An Article I Found Validating Christ's Deity

[DrBubbaLove]

Dear DrBubbaLove,

Still trying to prove something wrong to by right? The only tree of importance in the Garden of Eden is the tree of knowledge of good and bad. As long as our folks therein, Adam and Eve, were unaware of what is right and wrong, good and bad, they did not represent a likeness of God as is being reported in Genesis 1:26-27. They cannot even be compared to Jesus Christ who was aware of good and bad. So, what do we have here? An imperfect naked couple in a paradise garden.

On the contrary and as that article eloquently pointed out, they absolutely knew what Good and evil were and detested evil. Again, the knowledge gained was not about being able to tell right from wrong. It was the awareness that they could decide for themselves, (pride- my will not Thy Will) what is right and wrong - which if you think about it means taken to the extreme is moral subjectivism - no absolute truth - no absolute Good.

Also, don't you think it is about time to depart from some ancient beliefs that God created Adam instantly out of dust then taking one of his ribs to form Eve, thereby lowering Himself to the level of witches?

??? Odd view for a Christian to take, one of several such demonstrated in this thread too. mmmm

And not sure where one is "learning" stuff about Christianity, but a recent Pope actually is quoted saying something to the effect of - it doesn't really matter where one believes Adam got his body, as long as one acknowledges his soul could only have come from God. A human soul cannot have "evolved". Suggest expanding your reading lists, especially if exposure is limited to only fundamentalist Christianity.

Do you know that Christianity is in decline in America, church attendance dropping? In order to save Christianity reforms are needed among them the realization that Eden is a fake, that Jesus Christ was not God to die on a cross, but God's messenger to tell us about the Kingdom of God.

Kutte

Actually where I converted the Catholic Church is growing nicely thanks - multiple (5 including evening plus Saturday night) Masses on Sunday and most over flowing with people. I will agree the American society is in decline, but that has been true throughout the history of mankind. The Church is still here and will remain.

 

[Kutte]

Obviously wrong as usual. I wonder if God created the animals with the inherent knowledge which plants/animals were suitable for food and which ones were not? Which places were safe and which were not? And so forth. If not, many species would have died out immediately, eating the wrong things, going into dangerous places, etc. Since God, at least the one I serve, is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient and certainly knew enough to provide all His creatures with all the knowledge they needed to survive. The animals are proof of that. Did you ever notice that animals instinctively know how to nurse. Newly hatched birds will instinctively not soil their nest but will stick their behinds outside the nest.

What you are characterizing as "mountains of writings" are not to prove the historical view right but to show those who attack the Bible that they are wrong. There are no, zero, none contradictions or errors in the creation account as written in Gen 1 and 2.

Lieber Überalter,

Animals get their knowledge of what is good or bad by experience and examples set by their parents. In other cases it may have something to do with inheritance. Even ants have abilities to distinguish between good and bad. So, and you think Adam and Eve sinned because they decided to get the same awareness as animals have?

No contradictions? Check out Genesis 1:26: God said, "Let us make a man - someone like ourselves, ...". Now check out Genesis 3:22: And God went on to say (complaining), "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad." What do we have here? Did God want to make man like himself or did He not?
BTW, the "statistics" are from David Brooks, New York Times. Contact him under @nytdavidbrooks.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

On the contrary and as that article eloquently pointed out, they absolutely knew what Good and evil were and detested evil. Again, the knowledge gained was not about being able to tell right from wrong. It was the awareness that they could decide for themselves, (pride- my will not Thy Will) what is right and wrong - which if you think about it means taken to the extreme is moral subjectivism - no absolute truth - no absolute Good.
??? Odd view for a Christian to take, one of several such demonstrated in this thread too. mmmm

And not sure where one is "learning" stuff about Christianity, but a recent Pope actually is quoted saying something to the effect of - it doesn't really matter where one believes Adam got his body, as long as one acknowledges his soul could only have come from God. A human soul cannot have "evolved". Suggest expanding your reading lists, especially if exposure is limited to only fundamentalist Christianity.

