.e. pollution) and the (feasible) amount of oxygen in the air. Thousands (millions?) of years ago, there was 20% more oxygen in the air, and ...bug...studiers (name?) made models of what they suspected bugs to have looked like back then (not bible days back then). Those were already huge. One can only speculate how immense birds and fish (which are generally much larger than insects are as it is) were. And, technically speaking, this would be the second day.

    On another note, He didn’t specifically instruct this to happen to the “waters beneath the sky,” so is one to assume that this happened to the “waters above the sky” as well?

    GE 1:24-25 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth every kind of animal—livestock, small animals, and wildlife.” And so it was. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good.
    Firstly, did God “speak these into existence,” or create them by hand? The manner is confusing there. And, once again, there is no possible way to create every kind of animal and have room for them on one Earth. This is on the “sixth” day. This is technically the second time He created the fish and birds (they are wildlife, and He said that He brought forth every kind of animal, including wildlife).

    GE 1:26-31 Then God said, “Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life—the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all livestock, wild animals, and small animals.” So God created people in His own image; God patterned them after Himself; male and female He created them. God blessed them and told them, “Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals.” And God said, “Look! I have given you the seed-bearing plants throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food.” And so it was. Then God looked over all He had made and He saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened on the sixth day.
    Firstly, who is “us?” God and the animals and plants and the stars and the sun and the moon, etc.? Secondly, if people are made in God’s image, then He must look an awful lot like a person, but we’ll get to that point in a little bit. I have to wonder why He tells of everything in sequential order (I suppose), and then, in the next chapter, skips back to (one can only assume) the “sixth” day. My points begin with the second chapter, which begins with the next quote. Remember that everything He made thus far was “excellent in every way.” That is an extremely important point.

    GE 2:1 So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed.
    So, according to this, God had just now (assumedly) made angels, after the creation of people ([assumedly] Adam and Eve). This is very important as well. But this point won’t be elaborated until chapter three, which is not far from here. But this is day six/three.

    GE 2:2-4 On the seventh day, having finished His task, God rested from all His work. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy because it was the day He rested from all His work of creation. This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth.
    I just put this there ‘cause I may as well not skip any versus. It does not really add to anything important.

    GE 2:5-7 When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth, there were no plants or grain growing on the earth, for the LORD God had not sent any rain. And no one was there to cultivate the soil. But water came up and out of the ground and watered all the land.
    I’m confused. This isn’t what it previously said happened. Didn’t the plants and stuff just “come” because God “spoke them into existence?” And remember how God separated the land from the water, so when did water appear under the land (it is still "beside" it)? I suppose it’s like how the waters were “just there” before God “spoke them into existence.” And why not point all this out the first time? And why would He need to send any rain? They didn’t need rain the first time, and now, all of a sudden, they need rain and there was water coming from the ground? And is this implying that it rains from the ground?

    GE 2:7 And the LORD God formed a man’s body and breathed into it the breath of life. And the man became a living person. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there He had placed the man He had created. And the LORD God planted all sorts of trees in the garden—beautiful trees that produced delicious fruit. At the center of the garden He placed the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Since God made man on the sixth/third day, we can assume that this is referring back to the sixth/third day. If I recall correctly, didn’t God already create all the plants and whatsits to fill the entire earth? So why is He just now crafting Eden? Unless He is doing so again. And notice how He had created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before He created Lucifer (later known as “Satan/Devil/etc.”). Remember, one can assume that He created man before He created angels (i.e. Lucifer). In any case, why have a tree have knowledge of “good” and “evil” rather than man? And in order to “create the knowledge,” one has to create it (i.e. evil) first, right? So does that mean that God directly created evil? Why even create the concept? What’s the point?

    GE: 2:10-14 A river flowed from the land of Eden, watering the garden and then dividing into four branches. One of these branches is the Pishon, which flows around the entire land of Havilah, where gold is found. The gold of that land is exceptionally pure; aromatic resin and onyx stone are also found there. The second branch is the Gihon, which flows around the entire land of Cush. The third branch is the Tigris, which flows into the east of Asshur. The fourth branch is the Euphrates.
    Okay. Nothing important here. Again, may as well not skip. Someone might think I “intentionally skipped something important.”

