If Jesus died for our sins...
If Jesus died for our sins...
Yes, Mary was not sinless, she was a sinner. The fetus inside her womb, which was put there through Holy Spirit was sinless. She was a surrogate mother.Just as a fertilized egg is placed in the womb of a female, the child born does not have any connection to mother or father, because it was sperm from a doner and egg from a doner. The surrogate mother and father could have green eyes and red hair, the baby is born with brown eyes and blonde hair. Jesus was sinless, Mary was not.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Why does anyone believe in original sin in the first place? Adam and Eve, getting turfed out of paradise is a myth. Unless you are a die hard no matter what creationist and bible literalist there is no rational reason why anyone wouild believe in original sin.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359346 wrote: Yes, Mary was not sinless, she was a sinner. The fetus inside her womb, which was put there through Holy Spirit was sinless.
Like every other? Is it not absurd to say that infants are born with a bad conscience? Is original sin not the hypothesis of those who do not know what sin is- or do not want it to be known what sin is?
She was a surrogate mother.
A surrogate mother is not a natural mother. Mary was a natural mother. If the transmission of sin is natural, she passed on the sin of her origin to Jesus.
Paul wrote that Jesus was 'born of a woman, born under law', to emphasise that Jesus had got no advantage from his birth, which was special only to indicate that he fulfilled prophecy, prophecy that went back to patriarchal days, the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. There was no purpose to Paul's comment if Jesus' birth as a human, one having to obey moral law with the very same susceptibility to sin as the rest of us, had no purpose, and Jesus might as well have come as an angel. This teaching betrays either a profound lack of understanding of the incarnation and atonement of Jesus, or the intention to obviate that understanding.
If Christianity be true, Jesus, born of a woman, was without sin. So the notion of original sin, sin passed on from parent to child, cannot be Christian teaching.
Like every other? Is it not absurd to say that infants are born with a bad conscience? Is original sin not the hypothesis of those who do not know what sin is- or do not want it to be known what sin is?
She was a surrogate mother.
A surrogate mother is not a natural mother. Mary was a natural mother. If the transmission of sin is natural, she passed on the sin of her origin to Jesus.
Paul wrote that Jesus was 'born of a woman, born under law', to emphasise that Jesus had got no advantage from his birth, which was special only to indicate that he fulfilled prophecy, prophecy that went back to patriarchal days, the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. There was no purpose to Paul's comment if Jesus' birth as a human, one having to obey moral law with the very same susceptibility to sin as the rest of us, had no purpose, and Jesus might as well have come as an angel. This teaching betrays either a profound lack of understanding of the incarnation and atonement of Jesus, or the intention to obviate that understanding.
If Christianity be true, Jesus, born of a woman, was without sin. So the notion of original sin, sin passed on from parent to child, cannot be Christian teaching.
If Jesus died for our sins...
gmc;1359350 wrote: Why does anyone believe in original sin in the first place? Adam and Eve, getting turfed out of paradise is a myth. Unless you are a die hard no matter what creationist and bible literalist there is no rational reason why anyone wouild believe in original sin.
Personally I don't but, given that no-one can prove or disprove the existence of God, the only way to argue for or against a given religion is to work within the logic system of that religion - if you can show that logic system to be internally inconsistent then the religion is flawed, if not then it is up to you whether you accept the logic system or not.
So, I see it as invalid to argue against Original Sin in terms of mendelian genetics when it is quite clearly not defined in those terms within Christianity - you prove nothing and achieve nothing.
Personally I don't but, given that no-one can prove or disprove the existence of God, the only way to argue for or against a given religion is to work within the logic system of that religion - if you can show that logic system to be internally inconsistent then the religion is flawed, if not then it is up to you whether you accept the logic system or not.
So, I see it as invalid to argue against Original Sin in terms of mendelian genetics when it is quite clearly not defined in those terms within Christianity - you prove nothing and achieve nothing.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359352 wrote: Personally I don't but, given that no-one can prove or disprove the existence of God, the only way to argue for or against a given religion is to work within the logic system of that religion - if you can show that logic system to be internally inconsistent then the religion is flawed, if not then it is up to you whether you accept the logic system or not.
So, I see it as invalid to argue against Original Sin in terms of mendelian genetics when it is quite clearly not defined in those terms within Christianity - you prove nothing and achieve nothing.
You can't get past genesis without the inconsistencies in the logic showing up. You can't read the old testament without realising it is full of contradictions. Same with the new. Most just choose to believe the bits that suit what they want to believe and rationalise the rest away. You have to be able to suspend reason to believe blindly in a religion and it's no accident the religious want to be able to control how children are educated and prevent people from criticising their beliefs and religion. If they can learn to think for themselves a great many brought up in a religion will leave it or just stop taking it seriously. Even the insane have their own logic and even if the basic premise is flawed you stuill can't argue against it.
People who believe in original sin cannot give a reason for the belief for the simple reason it makes no sense. Not a single one of the religious posters will answer my question beyond reference to the bible, simple name calling or the catch all if you don't believe the bible it's because you haven't read it properly and then go on to tell you which bits of the inconsistencies are untrue all the while arguing the case that all the translators were guided by god. If they do answer sopner or later someone will chip in to point oit where they are wrong and why their particular brand of christianity is more correct than theirs, five minutes later you almost have a fight.
The belief in original sin is essential for those who believe christ died for their sins. The creation myth is so obvioulsy just that. Scientology is a "religion" that you know has been created to make money for the founder, yet seemingly imtelligent people actually buy in to it (literally).
So, I see it as invalid to argue against Original Sin in terms of mendelian genetics when it is quite clearly not defined in those terms within Christianity - you prove nothing and achieve nothing.
I'm not arguing against it. No one is stating they believe in it or why for the simple reason there is no rational case that can be made for the belief.
So, I see it as invalid to argue against Original Sin in terms of mendelian genetics when it is quite clearly not defined in those terms within Christianity - you prove nothing and achieve nothing.
You can't get past genesis without the inconsistencies in the logic showing up. You can't read the old testament without realising it is full of contradictions. Same with the new. Most just choose to believe the bits that suit what they want to believe and rationalise the rest away. You have to be able to suspend reason to believe blindly in a religion and it's no accident the religious want to be able to control how children are educated and prevent people from criticising their beliefs and religion. If they can learn to think for themselves a great many brought up in a religion will leave it or just stop taking it seriously. Even the insane have their own logic and even if the basic premise is flawed you stuill can't argue against it.
People who believe in original sin cannot give a reason for the belief for the simple reason it makes no sense. Not a single one of the religious posters will answer my question beyond reference to the bible, simple name calling or the catch all if you don't believe the bible it's because you haven't read it properly and then go on to tell you which bits of the inconsistencies are untrue all the while arguing the case that all the translators were guided by god. If they do answer sopner or later someone will chip in to point oit where they are wrong and why their particular brand of christianity is more correct than theirs, five minutes later you almost have a fight.
The belief in original sin is essential for those who believe christ died for their sins. The creation myth is so obvioulsy just that. Scientology is a "religion" that you know has been created to make money for the founder, yet seemingly imtelligent people actually buy in to it (literally).
So, I see it as invalid to argue against Original Sin in terms of mendelian genetics when it is quite clearly not defined in those terms within Christianity - you prove nothing and achieve nothing.
I'm not arguing against it. No one is stating they believe in it or why for the simple reason there is no rational case that can be made for the belief.