Actually where I converted the Catholic Church is growing nicely thanks - multiple (5 including evening plus Saturday night) Masses on Sunday and most over flowing with people. I will agree the American society is in decline, but that has been true throughout the history of mankind. The Church is still here and will remain.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

Let me just say that I admire you present Pope. He is doing all he can to initiate some reforms which isn't easy taking the long conservative history of the Catholic church into account. I am happy for you that the church you converted to is growing nicely. Which isn't the case in many other parts of the world. For instance in Germany people are leaving their church in droves. In South America the Catholic church is faced with a growing problem stemming from competing fundamental Christian Evangelicals.

Nowadays, Christians need to abstain from literally interpreting biblical scriptures. You won't convert many people to Christianity if you insist that God created man instantly out of dust or that Noah actually build an arc to save himself from a worldwide flood.

One final note. One can forever come up with all sorts of excuses and eloquently written articles, but according to the Genesis report Adam and Eve were explicitly forbidden to gain knowledge of good and bad.

Kutte

 

[Der Alte]

Lieber Überalter,

Animals get their knowledge of what is good or bad by experience and examples set by their parents. In other cases it may have something to do with inheritance. Even ants have abilities to distinguish between good and bad. So, and you think Adam and Eve sinned because they decided to get the same awareness as animals have?

Animals, insects, etc. have no sense of morally good/morally bad. They instinctively are aware of some things as I indicated in my previous post. I saw an article on facebook today someone found a featherless hatchling sparrow on a path. He took the bird home and nursed it. One of his observations was that although the bird did not even have its eyes open it would not foul its own nest, it always moved over to the edge of its man made nest to defecate. That has nothing to do with morally good or bad. Perhaps you can enlighten me how the first created creatures learned by "experience and examples set by their parents?"

No contradictions? Check out Genesis 1:26: God said, "Let us make a man - someone like ourselves, ...". Now check out Genesis 3:22: And God went on to say (complaining), "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad." What do we have here? Did God want to make man like himself or did He not?
BTW, the "statistics" are from David Brooks, New York Times. Contact him under @nytdavidbrooks.

Kutte

And David's qualifications are? What are his sources? I'm fairly certain that a journalist does not do that kind of statistical analysis. You are interjecting your human emotions, feelings, etc. into the text. God does not complain. A statement of fact is not necessarily a complaint. God made us in His image to the extent he intended to. Scripture is very clear that He did not create man to be gods equivalent to Himself.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Nowadays, Christians need to abstain from literally interpreting biblical scriptures. You won't convert many people to Christianity if you insist that God created man instantly out of dust or that Noah actually build an arc to save himself from a worldwide flood.

And the Pope I referenced regarding where Adam got his body was two Popes ago. And am pretty certain the idea that creation was ex nihilo (from nothing) does not conflict with any natural science. As to flood, do not have first hand knowledge of it, but have heard geologist claim there exists evidence supporting not just a global flood, but also other global cataclysmic events. So as a matter of faith in all things being possible for Him, am happy believing there is some truth behind the story of Noah.

One final note. One can forever come up with all sorts of excuses and eloquently written articles, but according to the Genesis report Adam and Eve were explicitly forbidden to gain knowledge of good and bad.

Kutte

actually this final note is in error. They were told not to eat the fruit of a single tree that was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Prior to the coming rebellion event there was nothing else forbidden, everything ordered and everything good - God had made man and put him in the best possible place He could have made for man. And it was said to be very good, which precludes there being evil - so evil at that point at least was just potential (due to creating free will beings). This does not mean they did not know right from wrong - they would and because their soul and body are perfectly aligned with the Good - they would detest evil.
So again, the "knowledge" they gained from eating the fruit was that they could now look at anything good and knew it could be desired in an unnatural way. Another way of saying I get to decide for my self what is good for me - not God.

 

[Kutte]

Animals, insects, etc. have no sense of morally good/morally bad. They instinctively are aware of some things as I indicated in my previous post. I saw an article on facebook today someone found a featherless hatchling sparrow on a path. He took the bird home and nursed it. One of his observations was that although the bird did not even have its eyes open it would not foul its own nest, it always moved over to the edge of its man made nest to defecate. That has nothing to do with morally good or bad. Perhaps you can enlighten me how the first created creatures learned by "experience and examples set by their parents?"