    GE: 2:15-17 The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it. But the LORD God gave him this warning: “You may freely eat any fruit in the garden except for the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die.”
    Interesting. Again, one can assume that this is happening on the sixth day, but this is the exact opposite of what the bible said God said in earlier verses. Don’t remember?



    And now, all of a sudden, Adam can’t eat from one of the trees. God apparently said these at the same time or something, but it’s hard to tell since these are two different stories. At any rate, one can assume that the concept of “bad” would not have been understood by Adam seeing as “everything was excellent in every way.” Nothing “excellent” could be bad. Unless bad is good in God’s eyes. And it’s funny (in a sarcastic kind of way) how the tree of knowledge of good and evil is “excellent in every way.” Also, people tell me that “Satan created death,” but, to me, it sure sounds like God created the concept of death as well as evil. Still before (assumedly) angels (i.e. Lucifer) were created.

    GE 2:18-23 And the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him.” So the LORD God formed from the soil every kind of animal and bird. He brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and Adam chose a name for each one. He gave names to all the livestock, birds, and wild animals. But still there was no companion suitable for him. So the LORD God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep. He took one of Adam’s ribs and closed up the place from which He had taken it. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam.
    So we run into a few problems with this one. Firstly, it comes across as Adam needing a “companion” to “help him” tend for the Garden of Eden, not ultimately for companionship. Or at least that’s how the verse makes it sound. Secondly, if I can recall correctly, this is the third time God has created every type of animal imaginable (and why separate “birds” and “animals?” Aren’t birds animals?). Didn’t He do that one the second and third (i.e. first) day? And (wo)man was not created until the sixth/third day. So, now, mysteriously, man was created before animals, and then woman after man and animals (I forgot to point this out, but the earlier verse was suggesting their creation was at the same time). Peculiar? This is the third time the story has changed. And what is the purpose of naming all these animals at once? How could he possibly remember all these names? And it is interesting how a professional would be needed (in some cases) to correctly identify one animal and plant from another because of blunt similarities within species, and yet, Adam happened to just “know” the differences between them all. And why didn’t he name the all fish and trees and well? It’s not like doing so makes any less sense than randomly being able to differentiate between and name all the animals. Again, Earth would not be able to even hold all the animals imaginable, unless God doesn’t have a very large imagination (that, an the fact that evolution has created millions of new plants and animals annually). And every animal wouldn’t be able to survive on earth (“every animal imaginable” does not only imply earthly animals, right?)

    Why did God seem frustrated when trying to find a companion for Adam (and making all the animals for the third [second in some cases] time)? Shouldn’t He have known that only the woman should have been right for Adam? Why did He seem so perplexed? Does this mean that God is not all-knowing?
     

  2. Icyblackflame

    Icyblackflame Registered Member

    GE 2:23-25 “At last!” Adam exclaimed. “She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called ‘woman’ because she was taken out of a man.” This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Now, although Adam and his wife were born naked, neither of them felt any shame.
    And the problems continue. Firstly, it is interesting how they understand the concept of language right off and are able to understand one another, especially since history says that humans were not able to speak in the form of coherent language right off the bat. Secondly, it’s amazing how they could even speak at all, since the voice boxes found in people from the cave ages are too weak to be able to even talk. It’s also interesting how woman is called “woman” because she was taken from man, but in (apparently) all other cases, men (and women) are taken from women. So, by this logic, should women be called “men,” and men “women”? And I suppose that men and women can be "married" without the ceremony and dress and useless shit. And that does not explain why man leaves his house to be united as one with woman. And they weren’t “born.” They were “created.”

    This bible has footnotes, and here’s one I’d like to quote.

    “MarriageGod’s creative work was not complete until He made woman. He could have made her from the dust of the ground, as He made man. God chose, however, to make her from the man’s flesh and bone. In doing so, He illustrated that in marriage man and woman symbolically become one. This is a mystical union of the couple’s hearts and lives. Throughout the bible, God treats this special partnership seriously. If you are planning to be married, are you willing to keep the commitment that makes the two of you one? The goal in marriage should be more than friendship; it should be oneness.

