A challenge for evolutionists.

[Nostromo]

Why are "right" and "wrong" involved when it isn't a moral judgment?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why are "right" and "wrong" involved when it isn't a moral judgment?

1 person says "if you do this, bad stuff will happen."
Another says, "If you do this, great stuff will happen."

Sounds like a moral decision to me...

 

[solja247]

You do realise this didn't literally, actually happen, don't you? You do realise that this isn't ACTUAL history being reported, don't you?

Why not? Because you dont like it? because you dont think its possible? Because you cant stand the story of God creating the world?

Tell me why it cant be history?

Is it history that Jesus died and rose again? or was Jospehus on pot?

 

[Nostromo]

1 person says "if you do this, bad stuff will happen."
Another says, "If you do this, great stuff will happen."

Sounds like a moral decision to me...

Presumably, the question you'd ask yourself in such a situation would be: "Is God more likely to know what he's talking about than a snake?"
No?

 

[Tomatoman]

Why not? Because you dont like it? because you dont think its possible? Because you cant stand the story of God creating the world?

No, because it's patent rubbish, that's why. Whichever way you look at it it's nonsense. Let's actually look at what you wrote again:

Planet Earth was the scene of the conflict of good and evil. I believe if Adam and Eve did not fall for the snake, the tree would of been later removed. This was the ultimate test and all the celestial beings were watching. Remember there had just been a civil war and 1/3 of the angels had choosen the Devil's side. This was the ultimatium.

There is as much evidence for this outside the Bible as there is for Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort. The two are quite comparable in that they are absurd stories completely lacking in any evidence outside the books they are written in. Added to which the stories, although entertaining, are plain silly. Nothing in them is even close to the evidence of the world we live in. Well, unless you're on drugs.

Tell me why it cant be history?

Because there is no evidence, that's why. Tell me why Harry Potter and his fight against Lord Voldemort can't be history.

Is it history that Jesus died and rose again? or was Jospehus on pot?

Given that the lifestory of Jesus had such enormous repercussions for Western history there is a frightening lack of evidence for him having existed outside the gospels. Even the gospels themselves are a mixed bag especially when you add in the apocrypha, which usually upsets religious fundamentalists. Josephus is a rare exception, and his mention of Jesus is very controversial, historians believing it to have been added later. At best we can say we have to treat Josephus with suspicion.

This leaves little other than the gospels. I happen to believe it likely that the gospels are based on the life of a man who actually existed. The emphasis being on the word 'based'. The details of this man's life are wide open to dispute. But I believe, based on the historical evidence of an emerging Christian religion in the first century and the stories written up in the gospels that it is likely that we're closer to historical truth. How close is for each person to decide.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to apply any critical faculty at all. If it's in the Bible then it must be true, however much it means you have to dismiss libraries full of proven science and corrobarated history. You ask me to tell you why it can't be history? You have it the wrong way round. You are the one making eyebrow raising claims. It's up to you to prove that they are true. Good luck with that.

 

[Tiberius]

Go back and re-read posts 63, 64 and 65 of this thread and then re-read Genesis 2 :16-17 again and then maybe you will understand why I posted this passage. And as far as "dead" is concerned, do you believe you are dead right now? Why did Adam die? He disobeyed, "sinned" against God.

Yeah I read them. I still don't get it. Those posts were people saying that they had no knowledge of right and wrong, good or evil, and they had no way to know those things until AFTERwards.

You posting the bit where God says that they'll die in that very same day if they eat the tree doesn't make any difference, because Adam and Eve lacked the ability to actually understand what god was saying.

It's like me going to Japan and asking where the train station is. I can ask someone all I want, but if they don't understand English, I'm never gonna make myself understood, no matter how many times I say it. Likewise, God could say it is wrong to eat from the tree all he wants, but Adam and Eve, lacking the knowledge of right and wrong, will NEVER understand what he means.

And because of God's great love, He did not abandon us.

No, he sent himself as a sacrifice to himself. Now, why did God even need a sacrifce? Couldn't he just snap his fingers? We're talking OMNIPOTENT. What is there that could only come about by a murder, bloodshed when God can snap his fingers and do anything????

But anyway, that's off topic. If you want to discuss it, let's start a new thread for it, okay?

The 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles passages are the same account, and like most skeptics you can take portions of scripture and twist and distort them to make God out to be someone He is not. If you read the ealier verses you will see it was not God who lied. God wanted Ahab to fall, so he allowed a lying spirit to cause a great deception. As a result, Ahab went to Ramothgilead, and fell.

You still have God using deception and lies to get what he wants.

Now lets take the two accounts in Jeremiah. You do notice that Jeremiah is assuming this because of what has gone down around him? But if you read on you will see God informs Jeremiah of the truth in the matter.

Jeremiah 14:12-15
When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.
Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them, Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place.
Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed.

You wanna explain why you are quoting from Jer 14 when the passage in question is from six chapters later or ten chapters earlier?