And David's qualifications are? What are his sources? I'm fairly certain that a journalist does not do that kind of statistical analysis. You are interjecting your human emotions, feelings, etc. into the text. God does not complain. A statement of fact is not necessarily a complaint. God made us in His image to the extent he intended to. Scripture is very clear that He did not create man to be gods equivalent to Himself.

Hi Der Alter,

How did you reach the conclusion that God never complains, perhaps never even gets angry? Remember Jesus did at times become very angry when he turned over the money tables in a temple. According to the Trinity doctrine Jesus was God, was he not?

You are obviously ignoring Genesis 1:27 which says, "God made man like his maker, like God did God make man."
And, dear Alter, you are ignoring the contradiction I pointed out to you.

Finally a word or two regarding the issue of instincts:
Trying to explain the need for knowledge of good and bad away by seeking refuge in instincts is not acceptable. Instinct is merely a natural or acquired tendency to react to certain circumstances, either bad or good and is not identical to knowledge. For instance a group of wales or dolphins may instinctively follow a leader and beach themselves to death while lacking the knowledge that if they would have refused to follow their leader instinctively they could still be alive.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

And the Pope I referenced regarding where Adam got his body was two Popes ago. And am pretty certain the idea that creation was ex nihilo (from nothing) does not conflict with any natural science. As to flood, do not have first hand knowledge of it, but have heard geologist claim there exists evidence supporting not just a global flood, but also other global cataclysmic events. So as a matter of faith in all things being possible for Him, am happy believing there is some truth behind the story of Noah.
actually this final note is in error. They were told not to eat the fruit of a single tree that was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Prior to the coming rebellion event there was nothing else forbidden, everything ordered and everything good - God had made man and put him in the best possible place He could have made for man. And it was said to be very good, which precludes there being evil - so evil at that point at least was just potential (due to creating free will beings). This does not mean they did not know right from wrong - they would and because their soul and body are perfectly aligned with the Good - they would detest evil.
So again, the "knowledge" they gained from eating the fruit was that they could now look at anything good and knew it could be desired in an unnatural way. Another way of saying I get to decide for my self what is good for me - not God.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

It is still the fruit from a tree of knowledge they were forbidden to eat. As long as they didn't have any knowledge of good and bad they were in no position to judge the consequences of disobedience while simply following the words of a serpent.
Also, what makes me wonder is why their creator would want them not to gain any awareness of love for them, which of course is a good quality. If you ask me, the story of Eden is simply absurd and whenever someone wants you not to gain any knowledge of good and bad it points to censorship of the worst kind. Tyrants and dictators throughout history have tried to prevent their subjects from gaining true knowledge as to what is really going on around them.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

And the Pope I referenced regarding where Adam got his body was two Popes ago. And am pretty certain the idea that creation was ex nihilo (from nothing) does not conflict with any natural science. As to flood, do not have first hand knowledge of it, but have heard geologist claim there exists evidence supporting not just a global flood, but also other global cataclysmic events. So as a matter of faith in all things being possible for Him, am happy believing there is some truth behind the story of Noah.
actually this final note is in error. They were told not to eat the fruit of a single tree that was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Prior to the coming rebellion event there was nothing else forbidden, everything ordered and everything good - God had made man and put him in the best possible place He could have made for man. And it was said to be very good, which precludes there being evil - so evil at that point at least was just potential (due to creating free will beings). This does not mean they did not know right from wrong - they would and because their soul and body are perfectly aligned with the Good - they would detest evil.
So again, the "knowledge" they gained from eating the fruit was that they could now look at anything good and knew it could be desired in an unnatural way. Another way of saying I get to decide for my self what is good for me - not God.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

It is still the fruit from a tree of knowledge they were forbidden to eat. As long as they didn't have any knowledge of good and bad they were in no position to judge the consequences of disobedience while simply following the words of a serpent.
Also, what makes me wonder is why their creator would want them not to gain any awareness of love for them, which of course is a good quality. If you ask me, the story of Eden is simply absurd and whenever someone wants you not to gain any knowledge of good and bad it points to censorship of the worst kind. Tyrants and dictators throughout history have tried to prevent their subjects from gaining true knowledge as to what i really going on around them.

