Re: Genesis 1 & 2: Is There A Contradiction?
Terry Cross
> Many people of course, have opinions about this subject.
> But what's important is the Bible facts, amen? I mean,
> what it _actually_ says is what's important, is it not?
>
> Most people believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are
> two different stories about the Creation and that they
> have things being created in a different order and then
> of course, creeps in the story of "Lilith" and people
> assume that this was Adam's first wife and that she
> was created in Genesis 1 and that Eve was created
> in Genesis 2.
>
> But does this make sense? Let's examine it and see,
> because opinions do not equate to automatic fact. :)
>
> And you may want to have your Bible open while reading
> this, or e-Sword on your computer, or whatever Biblical
> text you use.
>
> Anyway... :)
>
> The problem here, is that these people misread the text,
> thinking that there is a contradiction between the two
> chapters and then scramble to find an explanation,
> based on that false conclusion.
>
> Knowing how to read, means looking at ALL of the words. :)
>
> Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
> much later. There were no chapter divisions in the
> original text. No verse divisions either. While
> unbelievers like to claim that chapter 2 was inserted
> later, they forget that it was actually one continuous
> text. We must also ask ourselves, is any writer
> stupid enough to write Genesis 1 and then directly
> contradict himself like this? Hello??? :)
>
> And even if as some people claim, chapter 2 was
> later inserted, you still have to be pretty stupid to
> put it there and have it directly contradict the text!
>
> And as I said, there were no chapter divisions, to
> be able to insert a new chapter between two others.
>
> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day 6.
> He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made the
> things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The trees,
> etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam, to see
> what he would name them. He didn't make all of the
> animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE GARDEN.
> This is confirmed, by reading vs 9, 10, 16, etc., where
> it says, IN THE GARDEN. Chapter 2 is discussing THE
> GARDEN, not the entire Earth!
>
> To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>
> If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
> is an overview of the entire Creation.
>
> Genesis 2 expands on the sixth day. It describes the
> Creation in the Garden of Eden. Read the text CAREFULLY.
> It describes the creation of the garden and THEN the
> creation of the things within the garden. The animals,
> for example, were created in the garden. Not the original
> creation of animals, but simply another one, to be put
> in front of Adam, for him to name.
>
> Note: As I said, read Genesis 2:1-6 as a continuation
> of Genesis 1 and you'll see it's a better fit there.
>
> Note: Genesis 2:7, goes into the sixth day, in which
> man is created.
>
> Note: Genesis 2:8 shows that God made the Garden of
> Eden.
>
> Note: As I said, Genesis 2:9 is discussing the creation
> of plants, etc., IN THE GARDEN.
>
> How do we know this? Read Genesis 2:10. It clearly
> talks about the river going into the garden. Thus,
> Genesis 2:9 is surrounded (v8 + v10) by two statements
> about the garden.
>
> Note: It continues to discuss the garden and then, in v19,
> makes the statement about the creation of animals, but only
> for the purpose of seeing what Adam will name them and
> THEY ARE STILL IN THE GARDEN, which is where the context
> of the verses say that this takes place. All of this was on
> the sixth day, AFTER the rest of the world and life was
> already created.
>
> Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam.
> Adam saw God create. Eve didn't.
>
> The bottom line is that God's word does not contradict
> itself, period! And when someone thinks it does, then
> instead of jumping to conclusions and since God's word
> has proved itself to be true and accurate so many times,
> they should stop, realize that they're not as smart as God
> and _carefully_ examine the text, looking at each and
> every word slowly and with caution and respect and care
> and see where _they_ have erred, since God does _not_
> make mistakes and He is fully capable of preserving His
> truths for us to have!
>
> Amen and amen!!!
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
>
> The following is part of my auto-rotating
> sig file and not part of the message body.
>
> "Weakness of faith ought not be mistaken for falseness
> of promise." - Unknown
James A. Donald
> Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day
> 6. He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made
> the things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The
> trees, etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam,
> to see what he would name them. He didn't make all of
> the animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE
> GARDEN.