If Jesus died for our sins...
gmc;1359354 wrote: You can't get past genesis without the inconsistencies in the logic showing up. You can't read the old testament without realising it is full of contradictions. Same with the new. Most just choose to believe the bits that suit what they want to believe and rationalise the rest away. You have to be able to suspend reason to believe blindly in a religion and it's no accident the religious want to be able to control how children are educated and prevent people from criticising their beliefs and religion. If they can learn to think for themselves a great many brought up in a religion will leave it or just stop taking it seriously. Even the insane have their own logic and even if the basic premise is flawed you stuill can't argue against it.
People who believe in original sin cannot give a reason for the belief for the simple reason it makes no sense. Not a single one of the religious posters will answer my question beyond reference to the bible, simple name calling or the catch all if you don't believe the bible it's because you haven't read it properly and then go on to tell you which bits of the inconsistencies are untrue all the while arguing the case that all the translators were guided by god. If they do answer sopner or later someone will chip in to point oit where they are wrong and why their particular brand of christianity is more correct than theirs, five minutes later you almost have a fight.
The belief in original sin is essential for those who believe christ died for their sins. The creation myth is so obvioulsy just that. Scientology is a "religion" that you know has been created to make money for the founder, yet seemingly imtelligent people actually buy in to it (literally).
I'm not arguing against it. No one is stating they believe in it or why for the simple reason there is no rational case that can be made for the belief.
I don't disagree with a word you say, one point I would make though - how would you expect a Christian to respond to a question about Christianity except by reference to the Bible? Christianity is a self-referential system defined by the content of the Bible.
People who believe in original sin cannot give a reason for the belief for the simple reason it makes no sense. Not a single one of the religious posters will answer my question beyond reference to the bible, simple name calling or the catch all if you don't believe the bible it's because you haven't read it properly and then go on to tell you which bits of the inconsistencies are untrue all the while arguing the case that all the translators were guided by god. If they do answer sopner or later someone will chip in to point oit where they are wrong and why their particular brand of christianity is more correct than theirs, five minutes later you almost have a fight.
The belief in original sin is essential for those who believe christ died for their sins. The creation myth is so obvioulsy just that. Scientology is a "religion" that you know has been created to make money for the founder, yet seemingly imtelligent people actually buy in to it (literally).
I'm not arguing against it. No one is stating they believe in it or why for the simple reason there is no rational case that can be made for the belief.
I don't disagree with a word you say, one point I would make though - how would you expect a Christian to respond to a question about Christianity except by reference to the Bible? Christianity is a self-referential system defined by the content of the Bible.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359355 wrote: I don't disagree with a word you say, one point I would make though - how would you expect a Christian to respond to a question about Christianity except by reference to the Bible? Christianity is a self-referential system defined by the content of the Bible.
Depends who you are talking to doesn't it? If you look at the history of the concept you can see it developing and all the schisms that started to derive from it amongst the christian sects and the narrowing down and tailoring of a system of beliefs that would lead to salvation and the creation of the church. and the crafting of the bible to confirm that system. It's an artificial construct. If it's someone that knows that and still wants to believe in it then fine it's up to them. Faith is blind out of necessity. I do find though that most, especially the more literal believers, don't actually know much about the history of the bible, or any other religion come to that. Islam uses the same bible and doesn't believe in original sin maybe they really do worship a different god or just picked different bits to leave out to the same end.
Then Adam received Words (of forgiveness) from his Lord, and he accepted his repentance. Verily, He is the One Who repeatedly accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Quran 2:37)
Which version of the bible? that's another thing for them to argue about.
What is a christian anyway? There are many who believe you can be a christian withouit believing in original sin or the virgin birth and just as many wanting to do them harm for their heresy.
Depends who you are talking to doesn't it? If you look at the history of the concept you can see it developing and all the schisms that started to derive from it amongst the christian sects and the narrowing down and tailoring of a system of beliefs that would lead to salvation and the creation of the church. and the crafting of the bible to confirm that system. It's an artificial construct. If it's someone that knows that and still wants to believe in it then fine it's up to them. Faith is blind out of necessity. I do find though that most, especially the more literal believers, don't actually know much about the history of the bible, or any other religion come to that. Islam uses the same bible and doesn't believe in original sin maybe they really do worship a different god or just picked different bits to leave out to the same end.
Then Adam received Words (of forgiveness) from his Lord, and he accepted his repentance. Verily, He is the One Who repeatedly accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Quran 2:37)
Which version of the bible? that's another thing for them to argue about.
What is a christian anyway? There are many who believe you can be a christian withouit believing in original sin or the virgin birth and just as many wanting to do them harm for their heresy.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Adam and Eve were given the choice: you can eat of the forbidden fruit and die or you can listen to my voice and live. THE BIBLE SAYS { Romans 5:12 } "Thus sin entered into the world and death through sin, now all men fall short of the glory of God." Everything has to originate somewhere, so why not sin.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359389 wrote: Adam and Eve were given the choice: you can eat of the forbidden fruit and die or you can listen to my voice and live. THE BIBLE SAYS { Romans 5:12 } "Thus sin entered into the world and death through sin, now all men fall short of the glory of God." Everything has to originate somewhere, so why not sin.How would Adam and Eve have understood the concept of death since they'd never witnessed it or even heard of it for that matter?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359389 wrote: Adam and Eve were given the choice: you can eat of the forbidden fruit and die or you can listen to my voice and live.
So am I, so are you, given the choice; or rather, so was I, so were you. But we sinned, and 'fell', and were ejected from Eden, from the presence of God, on the first occasion that we did something that our consciences were troubled by. It is that eternal conscience that determines the fate of the eternal soul; but a remedy for compromised consciences is provided for us in the Christ. And in the allegory, we are promised that saviour even before we leave- so there is no need for a moment's despair.
So am I, so are you, given the choice; or rather, so was I, so were you. But we sinned, and 'fell', and were ejected from Eden, from the presence of God, on the first occasion that we did something that our consciences were troubled by. It is that eternal conscience that determines the fate of the eternal soul; but a remedy for compromised consciences is provided for us in the Christ. And in the allegory, we are promised that saviour even before we leave- so there is no need for a moment's despair.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359352 wrote: So, I see it as invalid to argue against Original Sin in terms of mendelian genetics when it is quite clearly not defined in those terms within Christianity - you prove nothing and achieve nothing.
Even with a distinction of "genetic" and "spiritual" inheritance all that we really get with that conceptual distinction, I think, is that people theoretically have four genes. Two physical genes from each parent, and two spiritual gene components (the vector on which the sin characteristic is transmitted). The physical/spiritual distinction therefore doesn't remove the genetic arguments of sin, but merely multiplies theoretical entities beyond necessity (not a contradiction, but not aligned with occam's razor).
Of course most of what is called "sin" is just rooted in animal survival instincts, or evolutionary buttons, that have led to our continued survival. Where it becomes a bit silly is that the same actions are condemned as sins half the time, and celebrated the other half the time (depending on whether or not a group judging the action is on the beneficial end or not). Like the difference between murder and war.
Even with a distinction of "genetic" and "spiritual" inheritance all that we really get with that conceptual distinction, I think, is that people theoretically have four genes. Two physical genes from each parent, and two spiritual gene components (the vector on which the sin characteristic is transmitted). The physical/spiritual distinction therefore doesn't remove the genetic arguments of sin, but merely multiplies theoretical entities beyond necessity (not a contradiction, but not aligned with occam's razor).
Of course most of what is called "sin" is just rooted in animal survival instincts, or evolutionary buttons, that have led to our continued survival. Where it becomes a bit silly is that the same actions are condemned as sins half the time, and celebrated the other half the time (depending on whether or not a group judging the action is on the beneficial end or not). Like the difference between murder and war.