Kutte

 

[Der Alte]

Hi Der Alter,

How did you reach the conclusion that God never complains, perhaps never even gets angry? Remember Jesus did at times become very angry when he turned over the money tables in a temple. According to the Trinity doctrine Jesus was God, was he not?

What you are talking about happened between Philp 2:7 and 8.
.

Php 2:6-11
(6) 10 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
(7) but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.
(8) He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross!
(9) As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,
(10) so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow — in heaven and on earth and under the earth
(11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.​

You are obviously ignoring Genesis 1:27 which says, "God made man like his maker, like God did God make man."
And, dear Alter, you are ignoring the contradiction I pointed out to you.

I am ignoring nothing! I addressed your supposed contradiction. The two accounts of the creation are not contradictory, they are complementary.

Finally a word or two regarding the issue of instincts:
Trying to explain the need for knowledge of good and bad away by seeking refuge in instincts is not acceptable. Instinct is merely a natural or acquired tendency to react to certain circumstances, either bad or good and is not identical to knowledge. For instance a group of wales or dolphins may instinctively follow a leader and beach themselves to death while lacking the knowledge that if they would have refused to follow their leader instinctively they could still be alive.
Kutte

And you know what whales do/do not do exactly how? As far as I know the experts have not found the reason why sea mammals ground themselves.Your explanation about animal instincts is contradictory it is either natural or acquired it cannot be both. The examples I gave cannot be acquired.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi DrBubbaLove,

It is still the fruit from a tree of knowledge they were forbidden to eat. As long as they didn't have any knowledge of good and bad they were in no position to judge the consequences of disobedience while simply following the words of a serpent.
Also, what makes me wonder is why their creator would want them not to gain any awareness of love for them, which of course is a good quality. If you ask me, the story of Eden is simply absurd and whenever someone wants you not to gain any knowledge of good and bad it points to censorship of the worst kind. Tyrants and dictators throughout history have tried to prevent their subjects from gaining true knowledge as to what i really going on around them.

Kutte

Viewing God as a tyrant or dictator is not a typical view of what a Christian thinks of as Love or Good or Just. If it were then I would think the guys who get that label on this earth would have more fans - they don't. So when we look at the Bible and someone reaches conclusions like that supposedly based on specific scriptures, we have to say their view of God arrived at must be wrong. Therefore we conclude their understanding of that scripture must be wrong - rather than naively conclude Good, Love or Just are what Christians see as traits of a tyrant or dictator. It would be the same with science. Because we accept the Bible is the Word of God, if we find science disagrees with our understanding of scripture - then there are only two possibilities; science is actually correct (IOW not just a really good theory - but an actual natural law) and our understanding of the message from God is in error, OR science is actually wrong (good theories are sometimes proven wrong) and our understanding of scripture is correct.

Again, in order for Adam to be able to appreciate the world he is created in (appreciate the order, beauty, art of creation - which his exclamation demonstrated he did), he would need exactly the awareness you claim he lacks. He names all the animals - which means he had to observe to see all the animals. In doing so he observed things, which obviously includes that all of the creatures had mates that complemented each other's existence perfectly. His world was incomplete (not as good as it could be) and he knew it. That awareness requires the ability to know Good when he sees it. Given his exclamation upon seeing Eve, the awareness that unlike all the animals he had observed, something Good was missing in his world. He sees her and knows this woman completes him. Again, he could NOT behave that way without the awareness you claimed was gained by eating the fruit, which had not happened yet.

So the knowledge gained by "eating the fruit" must relate to something besides what it is being claimed in your posts. As we are not the first to ponder these things, the previously linked article's summation of what occurred when they ate represents millenniums worth of accumulation/combination of the thoughts/knowledge of some of the best thinkers that have walked among us. And that summation resolves the perceived conflicts highlighted in your posts, demonstrating we can have an understanding of the creation stories that does not contradict reason or make us conclude from that understanding of creation's tale that is God is a dictator or tyrant.