This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
If the redactor was a much of a literalist as you are he
would have made a bigger effort to harmonize the
creation stories.
But even if we take it allegorically, the stories are
still somewhat contradictory. In the first story, to
fill the earth and subdue it is a duty and a right. In
the second story, a duty and a punishment.
Yap
He said the chapters were divisions and G2 was not inserted.
Therefore the whole thing was written by the same authors.....but he
did not touch on the contradiction, merely brushed it off.
Then when the stupid god created the animals and plants in the tiny
Middle-eastern land, how on earth other animals and plant species were
flourishing else where 10s of thousands of miles away?
If the naive pastor wish to justify his belief, he simply failed
miserably.
And weakness of faith creeps in from unfulfilled promises all the
time, eventually leading to "no faith".
Uncle Vic
> This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
> observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
> good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
Lots of times I've seen this fruit represented by an apple. But apples are
available in grocery stores all the time. Yet christian morons still go to
grocery stores. And they buy apples.
Go figure...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
My modern calendar ends on 12/31/09. There are no days after that, so it's
obviously the date of the end of the world!
Splicer
Genesis 2, properly titled Trespass, was the first album that truly
showcased the compositional chops of the young band from the Charterhouse
School. Pre-Collins and Hackett, it was the first album to be more than a
loose collection of pop songs and the first to feature lengthier tracks
and deeper lyrics. Although lacking some of the drive of the next album,
Nursery Cryme (provided by the aforementioned Collins & Hackett), it was
the first album that could be called Genesis.
Hope this helps.
DouhetSukd
What about "Turn the other cheek" vs. "eye for an eye"?
Basically, you have a fire and brimstone Old Testament, with the New
Testament preaching something entirely different. Vengeful old school
deity vs. nice new age deity (except for those pesky Temple sales
dudes). Nothing subtle or allegorical.
That dichotomy is something Christians understand quite well,
apparently, as an impressive amount are fans of the death penalty even
while they preach peace and love. To put it differently, 80+% of
Americans believe in God, and the death penalty is generally deeply
disliked in less religious Western countries. Yup, bet Jesus would
feel right at home in Texas.
The reason I am not religious is personal lack of belief. Something I
regret, as a belief in afterlife would be nicely comforting. The
reason I wonder about Christians is because few of them seem to have
internalized Christ's teachings and many are all about Hell instead.
I deeply respect "nice" Christians, but the rest amuse me.
On another note, I read an historical analysis of the New Testament
gospels and the author, a historian, did a pretty good job convincing
me they were actually _quite_ coherent with each other, if considered
as historical records of the same events written at different times by
different people. He managed to kind of tease out what seemed to be
little author "embellishments" by comparing the different versions
contents to each other.
I think it may have been "Jesus", by Michael Smith, who usually does
Roman & Ancient history. He never did say if he was a believer or
not, something quite refreshing. Can look it up.
* I understand that if one book says A>B and the other says A<B then
that is a pretty stark technical contradiction. IMHO it misses the
big picture of nice vs. vengeful.
Taemon
> Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam.
> Adam saw God create. Eve didn't.
Not fooled? Adam did eat that fruit, didn't he?
T.
Hannele
Yeah, but only because she MADE him do it <snigger>
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Taemon
So she got punished for his lack of responsibility. That sounds familiar,
somehow.
T.
trag
> On another note, I read an historical analysis of the New Testament
> gospels and the author, a historian, did a pretty good job convincing
> me they were actually _quite_ coherent with each other, if considered
> as historical records of the same events written at different times by
> different people. He managed to kind of tease out what seemed to be
> little author "embellishments" by comparing the different versions
> contents to each other.
>
> I think it may have been "Jesus", by Michael Smith, who usually does
> Roman & Ancient history. He never did say if he was a believer or
> not, something quite refreshing. Can look it up.
Michael *Valentine* Smith? <blink, blink>?
Hannele
He was in a hurry to blame her: "But... but... but... she made me eat it!".
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Robert Carnegie
I think I misremembered, she ate some first? Wouldn't the rest of us
be in trouble right then? Assuming it wasn't grounds for divorce and
we'd all be descended from Adam's /next/ wife. Or, I dunno,
chimpanzees.