Now for Ezekial 14:9 I will post the Amplified version of this verse so you might better understand what is being said
9[The prophet has not been granted permission to give an answer to the hypocritical inquirer] but if the prophet does give the man the answer he desires [thus allowing himself to be a party to the inquirer's sin], I the Lord will see to it that the prophet is deceived in his answer, and I will stretch out My hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of My people Israel.

Seems to be saying the same thing, that God has no problem taking actions that lead to people being deceived. So God wants them to be deceived.

Once again you seem to be drawing your conclusions with just a portion of the message given, read the whole context of the story.

You aren't providing context. So far you;ve either posted a separate part of the Bible and not explained how it fits in, or posted the same single verse I did, just from another bible version.

Originally Posted by
2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

Lets get the whole story here as well, and keep in mind this is a prophecy not yet come about, but very close.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-12
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

A prophecy about the future? And we STILL have God sending a delusion. God sends a delusion! That is the bit I have a problem with.

There is a perfectly good reason for God doing all this. For who knows the mind of God that they may instruct Him? There is no searching His total understanding. Even like Eve in the garden who was deceived by Satan , the father of all lies is trying to deceive you now in telling you God is a lier. Who do you think is going to benefit by this? Or suffer? When I consider these next verse I think I just might have wasted my time.

Who can know the mind of God, you ask? Well, apparently, you can, because you claim there is a very good reason for God to do all this!

1 Corinthians 2:10-14
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Onvce again, unbelievers are hit over the head with passages that say, "You can't help the unbelievers, they'll just have to miss out."

Do you see that every religion just about has the same thing? It's just a continuation of the "Them and us" mentality.

You do realise this didn't literally, actually happen, don't you? You do realise that this isn't ACTUAL history being reported, don't you?

So in other words....

God sent himself to be sacrificed to himself to convince himself to allow humanity to be forgiven because a man who didn't exist and a woman who didn't exist were convinced by a snake that didn't exist to eat the fruit of a tree that didn't exist?

Is that it? Really?

 

[Cabal]

Even the gospels themselves are a mixed bag especially when you add in the apocrypha, which usually upsets religious fundamentalists.

It seems to me that fundamentalists are actually quite happy to cite the apocrypha - as long as it proves a point of theirs, of course.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why not? Because you dont like it? because you dont think its possible? Because you cant stand the story of God creating the world?

Tell me why it cant be history?

Because history requires someone to record it -- who recorded this?

Is it history that Jesus died and rose again? or was Jospehus on pot?

Are there other options?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Presumably, the question you'd ask yourself in such a situation would be: "Is God more likely to know what he's talking about than a snake?"
No?

Or possibly, "is God lying to me?"

 

[Nostromo]

Or possibly, "is God lying to me?"

I'd be more inclined to wonder how the serpent could know what he claims to know. Adam knew that the tree was in the Garden before he got there and then saw all the animals made and then named them. The serpent is a newcomer to the garden from Adam's point of view.

 

[Tiberius]

I thought that the snake, being an animal, was made at the same time as all the othjer animals. According to the Bible, anyway...

 

[Nostromo]

Yeah, but Adam was already there.

 

[Friendly.Atheist]

I'd be more inclined to wonder how the serpent could know what he claims to know. Adam knew that the tree was in the Garden before he got there and then saw all the animals made and then named them. The serpent is a newcomer to the garden from Adam's point of view.

I'd be wondering what I had smoked to make me think a snake is talking to me.

 

[Spacewyrm]

I thought that the snake, being an animal, was made at the same time as all the othjer animals. According to the Bible, anyway...

Yeah, but depending on whether you're reading Genesis 1 or Genesis 2, Adam either came after or before the non-human animals.

 

[Tiberius]

What difference does that make? My point is that Adam had just as much familiarity with the snake as he did any other creature.

 

[Nostromo]

Yeah, but depending on whether you're reading Genesis 1 or Genesis 2, Adam either came after or before the non-human animals.

On reading it through again I think I saw more conflict in the two passages than there really is. I was wrong, the animals come first, Gen 2 implies past tense when talking about the animals forming.

Doesn't really make a great difference to who you'd trust more, between the animals and God.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think there's any implication at all.

Genesis 2 describes God creating man, THEN says God made all the animals. THEN God made woman because Adam hadn't found a suitable companion (which leads me to wonder, if God thought that Adam might find compansionship with an animal, did he thiink Adam was going to do with an animal what he did with Eve?)

Genesis 1 on the other hand, describes God creating the animals BEFORE he made people, with some animals on the fifth day and the rest on the sixth day. And then he made man and woman at the same time, on the sixth day AFTER he made the last of the animals.

There is no implication - the Bible is quite clear.

 

[Nostromo]

It's an odd one.

NIV Gen 2:19 "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field"

KJV Gen 2:18-19 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field"

 

[BananaSlug]

A bigger question is why did God created the serpent and tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place?

 

[Nostromo]

Having the Garden run smoothly for eternity would probably be pretty boring to watch, might as well spice things up a bit.