Impassible? yes - but that does not require an ignorance of good/evil - if one assumes he is created with infused knowledge rather than needing to learn to avoid pain by experiencing pain. Integrity? absolutely - and this requires an ordered mind = perfectly moral - perfectly righteous - which are not traits possible in a blissfully ignorant individual that your depiction of the Christian view of creation implies. Infused Knowledge - so Adam is smart enough to observe the goodness of the world around him and realize something vital for his happiness is missing - that is not the picture of someone blissfully ignorant of good/evil. He was made with all the knowledge one needs to be eternally happy. The awareness lacking in Adam is our view of the world, which only came about in the human mind after his first sin. We can look at anything good and think of ways to use it unnaturally - meaning against the purpose for which it is made - meaning bad/evil; and desire (see whatever that evil use is as a relative good for us) and then use that knowledge to do whatever that is - sin. It is a bent way of thinking - and that ability is what Adam gained by eating the fruit.

God's Perfect Will means that everything He made has a purpose and it is Good. When done He said it was all Very Good (including that tree BTW). Adam's will allowed him to choose to do the one thing he was told not to do - essentially saying to God that he would choose what I want to do, not You God. IOW God created that tree for a purpose and it was Good, but that purpose did not include man eating of it. Adam decided for himself that eating of it would be good for him. And the story shows he was obviously dead wrong. God in creating a tree that man was not suppose to eat from, means it was Good for Adam NOT to do that and Adam KNEW that (there is that knowledge/awareness thing again).

 

[Kutte]

What you are talking about happened between Philp 2:7 and 8.
.

Php 2:6-11
(6) 10 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
(7) but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.
(8) He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross!
(9) As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,
(10) so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow — in heaven and on earth and under the earth
(11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.​

I am ignoring nothing! I addressed your supposed contradiction. The two accounts of the creation are not contradictory, they are complementary.



And you know what whales do/do not do exactly how? As far as I know the experts have not found the reason why sea mammals ground themselves.Your explanation about animal instincts is contradictory it is either natural or acquired it cannot be both. The examples I gave cannot be acquired.

Hi Der Alter

Did I miss something? I checked back and did not find your explanation for the obvious contradiction between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22. Please repeat. Thank you

Instincts are very well both natural or acquired tendency. Your denial runs counter of what is considered general knowledge. Tip: Check out your dictionary.

Why wales or dolphins beach themselves is not the issue.

If it bothers you that some Bibles use the words "in his likeness" instead of "in his image", I have no problems with either,

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

Viewing God as a tyrant or dictator is not a typical view of what a Christian thinks of as Love or Good or Just. If it were then I would think the guys who get that label on this earth would have more fans - they don't. So when we look at the Bible and someone reaches conclusions like that supposedly based on specific scriptures, we have to say their view of God arrived at must be wrong. Therefore we conclude their understanding of that scripture must be wrong - rather than naively conclude Good, Love or Just are what Christians see as traits of a tyrant or dictator. It would be the same with science. Because we accept the Bible is the Word of God, if we find science disagrees with our understanding of scripture - then there are only two possibilities; science is actually correct (IOW not just a really good theory - but an actual natural law) and our understanding of the message from God is in error, OR science is actually wrong (good theories are sometimes proven wrong) and our understanding of scripture is correct.

Again, in order for Adam to be able to appreciate the world he is created in (appreciate the order, beauty, art of creation - which his exclamation demonstrated he did), he would need exactly the awareness you claim he lacks. He names all the animals - which means he had to observe to see all the animals. In doing so he observed things, which obviously includes that all of the creatures had mates that complemented each other's existence perfectly. His world was incomplete (not as good as it could be) and he knew it. That awareness requires the ability to know Good when he sees it. Given his exclamation upon seeing Eve, the awareness that unlike all the animals he had observed, something Good was missing in his world. He sees her and knows this woman completes him. Again, he could NOT behave that way without the awareness you claimed was gained by eating the fruit, which had not happened yet.