Ryan McCoskrie
> One fine day in alt.atheism, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
>> observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
>> good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>
> Lots of times I've seen this fruit represented by an apple. But apples
> are
> available in grocery stores all the time. Yet christian morons still go
> to
> grocery stores. And they buy apples.
>
> Go figure...
>
Leonardo da Vinci painted Mary as an European noble women.
The Bible never specified what kind of fruit it was.
Kilmir
Wouldn't that be Lilith?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I think she was the previous one, and "only" in Jewish tradition(!)
And I think she's living with a fitness instructor named Gretchen, so
not much hope there.
I've said before, I think the point of the Fall story is to try to
account for a God who supposedly loves us - or at least loves his
chosen people - but somehow neglected to plant worldwide orchards for
us to live in ease, or to pay much attention to the design of
childbirth. Or exclusion of venomous animals. If I was retelling the
story I might say something about weather - I'm British. Some people
believe it never rained before Noah's flood. Anyway, the point is the
story says God /did/ make a nice world for us to be in, and then we
pissed in the pool and it got ugly.
Now, the advantage if we /were/ descended from a woman who hadn't been
cursed by God to have a hideous and often fatal time in childbirth is
obvious. Adam and Eve should have fostered.
PV
>believe it never rained before Noah's flood. Anyway, the point is the
>story says God /did/ make a nice world for us to be in, and then we
>pissed in the pool and it got ugly.
So, to you, disregarding a capricious and arbitrary rule, made under false
pretenses, is "pissing in the pool"? *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Terry Cross
> One fine day in alt.atheism, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
> > observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
> > good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>
> Lots of times I've seen this fruit represented by an apple. But apples are
> available in grocery stores all the time. Yet christian morons still go to
> grocery stores. And they buy apples.
>
> Go figure...
So who cares if apples can be found in grocery stores. This is
another straw man argument about somebody's conjecture about the Bible
as though it were Bible text. Orthodox Jews eat apples, too. You go
figure.
An apple grows on an apple tree, not a "tree of knowledge of good and
evil".
If you want to find something wrong with the Bible, consider that both
the Jewish and Christian definitions of "evil" is disobedience to
God's law and commandments.
Until they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve did not have such knowledge, so
could not in justice be held responsible for obedience to God.
Yet when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were punished and all their
descendants were cursed with mortality for acquiring the knowledge
they would need to obey God.
In essence, Adam and Eve were required to color inside the lines with
their eyes closed. They could only open their eyes if they colored
outside the lines, but then they would also be punished. Is that a
fair test?
The entire meaning of the allegory collapses on the orthodox
definitions of Good and Evil.
TCross
VSim
>
> If you want to find something wrong with the Bible, consider that both
> the Jewish and Christian definitions of "evil" is disobedience to
> God's law and commandments.
>
> Until they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve did not have such knowledge, so
> could not in justice be held responsible for obedience to God.
>
> Yet when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were punished and all their
> descendants were cursed with mortality for acquiring the knowledge
> they would need to obey God.
Rubbish. They disobeyed a direct order from God, thus they were
punished. End of story.
The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
to follow His commands one step at the time.
The truly interesting questions:
If God didn't want it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
serpent too.
What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
knowledge ?
Anyway, about the contradiction of Genesis 1 & 2, IMHO (and I'm
definitely no expert so I might be wrong) there is none. The story of
Creation is in Genesis 1. The short reference in Genesis 2 is rather
vague and with no explicit temporal sequence. It says that Adam was in
the garden, then it says that God created all the animals and brought
them to Adam to name them. It doesn't say explicitly that the animals
were created after Adam was put in the garden. Normally one would
infer it from the sequence of narration, but in the context of Genesis
1 (which of course comes first) I don't think it's the case. Rather,
it's probably just a figure of style, to point out that even though
God created the animals, He gave up the right to name them Himself and
empowered man to do this. (And not woman, BTW. ;-) )
VSim
<rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> I've said before, I think the point of the Fall story is to try to
> account for a God who supposedly loves us - or at least loves his
> chosen people - but somehow neglected to plant worldwide orchards for
> us to live in ease, or to pay much attention to the design of
> childbirth. Or exclusion of venomous animals. If I was retelling the
> story I might say something about weather - I'm British. Some people
> believe it never rained before Noah's flood. Anyway, the point is the
> story says God /did/ make a nice world for us to be in, and then we
> pissed in the pool and it got ugly.