    Okay. Firstly, He only made her from Adam’s bone, not his flesh (unless it skipped that part as well). Secondly, I don’t think that where you come from justifies “oneness.” By that logic, Christians will have to accept that every type of (human) mammal comes from the mother, meaning that every woman belongs with a woman as well as every man, since they all come from women, and what your body makes determines your “oneness.” Secondly, what you look like doesn’t make you “one with each other.” What’s on the inside does, unless God is proposing that the body is what brings people together “as one” rather than the emotions and such. I think that the love and connection are more important, and those are “on the inside,” and it doesn’t change for man and woman. They can have identical “insides.” It also states that the goal should be oneness, not necessarily just friendship. It also does not say that you can only be “one” with the opposite sex. Again, since your body doesn’t (figuratively) determine your insides.

    GE 3:1-6 Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all creatures the LORD God had made [apparently three times]. “Really?” he asked the woman. “Did God really say you must not eat any of the fruit in the garden?” “Of course we may eat it,” the woman told him. “It’s only the fruit from the tree in the center of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God says we must not eat it or even touch it or we will die.” “You won’t die!” the serpent hissed. “God knows that your eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will be like God, knowing both good and evil.” The woman was convinced. The fruit looked so fresh and delicious, and it would make her so wise! So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband who was with her. Then he ate it, too. At that moment, their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves.
    Firstly, let’s address the fact that people seem to believe that the serpent was Satan, and I haven’t the slightest clue why since it does not say that (when that should be loud and clear if that were the case), and that does not logically make sense. Think back. God made people (and now apparently animals as well) on the same day, which was the sixth/third day. God has made heaven, but everything in heaven and earth was not completed until after humans were created. Meaning that angels were not created as of yet. We all know the Lucifer story, right? He was the most beautiful angel, blah blah, he got jealous (or something) of God’s awesome…Godliness (or whatever), so he wanted to be the big guy in charge and gathered all these followers and blah, and that made God angry (or something), so he sent them down to Earth or Hell or whatever, which has not been made yet, either. In order for that serpent to have been Satan, then God would have had to make the angels (which he has not yet), take all this time to get to know all these angels in order to determine that Lucifer is his favorite and blah blah, Lucifer would have had to get jealous and get all these followers, God would have had to get angry (or whatever) and cast all of them from Heaven to somewhere, and all within a matter of hours since angels were made after God had made man, woman, animals, and after Adam had named them all.

    In fact, the sequential order of things is not only a problem there, but also with the Sabbath day. Again, both animals and humans were (apparently) made on the sixth/third day, but then the bible skips to the Sabbath, and goes back to the sixth day (when humans and animals were made). After that, it’s amazing how, from there, He never speaks of the Sabbath day happening, or even resting. In fact, that would be impossible. (Again) all of this had to have happened on the sixth/third day, which makes no sense, because, at the end of the sixth day, everything that had happened was “excellent in every way,” and yet, at the same time, God was not pleased that Adam did not have someone to help him tend to the Garden of Eden. Blah, blah. Snake comes and gets them to eat the fruit, they feel shame, blah blah, get banished from the garden. This all had to have happened before God rested because it never says (from this point on) that He did, and (again), everything was “excellent in every way” at the end of the day.

    At any rate, since everything was still excellent, the concept of death is not excellent in any way (unless concerning population control >.>), so can one speculate that Adam and Eve even understood or felt threatened by that concept? Why would God even tempt them with a tree? No matter what you say, the serpent ultimately did not tempt Eve; God did by putting that tree there. You know reverse psychology, right? Tell someone not to do something and they are automatically enticed by it? It doesn’t mean that they’ll want to do it or will, but it makes them interested to a certain degree. And the fact that a serpent (who could not have been Satan)’s words could overpower God’s is...farfetched. Could that have been foolishness on God’s part to even (1) create a snake that (He [assumedly] knew) would tempt them, (2) create a snake that would want to, (3) create a snake that will, (4) create a snake that could, with dull and simple-minded reasoning, override God’s instructions? And why did God even invent the concept of death or evil when He could have left it alone? Why did He put the tree there? If He hadn’t, then this whole mess would not have happened anyway. What was even the purpose of the tree?