So the knowledge gained by "eating the fruit" must relate to something besides what it is being claimed in your posts. As we are not the first to ponder these things, the previously linked article's summation of what occurred when they ate represents millenniums worth of accumulation/combination of the thoughts/knowledge of some of the best thinkers that have walked among us. And that summation resolves the perceived conflicts highlighted in your posts, demonstrating we can have an understanding of the creation stories that does not contradict reason or make us conclude from that understanding of creation's tale that is God is a dictator or tyrant.

Impassible? yes - but that does not require an ignorance of good/evil - if one assumes he is created with infused knowledge rather than needing to learn to avoid pain by experiencing pain. Integrity? absolutely - and this requires an ordered mind = perfectly moral - perfectly righteous - which are not traits possible in a blissfully ignorant individual that your depiction of the Christian view of creation implies. Infused Knowledge - so Adam is smart enough to observe the goodness of the world around him and realize something vital for his happiness is missing - that is not the picture of someone blissfully ignorant of good/evil. He was made with all the knowledge one needs to be eternally happy. The awareness lacking in Adam is our view of the world, which only came about in the human mind after his first sin. We can look at anything good and think of ways to use it unnaturally - meaning against the purpose for which it is made - meaning bad/evil; and desire (see whatever that evil use is as a relative good for us) and then use that knowledge to do whatever that is - sin. It is a bent way of thinking - and that ability is what Adam gained by eating the fruit.

God's Perfect Will means that everything He made has a purpose and it is Good. When done He said is was all Very Good (including that tree BTW). Adam's will allowed him to choose to do the one thing he was told not to do - essentially saying to God that he would choose what I want to do, not You God. IOW God created that tree for a purpose and it was Good, but that purpose did not include man eating of it. Adam decided for himself that eating of it would be good for him. And the story shows he was obviously dead wrong. God in creating a tree that man was not suppose to eat from, means it was Good for Adam NOT to do that and Adam KNEW that (there is that knowledge/awareness thing again).

DrBubbaLove,

I respect your work, but it bothers me having to glance at so many words. This is a debate forum and not a teaching class.

Let me pick up on two remarks of yours. Where did I mention to look at God as a tyrant or dictator? Nowhere. I was just pointing out that tyrants and dictators love to impose censorship on their people for the obvious reason to have better control over them.

I agree that God created everything on purpose, for good reasons. This includes two contradictory creation stories of man in Genesis. Why? Because God intends to challenge our intellect. The Garden of Eden is a fake DrBubbaLove. There really never was a Garden of Eden on this planet as described in Genesis. If some Christians continue to insist that there was and that this story is true, well, as I pointed out in one of my previous posts, we will run into trouble winning people over to the true Christian faith. Muslims will be happy to take them.

Kutte

 

[Der Alte]

Hi Der Alter

Did I miss something? I checked back and did not find your explanation for the obvious contradiction between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22. Please repeat. Thank you

Instincts are very well both natural or acquired tendency. Your denial runs counter of what is considered general knowledge. Tip: Check out your dictionary.

Why wales or dolphins beach themselves is not the issue.

If it bothers you that some Bibles use the words "in his likeness" instead of "in his image", I have no problems with either,

Kutte

I did not see where you identified any "obvious contradiction between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22." Here are the two verses please show me what you claim to be an obvious contradiction? I think I may know but I want to be certain before I expend any time addressing it.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: ​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

DrBubbaLove,

I respect your work, but it bothers me having to glance at so many words. This is a debate forum and not a teaching class.

As it took only a few words to impugn the sacredness of Scripture, am not sure it is possible to fully explain why that view is in error in just a few sentences. So unless one is just taking jabs to amuse oneself, asking questions in the way you do is likely to result in lengthy responses.

Let me pick up on two remarks of yours. Where did I mention to look at God as a tyrant or dictator? Nowhere. I was just pointing out that tyrants and dictators love to impose censorship on their people for the obvious reason to have better control over them.