In other words, even though God loves us, He still punishes us for our
sins. OK, next obvious questions - why don't people suffer according
to everyone's individual sins ? Why global punishment ?
IMO the point is that humans only learn it the hard way, never the
soft way.
Also, maybe that God doesn't want us to be over-zealous and overdo it.
If we do, things tend to get ugly. (Which might explain the current
state of the world - atomic bombs, 6 billion people and counting,
global warming etc. You think you solve the problem and you just
create more.)
Terry Cross
> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > If you want to find something wrong with the Bible, consider that both
> > the Jewish and Christian definitions of "evil" is disobedience to
> > God's law and commandments.
>
> > Until they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve did not have such knowledge, so
> > could not in justice be held responsible for obedience to God.
>
> > Yet when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were punished and all their
> > descendants were cursed with mortality for acquiring the knowledge
> > they would need to obey God.
>
> Rubbish. They disobeyed a direct order from God, thus they were
> punished. End of story.
What is the knowledge of good and evil?
> The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
> good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
> to follow His commands one step at the time.
The only additional knowledge acquired by Adam and Eve was the depth
of misery through the curse. Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge, and if you claim to have
"all" knowledge of good and evil now, you are ahead of the rest of
us.
> The truly interesting questions:
> If God didn't want it,
What is "it"?
> why did He place the tree in the middle of the
> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
> tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
> serpent too.
I see that as a less compelling question. It leaves open the
possibility that someone will find an explanation that the presence of
the tree was necessary.
> What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> knowledge ?
Adam was already immortal. The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
good and evil," not immorality. Immortality was the fruit of the
"tree of life" mentioned in Genesis 3:22.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
> Anyway, about the contradiction of Genesis 1 & 2, IMHO (and I'm
> definitely no expert so I might be wrong) there is none. The story of
> Creation is in Genesis 1. The short reference in Genesis 2 is rather
> vague and with no explicit temporal sequence. It says that Adam was in
> the garden, then it says that God created all the animals and brought
> them to Adam to name them. It doesn't say explicitly that the animals
> were created after Adam was put in the garden. Normally one would
> infer it from the sequence of narration, but in the context of Genesis
> 1 (which of course comes first) I don't think it's the case. Rather,
> it's probably just a figure of style, to point out that even though
> God created the animals, He gave up the right to name them Himself and
> empowered man to do this. (And not woman, BTW. ;-) )
TCross
Ron Dean
We are programed by our DNA to age and die. But
can we be _re-programed_ not to do so? Eventually
if research is permitted, the answer may very well be
yes! But during the two terms of
President George W. Bush research in this area
progressed very little. Scientist were not allowed
to "play God" there was little or no financing and a
virtual moratorium of stem cell research was in effect.
With the Obama administration, research could
gain finances and most of the restrictions lifted.
We and all other multicellular organisms have two basic
kinds of cells: germ cells and somatic cells. However,
scientist have known for decades that each of of us
has immortal germ cells within our bodies. These
immortal cells are our germ cells; cells we pass on to our
offspring. This doesn't mean that death cannot happen, to
these germ cells. They can be killed, perhaps we have
no offspring. When this happens, our _ individual_ germ
cells die with our soma cells. The scientific definition
of immortal means that certain cells are _not _programed_
to age and die. Richard Dawking's book "The Selfish
Gene" recognizes the immortal nature of our germ cells
Our earliest ancestors, were single cell organisms, which
by definition were immortal. Unicellular organisms increase
by means of fission, dividing into two separate and distinct
organisms. They are the same structure and size. They
do not age and die. But immortality was forfeited hundreds
of millions of years ago when unicellular organisms evolved
into with multicellular beings. IOW our ancestors traded
immortality for complexity. And we as a result inherited
death.