If Jesus died for our sins...
yaaarrrgg;1359408 wrote: Even with a distinction of "genetic" and "spiritual" inheritance all that we really get with that conceptual distinction, I think, is that people theoretically have four genes. Two physical genes from each parent, and two spiritual gene components (the vector on which the sin characteristic is transmitted). The physical/spiritual distinction therefore doesn't remove the genetic arguments of sin, but merely multiplies theoretical entities beyond necessity (not a contradiction, but not aligned with occam's razor).
Of course most of what is called "sin" is just rooted in animal survival instincts, or evolutionary buttons, that have led to our continued survival. Where it becomes a bit silly is that the same actions are condemned as sins half the time, and celebrated the other half the time (depending on whether or not a group judging the action is on the beneficial end or not). Like the difference between murder and war.
You are, surely, making the assumption that spiritual inheritance follows Mendelian rules. Without the sort of evidence the Gregor Mendel accumulated about physical inheritance you have no basis on which to base that assumption.
Of course most of what is called "sin" is just rooted in animal survival instincts, or evolutionary buttons, that have led to our continued survival. Where it becomes a bit silly is that the same actions are condemned as sins half the time, and celebrated the other half the time (depending on whether or not a group judging the action is on the beneficial end or not). Like the difference between murder and war.
You are, surely, making the assumption that spiritual inheritance follows Mendelian rules. Without the sort of evidence the Gregor Mendel accumulated about physical inheritance you have no basis on which to base that assumption.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359412 wrote: You are, surely, making the assumption that spiritual inheritance follows Mendelian rules. Without the sort of evidence the Gregor Mendel accumulated about physical inheritance you have no basis on which to base that assumption.
Well, to be honest I'm a little fuzzy on what is supposed to be a sin and not, since half the time a sin is celebrated by a culture. And a large number of things I think should be considered a sin, are actually encouraged by many religions.
The label should be assigned to an action, but it also seems to float around such that a person can be a "sinner" for merely being born. If that's the case, I'm not sure the label is coherent enough to actually test the genetic links.
Though in many cases if we are talking about specific "sinful" actions, we already know there are genetic links underlying these actions (e.g. propensity towards addition runs in families, along with suicide, depression, mental illness, violent tendencies, etc).
Well, to be honest I'm a little fuzzy on what is supposed to be a sin and not, since half the time a sin is celebrated by a culture. And a large number of things I think should be considered a sin, are actually encouraged by many religions.
The label should be assigned to an action, but it also seems to float around such that a person can be a "sinner" for merely being born. If that's the case, I'm not sure the label is coherent enough to actually test the genetic links.
Though in many cases if we are talking about specific "sinful" actions, we already know there are genetic links underlying these actions (e.g. propensity towards addition runs in families, along with suicide, depression, mental illness, violent tendencies, etc).
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359412 wrote: You are, surely, making the assumption that spiritual inheritance follows Mendelian rules. Without the sort of evidence the Gregor Mendel accumulated about physical inheritance you have no basis on which to base that assumption.I thought we were talking about spirituality as opposed to Mendelian Theory. In spirituality anything goes because the only thing that matters is belief - including any belief which lacks any discernible evidence whatsoever.
In putting forth any type of statement that God may be real because God cannot be disproved as evidence of God's existence, then wouldn't that required you to accept Yaaarrrgg's theory as a possible real one unless you can "disprove" it? Also, in this kind of discussion, Yaaarrrgg has no need to offer proof of his theory.
In putting forth any type of statement that God may be real because God cannot be disproved as evidence of God's existence, then wouldn't that required you to accept Yaaarrrgg's theory as a possible real one unless you can "disprove" it? Also, in this kind of discussion, Yaaarrrgg has no need to offer proof of his theory.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
If Jesus died for our sins...
yaaarrrgg;1359414 wrote: Well, to be honest I'm a little fuzzy on what is supposed to be a sin and not, since half the time a sin is celebrated by a culture. And a large number of things I think should be considered a sin, are actually encouraged by many religions.
The label should be assigned to an action, but it also seems to float around such that a person can be a "sinner" for merely being born. If that's the case, I'm not sure the label is coherent enough to actually test the genetic links.
Though in many cases if we are talking about specific "sinful" actions, we already know there are genetic links underlying these actions (e.g. propensity towards addition runs in families, along with suicide, depression, mental illness, violent tendencies, etc).
The conversation was about the inheritance of Original Sin, that passed down from Adam and Eve, rather than individual sins or the propensity to commit them.
Yes, sin is cultural and taught so what is a sin varies with time and place and the concept of Original Sin is specific to Christianity as far as I know.
The label should be assigned to an action, but it also seems to float around such that a person can be a "sinner" for merely being born. If that's the case, I'm not sure the label is coherent enough to actually test the genetic links.
Though in many cases if we are talking about specific "sinful" actions, we already know there are genetic links underlying these actions (e.g. propensity towards addition runs in families, along with suicide, depression, mental illness, violent tendencies, etc).
The conversation was about the inheritance of Original Sin, that passed down from Adam and Eve, rather than individual sins or the propensity to commit them.
Yes, sin is cultural and taught so what is a sin varies with time and place and the concept of Original Sin is specific to Christianity as far as I know.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Ahso!;1359418 wrote: I thought we were talking about spirituality as opposed to Mendelian Theory. In spirituality anything goes because the only thing that matters is belief - including any belief which lacks any discernible evidence whatsoever.
In putting forth any type of statement that God may be real because God cannot be disproved as evidence of God's existence, then wouldn't that required you to accept Yaaarrrgg's theory as a possible real one unless you can "disprove" it? Also, in this kind of discussion, Yaaarrrgg has no need to offer proof of his theory.
God may be real because God cannot be disproved. This is in no way evidence that God exists - that is a logical fallacy and several steps too far.
I have to accept any hypothesis as a possible real one if I cannot disprove it - that does not mean I have to believe it to be true. Possible embraces all levels of probability and it is for each individual to assign that level of probability to any given hypothesis.
In putting forth any type of statement that God may be real because God cannot be disproved as evidence of God's existence, then wouldn't that required you to accept Yaaarrrgg's theory as a possible real one unless you can "disprove" it? Also, in this kind of discussion, Yaaarrrgg has no need to offer proof of his theory.
God may be real because God cannot be disproved. This is in no way evidence that God exists - that is a logical fallacy and several steps too far.
I have to accept any hypothesis as a possible real one if I cannot disprove it - that does not mean I have to believe it to be true. Possible embraces all levels of probability and it is for each individual to assign that level of probability to any given hypothesis.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359389 wrote: Adam and Eve were given the choice: you can eat of the forbidden fruit and die or you can listen to my voice and live. THE BIBLE SAYS { Romans 5:12 } "Thus sin entered into the world and death through sin, now all men fall short of the glory of God." Everything has to originate somewhere, so why not sin.
The bible also says
Deut. 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
2 Kings 14:6, But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezek.33:20, "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways."
Jer. 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."
Original sin was a later interpretation. romans was Paul putting his spin on it.
The bible also says
Deut. 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
2 Kings 14:6, But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezek.33:20, "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways."
Jer. 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."
Original sin was a later interpretation. romans was Paul putting his spin on it.
If Jesus died for our sins...
gmc;1359477 wrote: Original sin was a later interpretation.
An interpretation too late. A deliberate misinterpretation of Paul's allegorical interpretation, by those with a record of infamous criminality that has given many the excuse not to believe.
An interpretation too late. A deliberate misinterpretation of Paul's allegorical interpretation, by those with a record of infamous criminality that has given many the excuse not to believe.