How could you nowhere say something that you were "just pointing out"?
Clearly it was said in order to be able to say one was pointing it out. The suggestion clearly was that in your opinion some imagined view that you think all/most Christians hold of the creation story, generally labeled traditional view for your purposes, makes God a tyrant and a dictator. To refute that expressed opinion requires me to explain first why the twisted traditional view of the creation stories (as presented by you) is wrong and second the absurdity of telling someone that clearly must believe God to be Good, Love and Just that their understanding of scripture makes Him the opposite.
As we were discussing a rather un-Christian and unflattering view of the Genesis creations stories with the implication we should give up our beliefs for said reasoning - it is a little late now to claim one did not intend to suggest that your twist on our understanding of the creation story should not be applied to our view of God. To borrow your phrase and keep this short, I was "just pointing out" the faulty logic being used to make our view of those stories look bad.

I agree that God created everything on purpose, for good reasons. This includes two contradictory creation stories of man in Genesis. Why? Because God intends to challenge our intellect. The Garden of Eden is a fake DrBubbaLove. There really never was a Garden of Eden on this planet as described in Genesis. If some Christians continue to insist that there was and that this story is true, well, as I pointed out in one of my previous posts, we will run into trouble winning people over to the true Christian faith. Muslims will be happy to take them.

Kutte

An unsupported opinion does not make it true that we have contradictory creation stories, especially given very well reasoned and plausible explanations for why there are two and how both complement rather than contradict. Glad there is at least acknowledgment that there are two.
The opinion that the "Garden" is fake is just that, but to keep this short at your request - I doubt you have any understanding of either my view or the Catholic teaching of what the Garden of Eden is and are basing these wildly unorthodox and to me unchristian like views of it, I suspect on what some Fundamentalist may teach regarding creation - but I am guessing. And if you are unwilling to read what others believe (and that will not be mere sentences or sound bites) - then we can only talk past each other as clearly my view of these things and the Church's teachings on them are nothing approaching what you appear to be claiming most "Christians" believe and you claim we all need to place aside in order to "gain" more converts.

 

[Kutte]

I did not see where you identified any "obvious contradiction between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22." Here are the two verses please show me what you claim to be an obvious contradiction? I think I may know but I want to be certain before I expend any time addressing it.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: ​

Hi Überalter,

Good post, can't really argue with this one on the surface. However, the difference is to be found that in Genesis 1:26 God already created man in his image whereas God in Genesis 3:22 seems to realize that only after man obtained knowledge of good and bad did he/she became an image of God. A very interesting feature, by the way.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

As it took only a few words to impugn the sacredness of Scripture, am not sure it is possible to fully explain why that view is in error in just a few sentences. So unless one is just taking jabs to amuse oneself, asking questions in the way you do is likely to result in lengthy responses.
How could you nowhere say something that you were "just pointing out"?
Clearly it was said in order to be able to say one was pointing it out. The suggestion clearly was that in your opinion some imagined view that you think all/most Christians hold of the creation story, generally labeled traditional view for your purposes, makes God a tyrant and a dictator. To refute that expressed opinion requires me to explain first why the twisted traditional view of the creation stories (as presented by you) is wrong and second the absurdity of telling someone that clearly must believe God to be Good, Love and Just that their understanding of scripture makes Him the opposite.
As we were discussing a rather un-Christian and unflattering view of the Genesis creations stories with the implication we should give up our beliefs for said reasoning - it is a little late now to claim one did not intend to suggest that your twist on our understanding of the creation story should not be applied to our view of God. To borrow your phrase and keep this short, I was "just pointing out" the faulty logic being used to make our view of those stories look bad.
An unsupported opinion does not make it true that we have contradictory creation stories, especially given very well reasoned and plausible explanations for why there are two and how both complement rather than contradict. Glad there is at least acknowledgment that there are two.
The opinion that the "Garden" is fake is just that, but to keep this short at your request - I doubt you have any understanding of either my view or the Catholic teaching of what the Garden of Eden is and are basing these wildly unorthodox and to me unchristian like views of it, I suspect on what some Fundamentalist may teach regarding creation - but I am guessing. And if you are unwilling to read what others believe (and that will not be mere sentences or sound bites) - then we can only talk past each other as clearly my view of these things and the Church's teachings on them are nothing approaching what you appear to be claiming most "Christians" believe and you claim we all need to place aside in order to "gain" more converts.