    On a similar note, God is all-knowing, right? Meaning that He knows everything one is going to do in life before they do it. Meaning that, before He created Lucifer (who has not been created as of yet), He would have known that he’d go on a power-trip (or whatever) and want to be the big guy in charge. So, with that being said, why would God make him the most beautiful angel in Heaven? Why would he be His favorite? Doesn’t the bible say that his looks drove him to wanting to be the big guy in charge? If God (apparently) knew this, then why make him so pretty if he couldn’t handle it? And why was Lucifer even able to want others to worship him? Should he even be able to think such being God’s “best man” (of sorts) and in Heaven(s) beside him? And since the concept of evil was not invented until that tree and until Eve ate from it, who’s to even say that Lucifer knew it was “bad” to want the angels to worship him? Or even what “bad” was? Remember, this had to have happened on the sixth/third day for this to sequentially (not even close to logically) make sense. But, if I recall correctly, by the end of the sixth day, everything was “excellent in every way.” So far, everything bad seems like God’s fault completely.

    GE 3:9 Toward evening they heard the LORD God walking about in the garden, so they hid themselves among the trees. The LORD God called to Adam, “Where are you?”
    Again, how can a spirit be heard “walking about in the garden?” Reference to him possibly looking human(ish)? And how could they hide themselves from God? Isn’t He everywhere? And doesn’t He know everything? Why did He ask Adam where he was? You can’t argue that they were scared, because the fruit only made them feel shame, not fear. So it’s not like they’d be scared to answer him. From the context, it only seems like they wanted to cover themselves up.

    GE 3:10-11 He replied, “I heard you, so I hid. I was afraid because I was naked. “Who told you that you were naked?” the LORD God asked. “Have you eaten the fruit I commanded you not to eat?”
    Okay, so he was afraid, but not of God, but of the fact that he was naked. This still reads more as ashamed rather than actual fear. Again, why ask what Adam has done? It’s not likely that Adam would lie (and he doesn’t), and it’s not like God doesn’t know. This would make no particular sense as a “test” of any kind. It would come off stronger as a statement similar to, “Why have you eaten the fruit I have instructed you not to?” Which could be countered with, “Why did you even make fruit I was not allowed to eat?” but I imagine that no one would want to say that directly to God’s “face.”

    GE 3:12-14 “Yes,” Adam admitted. “But it was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit, and I ate it.” Then the LORD God asked the woman, “How could you do such a thing?” “The serpent tricked me,” she replied. “That’s why I ate it.” So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you will be punished. You are singled out from all the domestic and wild animals of the whole earth to be cursed. You will grovel in the dust as long as you live, crawling along on your belly.
    Now, instead of owning up and accepting responsibility for his own actions, he plays the blame game. Instead of scolding (or whatever) him for doing this and telling him to accept responsibility for his own actions, God immediately turns to Eve and questions here like it was her fault that Adam ate the fruit. Then Eve blames the serpent. And I have to personally disagree; the serpent didn’t really trick her. He just told her what would happen if she ate the fruit, and, surely enough, it happened. Perhaps about the dying thing, but one can only assume that they didn’t adequately understand the concept of death (and then one has to wonder how the serpant saying "no it won't" could even overpower God saying "it will"). And, God told Adam not to eat the fruit, and he (assumedly) told Eve. I don’t recall God telling the animals and plants (hey...if the animals can talk, then the plants can too!) not to eat it or not to “convince” Adam and Eve to do so. And if the serpent understood the (apparent) consequences, then do you think that he would have done it? And, since the serpent was “cursed” to slithering on its belly, then what was it doing before...?

    It also seems more like the serpent got a blessed-type curse, because snakes happen to have some of the strongest muscles of any animals period, and many have very deadly venom. And they’re really cool-looking and -feeling (to me).

    GE 3:15-20 From now on, you and the woman will be enemies, and your offspring and her offspring will be enemies. He will crush your head, and she will strike your heel. Then He said to the woman, “You will bear children with intense pain and suffering. And though your desire will be for your husband, he will be your master.” And to Adam He said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate the fruit I told you not to eat, I have placed a curse on the ground. All your life, you will struggle to catch a living from it. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, though you will eat of its grains. All your life you will sweat to produce food, until your dying day. Then you will return to the ground from which you came. For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return.
    The first part kind of cancels out the whole miraculous “oneness” and “equalness” a man and a woman has together, don’tcha think? It certainly appears so. A servant/slave/whatever the opposite of a master is in Eve’s case is not equal to that of a master. A master and a servant/slave/whatever are not “one” in that sense. Why would God differentiate between Adam’s offspring and Eve’s? Shouldn’t they be the same thing? Is that important? I don’t get what’s up with the head and the heal thing. Why is He making her births so amazingly painful? And when did Adam “listen to his wife?” If I recall correctly, Eve just gave him the fruit (didn't say anything) and he ate it. It said that he was standing right beside Eve, meaning that he must have heard Eve and the serpent’s discussion. If anything, God should blame Adam for not speaking up. And, since God knows everything, He should have known that they would have done this, so why spend so much time creating all these plants and fish and stuff only to curse them? And why make the Garden of Eden so detailed if he knew that Adam and Eve would be banished from it? And why create that tree if it would be such a problem? Why create the serpent? And notice how He was speaking to Adam about going back into the ground. So, since the ground was where Adam came from, and Adam must return to the ground from which he came, then is that implying that Eve will go back into Adam, from whom she came? And take note that God invented death right there, not Satan (who still has not even been created as of yet). He did not have to make them die, and yet He did. Ultimately, everything that has happened thus far is still God’s fault.