If Jesus died for our sins...
xyz;1359482 wrote: An interpretation too late. A deliberate misinterpretation of Paul's allegorical interpretation, by those with a record of infamous criminality that has given many the excuse not to believe.That! And reality too.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
If Jesus died for our sins...
Essentially all monotheistic religions can be summed up quite simply.
God tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're ****ed.
(OK I'm quoting from braveheart)
YouTube - Existential Star Wars (In French)
God tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're ****ed.
(OK I'm quoting from braveheart)
YouTube - Existential Star Wars (In French)
If Jesus died for our sins...
maybe, at that point in time they did not know death, but they knew God and they knew what He told them about eating the fruit. If they never had eaten, then they would have never known death. THEY DID EAT OF THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT.{Genesis 2:16} God speaking to them said "you will positively die." I'm not going to question God about what He said. ARE YOU?
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359503 wrote: maybe, at that point in time they did not know death, but they knew God and they knew what He told them about eating the fruit. If they never had eaten, then they would have never known death. THEY DID EAT OF THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT.{Genesis 2:16} God speaking to them said "you will positively die."
Who does not interpret that figuratively, even at that point? Someone who has not read the gospels, surely, in which Jesus repeatedly speaks about death that is not physical, and indeed almost seems to treat physical death as of no importance. This is the same person here, speaking in the garden, and indeed walking in it; not literally, but in delightful figure.
Who does not interpret that figuratively, even at that point? Someone who has not read the gospels, surely, in which Jesus repeatedly speaks about death that is not physical, and indeed almost seems to treat physical death as of no importance. This is the same person here, speaking in the garden, and indeed walking in it; not literally, but in delightful figure.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359503 wrote: maybe, at that point in time they did not know death, but they knew God and they knew what He told them about eating the fruit. If they never had eaten, then they would have never known death. THEY DID EAT OF THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT.{Genesis 2:16} God speaking to them said "you will positively die." I'm not going to question God about what He said. ARE YOU?The point is that according to the story, Adam and Eve were completely innocent and therefore ignorant of consequences, so how could God penalize them for ignorance? And how could God be soooo ignorant himself?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
If Jesus died for our sins...
xyz;1359504 wrote: Who does not interpret that figuratively, even at that point? Someone who has not read the gospels, surely, in which Jesus repeatedly speaks about death that is not physical, and indeed almost seems to treat physical death as of no importance. This is the same person here, speaking in the garden, and indeed walking in it; not literally, but in delightful figure.I would expect Adam and Eve to not possess the capacity to interpret it figuratively. How could they? There was no history of examples or experience from others to rely on or learned, in fact how could they understand even the spoken word at all?
If God had bestowed enough knowledge on both A&E to understand figure of speech terminology it then follows that they weren't all that innocent to begin with, were they.
As for the Jesus question, it's proof positive that the new testament is no more historically credible than the old.
It's just a story that when examined makes little sense at all.
If God had bestowed enough knowledge on both A&E to understand figure of speech terminology it then follows that they weren't all that innocent to begin with, were they.
As for the Jesus question, it's proof positive that the new testament is no more historically credible than the old.
It's just a story that when examined makes little sense at all.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
If Jesus died for our sins...
ISTHIS WHAT YOU "THINK?" I do not want to hear what you think. Show me the scriptures, then we'll discuss it. As for figuratively---There was a real flesh and blood person or persons---Adam and Eve---God was a spirit, which you cannot see. As to how He spoke to them, the scriptures do not say. He spoke ro Moses out of the burning bush. God has never materilized, no man has ever seen God and lived.---The scriptures says regarding death. The day of one's death is much more important than his day of birth.----It was not Jesus walking in the garden, it was God The Almighty.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359535 wrote: ISTHIS WHAT YOU "THINK?" I do not want to hear what you think. Show me the scriptures, then we'll discuss it. As for figuratively....
Just because you read something in a book ... that doesn't mean:
(a) you understood the point of the story, or
(b) you are reading anything more than one person's opinion.
You're better to think and be wrong than just repeat what others tell you. Because the same two points apply to their opinions as well.
Just because you read something in a book ... that doesn't mean:
(a) you understood the point of the story, or
(b) you are reading anything more than one person's opinion.
You're better to think and be wrong than just repeat what others tell you. Because the same two points apply to their opinions as well.
If Jesus died for our sins...
and that one persons or that one being's opinion is Almighty God and I do understand the point of the story. If you have a few hours i'll tell you what the point to the story is.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359535 wrote: ISTHIS WHAT YOU "THINK?" I do not want to hear what you think. Show me the scriptures, then we'll discuss it. As for figuratively---There was a real flesh and blood person or persons---Adam and Eve---God was a spirit, which you cannot see. As to how He spoke to them, the scriptures do not say. He spoke ro Moses out of the burning bush. God has never materilized, no man has ever seen God and lived.---The scriptures says regarding death. The day of one's death is much more important than his day of birth.----It was not Jesus walking in the garden, it was God The Almighty.
Which came first; Adam, or plants and animals?
Which came first; Adam, or plants and animals?
If Jesus died for our sins...
xyz;1359540 wrote: Which came first; Adam, or plants and animals?
Strange question - plants, fish, birds, animals then man as per Genesis 1. Genesis 2:5 is specifically referring to domesticated plants such as wheat and potatoes.
Strange question - plants, fish, birds, animals then man as per Genesis 1. Genesis 2:5 is specifically referring to domesticated plants such as wheat and potatoes.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359535 wrote: ISTHIS WHAT YOU "THINK?" I do not want to hear what you think. Show me the scriptures, then we'll discuss it. As for figuratively---There was a real flesh and blood person or persons---Adam and Eve---God was a spirit, which you cannot see. As to how He spoke to them, the scriptures do not say. He spoke ro Moses out of the burning bush. God has never materilized, no man has ever seen God and lived.---The scriptures says regarding death. The day of one's death is much more important than his day of birth.----It was not Jesus walking in the garden, it was God The Almighty.That's too bad really, but it's unfortunately predictable. Perhaps one day it will become apparent to you that your right to think for yourself (and critically) has been kept from you.
You may very well be an intelligent person whose abilities have been stifled by well-meaning, albeit frightened authority figures, friends and relatives.
Welcome to the world of choice: the only question remaining now is whether or not you'll eventually seize the opportunity to free yourself from the dogma you've been fed. That doesn't mean, incidentally, that you should turn away from your religion.
There's no disloyalty in being different from others within your circle. Be loyal to yourself first.
You may very well be an intelligent person whose abilities have been stifled by well-meaning, albeit frightened authority figures, friends and relatives.
Welcome to the world of choice: the only question remaining now is whether or not you'll eventually seize the opportunity to free yourself from the dogma you've been fed. That doesn't mean, incidentally, that you should turn away from your religion.
There's no disloyalty in being different from others within your circle. Be loyal to yourself first.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359539 wrote: and that one persons or that one being's opinion is Almighty God and I do understand the point of the story. If you have a few hours i'll tell you what the point to the story is.
It was of course written by people. Let's listen to what the authors had to say about the writing process, and the people at the time:
"How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" Jeremiah 8:8 NIV
"My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good." Jeremiah 4:22 NIV
It was of course written by people. Let's listen to what the authors had to say about the writing process, and the people at the time:
"How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" Jeremiah 8:8 NIV
"My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good." Jeremiah 4:22 NIV
If Jesus died for our sins...