Dear DrBubbaLove,

Agreed. At times it takes many words to make a point. However, it has been my life long experience that many people who talk a lot have little to say.

I am quiet familiar with what different Christian sects are teaching and believing, even regarding different religions. After many close studies I came to the conclusion that in order to recognize the true truth (I know this sounds silly) floating around on this planet one should not rely on what this or the other group claims to be true but what our common sense tells us. We have a God-given mind and God expects from us to use it.
In this regard, dear DrBubbaLove, I see nothing that compliments man's creation in Genesis 1:26-28 with Genesis 1:7-23.
Whereas God created man first in his image, telling him to get busy to subdue the planet, which does require knowledge of good and bad by the way, then God created man out of dust and placed him naked in a paradise garden merely telling him to name the animals and not to gain knowledge of good and bad. It's quiet simply to see the difference of what is going on here.

Kutte (Check out my blog, "Why Islam is not for me")

 

[Der Alte]

Hi Überalter,
Good post, can't really argue with this one on the surface. However, the difference is to be found that in Genesis 1:26 God already created man in his image whereas God in Genesis 3:22 seems to realize that only after man obtained knowledge of good and bad did he/she became an image of God. A very interesting feature, by the way.
Kutte

That's what I thought. You might want to look up the meaning of the Hebrew words translated "image" and "likeness." They don't mean what you are trying to make them mean.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dear DrBubbaLove,

Agreed. At times it takes many words to make a point. However, it has been my life long experience that many people who talk a lot have little to say.

I am quiet familiar with what different Christian sects are teaching and believing, even regarding different religions. After many close studies I came to the conclusion that in order to recognize the true truth (I know this sounds silly) floating around on this planet one should not rely on what this or the other group claims to be true but what our common sense tells us. We have a God-given mind and God expects from us to use it.
In this regard, dear DrBubbaLove, I see nothing that compliments man's creation in Genesis 1:26-28 with Genesis 1:7-23.
Whereas God created man first in his image, telling him to get busy to subdue the planet, which does require knowledge of good and bad by the way, then God created man out of dust and placed him naked in a paradise garden merely telling him to name the animals and not to gain knowledge of good and bad. It's quiet simply to see the difference of what is going on here.

Kutte (Check out my blog, "Why Islam is not for me")

Am not sure someone claiming to be "quiet familiar" with what different Christians teach who tries to see the two separate stories of Genesis as one continuous story is qualified to tell others what our common sense tells us.

My common sense is still telling me that this very literal and typical fundamentalist view of Genesis you present creates the conflict mentioned, but as the majority of Christians do not accept that view of the creation stories - this conflict does not exist for them. And you are correct, that really is quite simple to see that is what is going on here.

 

[Kutte]

That's what I thought. You might want to look up the meaning of the Hebrew words translated "image" and "likeness." They don't mean what you are trying to make them mean.

Hi Der Alter,

Yes, there is always the option of arguing, if someone doesn't like a certain word or phrase, that it means something totally different if translated into Greek or Hebrew. Look, we can only go by of what we have. In my case I have four different Bibles, one of them in German, and all of them agree to the the meaning of "image" and "likeness".

Der Alter, You don't seem to realize what is happening. When God said in Genesis 3:22: "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad", then this means Adam and Eve did not represent a likeness of God before their so-called "fall",
but only AFTER their transformation caused by their decision to eat fruits from the tree of knowledge.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

Am not sure someone claiming to be "quiet familiar" with what different Christians teach who tries to see the two separate stories of Genesis as one continuous story is qualified to tell others what our common sense tells us.

My common sense is still telling me that this very literal and typical fundamentalist view of Genesis you present creates the conflict mentioned, but as the majority of Christians do not accept that view of the creation stories - this conflict does not exist for them. And you are correct, that really is quite simple to see that is what is going on here.

DrBubbaLove,

Do I understand you correctly that the majority of Christians do not accept the literal view of the Genesis report relating to man's creation? Where did I say that I see the two separate stories of the Genesis report in question as one continues story? It has been my endeavor to prove otherwise.

Kutte