    GE 3:20-24 Then Adam named his wife Eve, for she would be the mother of all people everywhere. And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife. Then the LORD God said, “The people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil. What if they eat the fruit from the tree of life? Then they will live forever!” So the LORD God banished Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden, and He sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made. After banishing them from the garden, the LORD God stationed mighty angelic beings to the east of Eden. And a flaming sword flashed back and forth, guarding the way to the tree of life.
    Okay. Firstly, why would He make clothing from animal skins? That seems cruel in itself. Secondly, who is “we” in “we are?” The tree and himself? Is that implying that the tree knows all that God knows? And we still can’t forget that God is still the one who ultimately created evil, assumedly before anything alive (animal- and people-wise) were created (two and three times). And why make this knowledge attainable from eating some fruit (it should have been baracated off or not even made in the first place)? And, since it was so important in the first place, why not place the sword in front of the other tree first? And why is God acting like them eating the fruit from the tree of life is such a problem? If He truly is as powerful (and cruel) as He seems, then shouldn’t He be able to plainly kill them anyway? Unless He is implying that the tree of life’s power outranges His. And what is so amazingly terrible about them living forever? It’s ultimately His fault that they ate the fruit and were simple-minded enough to be “tricked” simply by stating what the fruit would do.

    That’s the last of it. Let me also point out that God’s first official act of anything with this regard was cruel punishment rather than forgiveness or even understanding. And the degree of the punishment is not necessary anyway. So we’re supposed to learn to (at first) forgive and forget (or whatever) with this example? Shreally? It’s also interesting how, mostly, God kills people for the slightest acts rather than even considering forgiveness (or at least in the Old Testament), and how a majority of the miracles God and Jesus perform (recorded in the bible) are for the benefit of proving who they are, not for the actual benefit of anyone else. This also goes for the plagues. Read them with open eyes (not the rose-colored glasses) and some of them almost come across as strictly power trips. It’s interesting how, statistically speaking, in the (dominant western) bibles there are far more acts of random killing (by God) than saving, the fact that God still has killed the most people out of anyone, a lot of them solely to “prove who He is,” and lots of other things. I don’t understand why it is considered the “book of love.” I understand the act of love He did, but the bible doesn’t really come off as a book of love. Especially since negative wording and events on God’s part significantly outnumbers acts and words of “love.” (They have been counted. If you don’t believe it, count them for yourself.) (Icy says: That was the part I was debating whether to insert or not. Don't complain to me about it, but if you've got something to contribute (negative or positive), then please do so. She has a tendency to vastly exaggerate)

    May as well kill one more bird with one more stone. The next chapter speaks of Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve’s sons. Abel grew up to be a Shepard, and Cain a farmer. One day, Cain brought God some of his farm produce, while Abel brought God some of the best lambs in his stock. God accepted Abel’s gift, but not Cain’s, leaving Cain feeling “angry and dejected.” God asked him why he was feeling this way and said that if he had responded the “right way,” his gifts would have been accepted. What was “the right way?” Cain was the one who brought his offering first. Later, Cain asks Abel to go into the woods with him. While there, he attacks and kills him. Now, if God had just accepted the offering in the first place, then Cain would not have done that. He brought some of the best produce his farm produced, so how is one supposed to feel when God (the almighty creator) doesn’t accept it? I probably would have felt the same way. What was the purpose of not accepting it? And while doing so, He introduced Cain to some “bad” feelings. It seems as though God is responsible for the first recorded (in the bible) murder of anything, and seemingly without purpose. And, once again, God is ultimately responsible for the concept of evil, death, and sin. Why is Satan associated with these things when it was clearly God?