If I cannot help you then certainly I am not going to hinder you regarding what you want to believe. The Heavenly father gives us the freedom of choice and who am I to try to help you with a brighter light. My best to you
If Jesus died for our sins...
Loyal;1359563 wrote: If I cannot help you then certainly I am not going to hinder you regarding what you want to believe.
But literalists are hindered. They cannot help without compromising their own principle. The second chapter of Genesis is as clear that Adam was created before plants and animals as the first chapter is clear that plants and animals were created before Adam. The Hebrew of chapter 2, verse 5 could not be more emphatic that no plants existed before Adam was created.
Early Genesis has every sign of allegory. In the OT chronicle, a speaking donkey is treated as miraculous- it is a pointless creature if it is not. In early Genesis a speaking snake is taken as no unusual occurrence, and surely everyone takes it as symbolic of an evil agent, snakes having an evil reputation from the earliest times (quite unjustified, of course). John wrote of 'that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan', in recognition of this association, if not in direct reference to the Genesis story, as allegory, not history. Surely we cannot believe that sin can be caused by a literal fruit. If that was so, there would be no need for a moral saviour, but for a pharmaceutical expert. It is plain that A&E did not literally die on the day that they ate the fruit, but 'died' in their spirits, their consciences. This is all hermeneutic, i.e. fits in with all of the rest of the 66 books of the Bible that make it a distinct, self-affirming witness.
The word 'adam' means not just the name of a man, an allegorical, representative man; but also means 'man', any man, as well as 'mankind'. It can legitimately and indeed must be taken as referring to each and every person, who is personally tempted, and falls. It is not that any of us are culpable for the sins of any other. That would be a most inequitable principle, surely. As we have been shown, each person is responsible, in the biblical view, for his or her own decisions, as has been the principle of every civilised legal system that ever existed. So the dogma of original sin, even though many of influence, yet ill repute, wished it to be orthodoxy, is a deliberate, malicious distortion that is no part of Christianity, and is inimical to it, along with many other dogmas of the same people.
But literalists are hindered. They cannot help without compromising their own principle. The second chapter of Genesis is as clear that Adam was created before plants and animals as the first chapter is clear that plants and animals were created before Adam. The Hebrew of chapter 2, verse 5 could not be more emphatic that no plants existed before Adam was created.
Early Genesis has every sign of allegory. In the OT chronicle, a speaking donkey is treated as miraculous- it is a pointless creature if it is not. In early Genesis a speaking snake is taken as no unusual occurrence, and surely everyone takes it as symbolic of an evil agent, snakes having an evil reputation from the earliest times (quite unjustified, of course). John wrote of 'that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan', in recognition of this association, if not in direct reference to the Genesis story, as allegory, not history. Surely we cannot believe that sin can be caused by a literal fruit. If that was so, there would be no need for a moral saviour, but for a pharmaceutical expert. It is plain that A&E did not literally die on the day that they ate the fruit, but 'died' in their spirits, their consciences. This is all hermeneutic, i.e. fits in with all of the rest of the 66 books of the Bible that make it a distinct, self-affirming witness.
The word 'adam' means not just the name of a man, an allegorical, representative man; but also means 'man', any man, as well as 'mankind'. It can legitimately and indeed must be taken as referring to each and every person, who is personally tempted, and falls. It is not that any of us are culpable for the sins of any other. That would be a most inequitable principle, surely. As we have been shown, each person is responsible, in the biblical view, for his or her own decisions, as has been the principle of every civilised legal system that ever existed. So the dogma of original sin, even though many of influence, yet ill repute, wished it to be orthodoxy, is a deliberate, malicious distortion that is no part of Christianity, and is inimical to it, along with many other dogmas of the same people.
If Jesus died for our sins...
xyz;1359580 wrote: But literalists are hindered. They cannot help without compromising their own principle. The second chapter of Genesis is as clear that Adam was created before plants and animals as the first chapter is clear that plants and animals were created before Adam. The Hebrew of chapter 2, verse 5 could not be more emphatic that no plants existed before Adam was created.
Didn't you like the response in post #79 that you choose to ignore it?
Let me make it more specific - from the nKJV (as I don't read Hebrew - feel free to provide the original) we have :-
5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
This specifically refers to plant and herbs "of the field" and not plants in general. Given that Genesis 1 specifies that plants were formed on the third day, well before man was formed on the sixth day, and that Genesis 2 gives the reason for the late creation of "plants of the field" as being that man was not there to till the ground chapter 2, verse 5 is indeed emphatic - that it is only domesticated plants that were created after man.
Didn't you like the response in post #79 that you choose to ignore it?
Let me make it more specific - from the nKJV (as I don't read Hebrew - feel free to provide the original) we have :-
5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
This specifically refers to plant and herbs "of the field" and not plants in general. Given that Genesis 1 specifies that plants were formed on the third day, well before man was formed on the sixth day, and that Genesis 2 gives the reason for the late creation of "plants of the field" as being that man was not there to till the ground chapter 2, verse 5 is indeed emphatic - that it is only domesticated plants that were created after man.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359583 wrote: This specifically refers to plant and herbs "of the field" and not plants in general. Given that Genesis 1 specifies that plants were formed on the third day, well before man was formed on the sixth day, and that Genesis 2 gives the reason for the late creation of "plants of the field" as being that man was not there to till the ground chapter 2, verse 5 is indeed emphatic - that it is only domesticated plants that were created after man.
Personally I think the orginal text is horrible to read, this is a better summary:
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem with that attempted explanation is that the set of "plants" contains the subset of "plants of the field." Moreover, it says on the third day "grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees" are created. Corn, wheat, barley, rice are all grasses. We domesticated these plants around the time when humans shifted from a nomadic/hunting culture to a farming culture. We are still domesticating these plants.
Also, what's the order of creation:
Adam, animals, Eve, or
animals, Adam and Eve?
Why was light created before the sun?
Also you don't want to know what the "firmament" is, but it's what got Galileo locked up by saying the earth goes around the sun.
Personally I think the orginal text is horrible to read, this is a better summary:
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem with that attempted explanation is that the set of "plants" contains the subset of "plants of the field." Moreover, it says on the third day "grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees" are created. Corn, wheat, barley, rice are all grasses. We domesticated these plants around the time when humans shifted from a nomadic/hunting culture to a farming culture. We are still domesticating these plants.
Also, what's the order of creation:
Adam, animals, Eve, or
animals, Adam and Eve?
Why was light created before the sun?
Also you don't want to know what the "firmament" is, but it's what got Galileo locked up by saying the earth goes around the sun.
If Jesus died for our sins...
yaaarrrgg;1359586 wrote: Personally I think the orginal text is horrible to read, this is a better summary:
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem with that attempted explanation is that the set of "plants" contains the subset of "plants of the field." Moreover, it says on the third day "grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees" are created. Corn, wheat, barley, rice are all grasses. We domesticated these plants around the time when humans shifted from a nomadic/hunting culture to a farming culture. We are still domesticating these plants.
Also, what's the order of creation:
Adam, animals, Eve, or
animals, Adam and Eve?
Why was light created before the sun?
Also you don't want to know what the "firmament" is, but it's what got Galileo locked up by saying the earth goes around the sun.
The fact that the set "plant" contains the set "plants of the field" does not show that when God created entities of the type "plant" these also contained entities of the sub-type "plants of the field".
If you look at the evolutionary picture of creation, entities of the type "plant" were the first life on land and it was not until after man had arrived on the scene that plants were domesticated and entities of the sub-type "plants of the field" started to exist - why then deny the Bible the right to say the same thing?
Looking at the order of creation it would appear that, as suggested in Genesis 4, Adam and Eve might well not have been the first entities of the type "man" to have been created.
If, in Genesis 2:7 :-
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
"man" is taken as "a man" rather than "men" and the rest of the chapter is describing the creation of a special occurrence of the set "man" (as created in Genesis 1) to be keeper of the Garden of Eden rather than a description of the creation of the set "man" (which, after all, has already been done in chapter 1) then Genesis 4 makes far more sense when Cain goes out to find fully populated cities already in existence.
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem with that attempted explanation is that the set of "plants" contains the subset of "plants of the field." Moreover, it says on the third day "grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees" are created. Corn, wheat, barley, rice are all grasses. We domesticated these plants around the time when humans shifted from a nomadic/hunting culture to a farming culture. We are still domesticating these plants.
Also, what's the order of creation:
Adam, animals, Eve, or
animals, Adam and Eve?
Why was light created before the sun?
Also you don't want to know what the "firmament" is, but it's what got Galileo locked up by saying the earth goes around the sun.
The fact that the set "plant" contains the set "plants of the field" does not show that when God created entities of the type "plant" these also contained entities of the sub-type "plants of the field".
If you look at the evolutionary picture of creation, entities of the type "plant" were the first life on land and it was not until after man had arrived on the scene that plants were domesticated and entities of the sub-type "plants of the field" started to exist - why then deny the Bible the right to say the same thing?
Looking at the order of creation it would appear that, as suggested in Genesis 4, Adam and Eve might well not have been the first entities of the type "man" to have been created.
If, in Genesis 2:7 :-
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
"man" is taken as "a man" rather than "men" and the rest of the chapter is describing the creation of a special occurrence of the set "man" (as created in Genesis 1) to be keeper of the Garden of Eden rather than a description of the creation of the set "man" (which, after all, has already been done in chapter 1) then Genesis 4 makes far more sense when Cain goes out to find fully populated cities already in existence.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359542 wrote: Strange question - plants, fish, birds, animals then man as per Genesis 1. Genesis 2:5 is specifically referring to domesticated plants such as wheat and potatoes.
It's perhaps the notion of a "chosen" people that is one of the most destuctive aspects of the bible. Why did god give things like potatoes, tomatoes, corn not to his chosen people but to south american indians? Maybe if he had given them horses as well world history might have been vastly diferent.
It's perhaps the notion of a "chosen" people that is one of the most destuctive aspects of the bible. Why did god give things like potatoes, tomatoes, corn not to his chosen people but to south american indians? Maybe if he had given them horses as well world history might have been vastly diferent.
If Jesus died for our sins...
gmc;1359592 wrote: It's perhaps the notion of a "chosen" people that is one of the most destuctive aspects of the bible. Why did god give things like potatoes, tomatoes, corn not to his chosen people but to south american indians? Maybe if he had given them horses as well world history might have been vastly diferent.
Israel had as much opportunity to own horses as any other nation. If they did not use them extensively, that is because they were not intended to be a warlike nation. Potatoes and tomatoes were not nearly as well developed in their regions of origin as they are now, since Victorian breeding; and wheat and barley are arguably better crops than maize, dependence on which may have contributed to the extinction of some South American tribes.
'The Lord your God is bringing you into a good land-- a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig-trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.' Deut 8:7-9 NIV
Of course, these considerations are nothing to do with Genesis 2, which is obvious allegory anyway, and is obviously mistranslated with 'plants of the field', if that means field in the agricultural sense, because A&E were not intended to work the soil.
Israel had as much opportunity to own horses as any other nation. If they did not use them extensively, that is because they were not intended to be a warlike nation. Potatoes and tomatoes were not nearly as well developed in their regions of origin as they are now, since Victorian breeding; and wheat and barley are arguably better crops than maize, dependence on which may have contributed to the extinction of some South American tribes.
'The Lord your God is bringing you into a good land-- a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig-trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.' Deut 8:7-9 NIV
Of course, these considerations are nothing to do with Genesis 2, which is obvious allegory anyway, and is obviously mistranslated with 'plants of the field', if that means field in the agricultural sense, because A&E were not intended to work the soil.
If Jesus died for our sins...
xyz;1359593 wrote: Israel had as much opportunity to own horses as any other nation. If they did not use them extensively, that is because they were not intended to be a warlike nation. Potatoes and tomatoes were not nearly as well developed in their regions of origin as they are now, since Victorian breeding; and wheat and barley are arguably better crops than maize, dependence on which may have contributed to the extinction of some South American tribes.
'The Lord your God is bringing you into a good land-- a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig-trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.' Deut 8:7-9
Of course, these considerations are nothing to do with Genesis 2, which is obvious allegory anyway, and is obviously mistranslated with 'plants of the field', if that means field in the agricultural sense, because A&E were not intended to work the soil.
In the early bronze age horses were not yet big enough to be used as cavalry which is why the egyptians used chariots.
If they did not use them extensively, that is because they were not intended to be a warlike nation.
Got to be one of your more risible comments. Have you actually read the bible? Pick whichever version you like.
Deuteronomy 20.17
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
The promised land is the simple tale of a land grab, one tribe from another. It was not empty if ou recall your bible. God was telling his chosen people to take what they could from those he also presumably created. All god's children - except for them and those like them.
The south americans - to whom I was referring - didn't have the opportunity at all, a draught animal like a horse makes all the difference Disease is what really did for the american indians, when the white christian settlers realised that the indians were dying off wholesale they took it as a sign from god making way for a new christian civilisation.
'The Lord your God is bringing you into a good land-- a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig-trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.' Deut 8:7-9
Of course, these considerations are nothing to do with Genesis 2, which is obvious allegory anyway, and is obviously mistranslated with 'plants of the field', if that means field in the agricultural sense, because A&E were not intended to work the soil.
In the early bronze age horses were not yet big enough to be used as cavalry which is why the egyptians used chariots.
If they did not use them extensively, that is because they were not intended to be a warlike nation.
Got to be one of your more risible comments. Have you actually read the bible? Pick whichever version you like.
Deuteronomy 20.17
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
The promised land is the simple tale of a land grab, one tribe from another. It was not empty if ou recall your bible. God was telling his chosen people to take what they could from those he also presumably created. All god's children - except for them and those like them.
The south americans - to whom I was referring - didn't have the opportunity at all, a draught animal like a horse makes all the difference Disease is what really did for the american indians, when the white christian settlers realised that the indians were dying off wholesale they took it as a sign from god making way for a new christian civilisation.
If Jesus died for our sins...
gmc;1359596 wrote: In the early bronze age horses were not yet big enough to be used as cavalry which is why the egyptians used chariots.
Which is what the deity of the Israelites would have ensured that his people possessed, had warfare been a priority.
Have you actually read the bible? Pick whichever version you like.
How is it that skeptics so often use an outdated version? Because it's outdated?
The promised land is the simple tale of a land grab, one tribe from another.
Not according to the Bible that you imply you have read. According to the Bible that you imply you have read, the occupants of the land were unfit to occupy it, and the Israelites, who had no homeland, acted on behalf of the creator and owner of that land in removing them from it. That's spiritual warning, spiritual allegory, spiritual foretelling; nothing like a bit of the base imperialism that humanity indulges in perpetually.
Disease is what really did for the american indians
There were extinctions before Europeans arrived.
white christian settlers
:D Such a wag!
Settlers of a religion that murdered Christians, as we all know.
Which is what the deity of the Israelites would have ensured that his people possessed, had warfare been a priority.
Have you actually read the bible? Pick whichever version you like.