    (I'll cut it off there since the next thing she says completely goes over the top)
    -----

    So, that's the gist of what we think, so my friend added a lot of rude comments and such. Eck. Maybe I should have just written it myself, but it's 3 30 in the morning (here) and I'm tired. I just read over that thing trying to edit some of her bullshit out and probably skipped half of it.

    Thoughts?
    -icy

    EDIT: My friend and I do not believe that the (English) bible is the final word of God by default due to the needed fatal fuckage of the wording in order to translate it. Even if it was "divinvely inspired," that does not suggest that the people could not've fucked a considerable amount of it up. I forgot to say this before (I think). Again, I am not saying that this is how creation (from a Christian's point of view) happened. I'm just stating the flaws the bible posseses.
     
  3. bluedog

    bluedog Guest

    With all these questions and your conclusions you still fail to accept the obvious.......God did not write these scripts contained in the bible.....they were written by "men" who where divinlely "inspried" by the "Spirit" of God.....Even though they were inspired by God they still had congation to reason as would any man in relation to what they understood to be the truth with the wisdom contained within their physical mind......they could only relate to things as they perceived them to be.....not the way that you and I know they are due to technological advances of our time.....and you conclude many things in your own way of cognation to reason....such as "assuming" that the heavens spoken of in the orginal Greek and Hewbrew text meant was the heaven in which God dwelled or lived......the heavens as translated in these scripts speak only of the things in the sky not the "habitat" of heaven....a place that exist outside of time and space itself another plane of reality a spiritual realm......As God was the creator of All He also created the concept of time and space and thusly has habitat outside of that which he created.....thusly he is omni-present.....as time itself is no bearier to God he can "see" from one polar edge to the other or anywhere in between.

    You conclude that God created the angles at the same time that he created man......if he did how did Satan get cast down to this physical realm to exist in this physical world.....for he was there with man in the Garden......Satan is nothing but a fallen angel in rebellion to the Kingdom of Heaven and his punishment was to be cast into this physical realm. If he did not exist before man how was he in rebellion to God? Don't you just hate logic?

    You conclude that God created the animals not once but twice or thrice......what you fail to do is take the scripts into the "context" of which they are delivered......as a history to chapter one........Its clearly states such in Chapter Two, verse 4. Chapter one deals withs mans perception of the creation as best as he(man) understands it with his limited ability to do so.....as said just because these words of script were inspired by the "Spirit" of God does not mean that God spoke them per say.....in fact the only time God speaks directly to man is mentioned in words specific to such speech and made clear that these are the direct words of God.....

    You take the entire second chapter out of context.....as stated in verse 4 .....the first 3 verses were concerning the 7th day......the day that God took to rest from the creation......everything proceeding is after the fact of the of the entire creation to include the all that was created in the six day previous. In Fact verse 4 states that....These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth......or as we in modern language call a history of man in the early days proceeding creation.....the author is not making reference that God is doing the whole creation again....but making a record of the things that happened starting with the creation and going forward. Such as verse 5.......states that God had created the plant life before he did man because man would have something to eat......and mentions the fact that God had to create rain...that did not mean that he was creating rain at that moment but it is a history of way God created rain in one of the six days of creation.....because man had not yet been created to till the soil or water it....verse 6 states that such as a mist rose up form the earth(you and I would call it evaporation into the clouds thus producing rain) and watered the whole face of the ground.....verse7.....follows....God then created man in the order proceeding the making of the plants, that did not mean that he created man again...but a historical record of when man was created. BD
     
  4. Icyblackflame

    Icyblackflame Registered Member

    Yeah, I know. Our whole point was that we disagree with the concept that the bible is the "Word of God." Maybe I forgot to mention that.
    But where does it say that the Serpent was Satan? Sure I hate logic. it makes everything not makes sense. Not that that makes any sense. But that's because it's logical. And the whole point was also that the timing is bad.
    Okay. I can tell that arguing with you is going to be like arguing with Tipsycat. I don't have the patience to deal with bullshit right now, so I'll cut to the chace. I never said that I believed that the bible was devinly inspired or the world of God. Notice how I said "from a biblical perspective" not "this is how it was." As in, I am quoting the (English) bible, which is a mocery of the original(ish...there is no "original) bible by default because of magnanimous translation problems and the fact that the bible was written by man, inspired or not. And like my friend says, divinely inspired does not suggest that God wrote it. A person can be inspired to write a book about Elvis Presley, but that doesn't mean that Elvis is going to possess him and write it himself.
    I'l allow you to re-read what I've written. It's already been debuncked. Some of which you stated doesn't even make sense.
    -Icy
     
  5. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    Oh my oh my. All this says is that you have absolutely no idea of the subject. It's like reading a dissertation on quantum physics and finding out that it makes no sense whateoever. It flies in the face of everything I already know! Actually, it only illustrates what you don't know.