How is it that skeptics so often use an outdated version? Because it's outdated?
The promised land is the simple tale of a land grab, one tribe from another.
Not according to the Bible that you imply you have read. According to the Bible that you imply you have read, the occupants of the land were unfit to occupy it, and the Israelites, who had no homeland, acted on behalf of the creator and owner of that land in removing them from it. That's spiritual warning, spiritual allegory, spiritual foretelling; nothing like a bit of the base imperialism that humanity indulges in perpetually.
Disease is what really did for the american indians
There were extinctions before Europeans arrived.
white christian settlers
:D Such a wag!
Settlers of a religion that murdered Christians, as we all know.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Which is what the deity of the Israelites would have ensured that his people possessed, had warfare been a priority.
:rolleyes:
How is it that skeptics so often use an outdated version? Because it's outdated?
That's why I suggested you pick whichever version you like. The basic story remains the same no matter which version so pick one for yourself that has the correct updates.
Not according to the Bible that you imply you have read. According to the Bible that you imply you have read, the occupants of the land were unfit to occupy it, and the Israelites, who had no homeland, acted on behalf of the creator and owner of that land in removing them from it. That's spiritual warning, spiritual allegory, spiritual foretelling; nothing like a bit of the base imperialism that humanity indulges in perpetually.
So it wasn't warfare it was ethnic cleansing to remove the unworthy at the behest of god. Religion and the concept of the chosen people gives sanction to racial hatred, it was always there of course but do you really believe the holocaust could have happened without on the scale it did without two thousand years of institutionalised anti-semitism?
I don't need to imply anything by the way, I don't really care whether you believe I have read it or not. But don't bother telling me I just haven't A) read the correct version or B) didn't understand it.
There were extinctions before Europeans arrived.
The carib indians became extinct as a direct result of contact with europeans, no doubt tribal warfare resulted in the extinction of weaker tribes, killing all the males and taking the women was not unique to the hebrews perhaps they had gods that told them it was justified as well or maybe they just did it because they could. But it's a peculiar thing to believe that disease is sent by god to wipe out the unworthy while at the same time purporting to believe that we are all god's children.
Settlers of a religion that murdered Christians, as we all know.
Christian murdering christian because they weren't "right" what a surprise. Course as any good catholic, presbytarian, baptist (or any others you know) everyone else is not actually a christian because they don't worship correctly. Meting out god's punishment is a favourite practice of the true believer.
:rolleyes:
How is it that skeptics so often use an outdated version? Because it's outdated?
That's why I suggested you pick whichever version you like. The basic story remains the same no matter which version so pick one for yourself that has the correct updates.
Not according to the Bible that you imply you have read. According to the Bible that you imply you have read, the occupants of the land were unfit to occupy it, and the Israelites, who had no homeland, acted on behalf of the creator and owner of that land in removing them from it. That's spiritual warning, spiritual allegory, spiritual foretelling; nothing like a bit of the base imperialism that humanity indulges in perpetually.
So it wasn't warfare it was ethnic cleansing to remove the unworthy at the behest of god. Religion and the concept of the chosen people gives sanction to racial hatred, it was always there of course but do you really believe the holocaust could have happened without on the scale it did without two thousand years of institutionalised anti-semitism?
I don't need to imply anything by the way, I don't really care whether you believe I have read it or not. But don't bother telling me I just haven't A) read the correct version or B) didn't understand it.
There were extinctions before Europeans arrived.
The carib indians became extinct as a direct result of contact with europeans, no doubt tribal warfare resulted in the extinction of weaker tribes, killing all the males and taking the women was not unique to the hebrews perhaps they had gods that told them it was justified as well or maybe they just did it because they could. But it's a peculiar thing to believe that disease is sent by god to wipe out the unworthy while at the same time purporting to believe that we are all god's children.
Settlers of a religion that murdered Christians, as we all know.
Christian murdering christian because they weren't "right" what a surprise. Course as any good catholic, presbytarian, baptist (or any others you know) everyone else is not actually a christian because they don't worship correctly. Meting out god's punishment is a favourite practice of the true believer.
If Jesus died for our sins...
gmc;1359598 wrote: :rolleyes:
Is that right? I think you meant to click :yh_blush .
That's why I suggested you pick whichever version you like.
Is that right?
Why do those who apparently hate Christianity apparently love the KJV?
So it wasn't warfare it was ethnic cleansing
Is that right? Is that what follows from what I wrote, or is it clumsy misrepresentation? The immoral would obviously prefer that invention, not the difficult reality, which was moral cleansing.
I don't need to imply anything by the way
Indeed! But you implied, anyway, and unwisely.
But it's a peculiar thing to believe that disease is sent by god to wipe out the unworthy while at the same time purporting to believe that we are all god's children.
True, but then it's a peculiar thing to allege original sin when it's a contradiction of the same god. Both allegations were made by people of the same infamous, antichrist religion, and I alluded to their historic infamy earlier. Do try to read more carefully, and you won't need to click :yh_blush so much.
It's also peculiar to believe that all are children of the Christian deity, because said person rather famously takes the view that thieves, murderers, liars, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers, homosexuals and adulterers will not have any association with him. That's a lot of people.
Christian murdering christian
Oh dear, another :yh_blush .
Is that right? I think you meant to click :yh_blush .
That's why I suggested you pick whichever version you like.
Is that right?
Why do those who apparently hate Christianity apparently love the KJV?
So it wasn't warfare it was ethnic cleansing
Is that right? Is that what follows from what I wrote, or is it clumsy misrepresentation? The immoral would obviously prefer that invention, not the difficult reality, which was moral cleansing.
I don't need to imply anything by the way
Indeed! But you implied, anyway, and unwisely.
But it's a peculiar thing to believe that disease is sent by god to wipe out the unworthy while at the same time purporting to believe that we are all god's children.
True, but then it's a peculiar thing to allege original sin when it's a contradiction of the same god. Both allegations were made by people of the same infamous, antichrist religion, and I alluded to their historic infamy earlier. Do try to read more carefully, and you won't need to click :yh_blush so much.
It's also peculiar to believe that all are children of the Christian deity, because said person rather famously takes the view that thieves, murderers, liars, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers, homosexuals and adulterers will not have any association with him. That's a lot of people.
Christian murdering christian
Oh dear, another :yh_blush .
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359587 wrote: If you look at the evolutionary picture of creation, entities of the type "plant" were the first life on land and it was not until after man had arrived on the scene that plants were domesticated and entities of the sub-type "plants of the field" started to exist - why then deny the Bible the right to say the same thing?
If it's merely saying they arrived then it's a correct observation. Similarly, cars, trucks and planes arrived after humans. Though as I read it, the Bible is saying God created these things. If you are correct that it's talking about domestic crops, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the ancient Hebrews. God didn't domesticate things like corn, people did. They took the wild cereal grasses and selected the grains that had qualities they like the most (unintentionally changing the crop). Where this distinction is important, is as we see documented in films like "King Corn" and "the Future of Food" modern humans are changing these crops to maximize for yeild, not nutrition.
If it's merely saying they arrived then it's a correct observation. Similarly, cars, trucks and planes arrived after humans. Though as I read it, the Bible is saying God created these things. If you are correct that it's talking about domestic crops, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the ancient Hebrews. God didn't domesticate things like corn, people did. They took the wild cereal grasses and selected the grains that had qualities they like the most (unintentionally changing the crop). Where this distinction is important, is as we see documented in films like "King Corn" and "the Future of Food" modern humans are changing these crops to maximize for yeild, not nutrition.
If Jesus died for our sins...
yaaarrrgg;1359602 wrote: If it's merely saying they arrived then it's a correct observation. Similarly, cars, trucks and planes arrived after humans. Though as I read it, the Bible is saying God created these things. If you are correct that it's talking about domestic crops, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of the ancient Hebrews. God didn't domesticate things like corn, people did. They took the wild cereal grasses and selected the grains that had qualities they like the most (unintentionally changing the crop). Where this distinction is important, is as we see documented in films like "King Corn" and "the Future of Food" modern humans are changing these crops to maximize for yeild, not nutrition.
Is saying that God created domesticated plants any different to saying that God created animals? We would say that animals evolved through natural selection just as we would say that domesticated plants evolved through human intervention.
The discussion as to whether our genetic policies in farming are correct or whether the changes we are making are purely for the farmer's profit deserves a thread of its own, it would be a distraction in this one.
Is saying that God created domesticated plants any different to saying that God created animals? We would say that animals evolved through natural selection just as we would say that domesticated plants evolved through human intervention.
The discussion as to whether our genetic policies in farming are correct or whether the changes we are making are purely for the farmer's profit deserves a thread of its own, it would be a distraction in this one.
If Jesus died for our sins...
Bryn Mawr;1359606 wrote: Is saying that God created domesticated plants any different to saying that God created animals? We would say that animals evolved through natural selection just as we would say that domesticated plants evolved through human intervention.
I do see your point, in that if God created man (and satan) ultimately we can give him/her/it the credit and blame for everything, good or bad, that comes by proxy of these creations.
I do see your point, in that if God created man (and satan) ultimately we can give him/her/it the credit and blame for everything, good or bad, that comes by proxy of these creations.
If Jesus died for our sins...
posted by xyz
Is that right?
Why do those who apparently hate Christianity apparently love the KJV?
The wordng differs but the instructions are the same. I could have posted the relevant parts from the various versions but deceded not to labour the point. If you know of a version of the bible that that says anything radically different - like don't utterly destroy them - then by all means post the link.
Is that right? Is that what follows from what I wrote, or is it clumsy misrepresentation? The immoral would obviously prefer that invention, not the difficult reality, which was moral cleansing.
Extermination of the occupants of the land were unfit to occupy it is, in the 20th and 21st century called ethnic cleansing. It's one and the same thing. Hitler justified his actions in exactly those terms, so did the serbs in Kosovo, the jews would again cleanse palestine if they could get away with it and I dare say the arabs would cheerfully do the same to the jews.
posted by xyz
It's also peculiar to believe that all are children of the Christian deity, because said person rather famously takes the view that thieves, murderers, liars, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers, homosexuals and adulterers will not have any association with him. That's a lot of people.
If god made all things then presumaby he made all the people on the earth. If you believe there is only one god how is it possible that you also believe that re is more than pne deity? The christian deity must be the same as the muslim one is he not?
True, but then it's a peculiar thing to allege original sin when it's a contradiction of the same god. Both allegations were made by people of the same infamous, antichrist religion, and I alluded to their historic infamy earlier. Do try to read more carefully, and you won't need to click so much.
What religion would that be? I assume you see yourself as a christian but I notice you carefully avoid stating what denomination, if any, you adhere to. Personally I don't care what you believe or what sect you claim membership of or if you are a congregation of one. I decided religion was fabricated nonsense a long time ago and no that doesn't mean I am a lost soul looking for answers, it's means I consider religion fabricated ninsense. Original sin is just one of the notions, It's entertaning when you get people arguing whether the original sin was dosobeying god or sex but it's a silly thing to fall out over IMO.
Is that right?
Why do those who apparently hate Christianity apparently love the KJV?
The wordng differs but the instructions are the same. I could have posted the relevant parts from the various versions but deceded not to labour the point. If you know of a version of the bible that that says anything radically different - like don't utterly destroy them - then by all means post the link.
Is that right? Is that what follows from what I wrote, or is it clumsy misrepresentation? The immoral would obviously prefer that invention, not the difficult reality, which was moral cleansing.
Extermination of the occupants of the land were unfit to occupy it is, in the 20th and 21st century called ethnic cleansing. It's one and the same thing. Hitler justified his actions in exactly those terms, so did the serbs in Kosovo, the jews would again cleanse palestine if they could get away with it and I dare say the arabs would cheerfully do the same to the jews.
posted by xyz
It's also peculiar to believe that all are children of the Christian deity, because said person rather famously takes the view that thieves, murderers, liars, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers, homosexuals and adulterers will not have any association with him. That's a lot of people.
If god made all things then presumaby he made all the people on the earth. If you believe there is only one god how is it possible that you also believe that re is more than pne deity? The christian deity must be the same as the muslim one is he not?
True, but then it's a peculiar thing to allege original sin when it's a contradiction of the same god. Both allegations were made by people of the same infamous, antichrist religion, and I alluded to their historic infamy earlier. Do try to read more carefully, and you won't need to click so much.
What religion would that be? I assume you see yourself as a christian but I notice you carefully avoid stating what denomination, if any, you adhere to. Personally I don't care what you believe or what sect you claim membership of or if you are a congregation of one. I decided religion was fabricated nonsense a long time ago and no that doesn't mean I am a lost soul looking for answers, it's means I consider religion fabricated ninsense. Original sin is just one of the notions, It's entertaning when you get people arguing whether the original sin was dosobeying god or sex but it's a silly thing to fall out over IMO.
If Jesus died for our sins...
gmc;1359618 wrote: The wordng differs but the instructions are the same. I could have posted the relevant parts from the various versions
Just one other version would have made a departure from 'atheist' rigidity. Freethinkers, I don't think so.
Extermination of the occupants of the land were unfit to occupy it is, in the 20th and 21st century called ethnic cleansing.
Quite true, but as relevant as your laundry list.
The christian deity must be the same as the muslim one is he not?
:wah: Very good.
What religion would that be?
Now the poster cannot remember what he wrote only minutes ago. Oh, dear. :-3
Just one other version would have made a departure from 'atheist' rigidity. Freethinkers, I don't think so.
Extermination of the occupants of the land were unfit to occupy it is, in the 20th and 21st century called ethnic cleansing.
Quite true, but as relevant as your laundry list.
The christian deity must be the same as the muslim one is he not?
:wah: Very good.
What religion would that be?
Now the poster cannot remember what he wrote only minutes ago. Oh, dear. :-3
If Jesus died for our sins...
xyz;1359621 wrote: Just one other version would have made a departure from 'atheist' rigidity. Freethinkers, I don't think so.
Quite true, but as relevant as your laundry list.
:wah: Very good.
Now the poster cannot remember what he wrote only minutes ago. Oh, dear. :-3
You know if you can't be bothered being civil why do you bother posting?
Quite true, but as relevant as your laundry list.
:wah: Very good.
Now the poster cannot remember what he wrote only minutes ago. Oh, dear. :-3
You know if you can't be bothered being civil why do you bother posting?
If Jesus died for our sins...
gmc;1359628 wrote: You know if you can't be bothered being civil why do you bother posting?
So are you admitting that you did not forget? That you lied? Surely not.
So are you admitting that you did not forget? That you lied? Surely not.
If Jesus died for our sins...
xyz;1359630 wrote: So are you admitting that you did not forget? That you lied? Surely not.
Do you actually think before you start typing or is it all random?
Your last half dozen posts have been complete non-sequiturs having no relationship to the posts you're responding to.
Do you actually think before you start typing or is it all random?
Your last half dozen posts have been complete non-sequiturs having no relationship to the posts you're responding to.