    I wish you luck in getting your questions answered. And, it goes without saying, that you would have to look for those answers.
     
  6. bluedog

    bluedog Guest

    My greatet concern is the "fact" that you make a deliberate "attempt" to "cherry pick" versus away form the contextual message of the whole. It matters not whether or not that you "actually" believe anything that you may have read or whether you accept the words that are scripted as being devinely inspired. The method in which your "so called debunking" is done by manipulating the verses away form their "intended" meaning in an attempt to mold them to your "secular" cognation to reason. A reason of cognation that "assumes" that an account of something being told the second time concludes that sense it is being told a second time that the author is saying that God had performed this action a second time. With your cognation to reason reaching this conclusion then I must conclude that you reason in circles, simply going around and around the object of study without ever gaining any knowledge at all......just constantly staying the exact same distance away form the truth that rests in the center. BD
     
  7. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    There is something facinating about watching and listening to two knowlegeable people debate issues on any subject. Even having an avowed but knowledable atheist discussing religion with a biblical scholar is interesting and enlightening. Seeing someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject they are discussing is only embarassing.
     
  8. Icyblackflame

    Icyblackflame Registered Member

    And why are you assuming that I know nothing? Ask anybody on these forums what religion I am. And now for dog's response...

    And tipsycat, stop sprewing your useless garbage. If you've got nothing to say directly in response to the thread, then please don't respond.
    -Icy

    You're an idiot if you don't think it says He created animals before humans, and then humans before animals. Especially whenit says it right there. And what context am I supposed to take it as? The church bull that teaches one how to read what they want to read rather than what's there? You denying my perfectly logical claims is typical, dude. Totally expected.

    Go ahead and "cherry pick" the verses I've stated into what you believe they mean. Remember, don't take them out of context, which is all you've done thus far.

    And, just wondering. How are we suppposed to take the account of a story seriously when it makes no sense? How are we supposed to get the point (message) (for ourselves. Not with the help of a paster who knows exactly what to direct you to and from) when the story doesn't even make sense? Tell me then, what are we supposed to get from this? If one is going to tell of how God created man and the world and the heavens and expect anyone else to believe it, then why even leave room for mistakes? Sure, it may have been "divinely inspired," but mere the fact that the writers (whoever they may have truly been) still had their initial cognition skills is justification in itself that the story (from their perspective) is not reliable at all.
    -Icy
     
  9. tipsycatlover

    tipsycatlover Registered Member

    Icy, if you are a biblical scholar, and merely professing a religion doesn't make you a student of religious studies, much less a teacher, it did not come across in your lengthy post. You presented a rather meandering thoughtless dissertation as Bluedog correctly pointed out.

    If you are a bibical scholar, and you have spend many years in religious studies, please enlighten us all with your credentials. I assumed you know nothing about the subject because of the way you expressed your knowledge or rather lack of knowlege.
     
  10. bluedog

    bluedog Guest

    So you think that because God decides to introduce Adam to some animals that he created in first chapter, and mentions how they came about form being formed by materials of the earth, that giving Adam a chance to name them is creating them and not showing the difference between all different animals, some which are to be used as help and to provide companionship and others that may be dangerous to him. That he now makes claim to having created these animals before he did Adam and now he was creating them again after he created man, all this conclusion of confusion, because he tells Adam to name them?

    I know the peoples that lived during that time peroid were not as articulate as what you project yourself to be but "ONE" would think that they might have more sense than to assume that people would be so forgetful that they did not remember just how God created something and in what order he did so, all within the space of a few pages of script. To reach the conclusion that you have, you would have to be the one that thinks people are so stupid and you are so smart to catch them up in this "obvious" lie, well when its put that way, maybe you do think like that. BD
     

Share This Page