The German naturalist, August Weismann was the first to
realize that life must have begun as an immortal single cell
organism. It was he who coined the term "immortality" for
these cells, he gave two example: one an organism that is
made up of some 8 or 16 cells that stuck together because
of to some survival benefit. It's called Pandorina morum.
The second example, called Volvox minor, is made up of
cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of
the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells
divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the
outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells
which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which
made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells
were programed to age and die, having been used
merely to obtain food and transportation and to
facilitate reproduction. The original unaltered cells
Weismann called "germ cells".
More to come!
>
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Robert_Carnegie=3A_Fnord=3A_cc_talk=2Dorigins=40moderators=2Eisc=2E?=
> >believe it never rained before Noah's flood. Anyway, the point is the
> >story says God /did/ make a nice world for us to be in, and then we
> >pissed in the pool and it got ugly.
>
> So, to you, disregarding a capricious and arbitrary rule, made under false
> pretenses, is "pissing in the pool"?
I was treating the story on its own terms.
Online I don't seem to find a particular straight quote from _The
Restaurant at the End of the Universe_ - book edition - which I
suppose may mean that Zombie Douglas Adams is hunting them down and
removing them. But I did find a version (so Zombie Adams may come to
visit me, oops) that describes God as "someone who puts bricks under
hats, so that people will stub their toe when they kick them." In
other words - it was secretly meant to happen.
Uncle Vic
Therefore you have to make up your own religion so you can be saved, eh?
I find it a lot more palatable to accept death for what it is... the end
of life.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
James A. Donald
> The truly interesting questions: If God didn't want
> it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why
> the hell does He tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder
> if maybe it was Him who sent the serpent too.
Job reprises this issue.
In the first version of Genesis, God commands man to
fill the earth and subdue it, and take dominion over it.
In the second version, he commands to dig the soil and
to give birth in sorrow.
(Which would explain an very incompetently designed
birth canal. An alternative explanation is that the
birth canal was designed by a government committee. A
third explanation is that it was adapted from a birth
canal designed for a quadruped with a small head.)
Zev
??????:6ec4f5da-
e841-41d1-83f...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Terry Cross wrote:
> The truly interesting questions:
> If God didn't want it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
> tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
> serpent too.
Assuming no argument over the historicity of the story,
it has to do with the challenge of choosing good.
Without it, mankind is not complete.
We're here to meet it, and "prove our mettle".
Unfortunately, it carries with it the possibility of choosing wrong.
polymer
> "VSim" <inte...@yahoo.com> ???
> ??????:6ec4f5da-
> e841-41d1-83f...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> Terry Cross wrote:
>
>> The truly interesting questions:
>> If God didn't want it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
>> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
>> tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
>> serpent too.
>
> Assuming no argument over the historicity of the story,
ROFL
> it has to do
> with the challenge of choosing good. Without it, mankind is not
> complete.
El Grande Crappo de Bullo.
That is a story invented by alpha liars to explain
away the obvious stupidity of the story.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> > immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> > knowledge ?
>
> Adam was already immortal. The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
> good and evil," not immorality.
Wow, good job he didn't find /that/ one, God would be so mad :-)
> Immortality was the fruit of the
> "tree of life" mentioned in Genesis 3:22.
>
> And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
> good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
> the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Let's suppose that if you eat tree-of-life every day you'll live
forever. Then death is caused, effectively, by excluding Adam and Eve
from the garden.
Eve says that God told them not to /touch/ the tree, presumably in an
unrecorded conversation of the kind you have with a five year old.
"But can I /lick/ the TV, as long as I don't switch it on?" "No! You
can't draw on it, you can't lick it - look, just don't touch it at
all. Okay?" This also fills the gap that could apply where God did
not tell Eve not to eat from the tree, although you could consider
that while God was telling Adam, Eve was one of Adam's buttcheeks at
the time, so she was included.
I don't really want to defend the story. I do care about people who
took it seriously all their lives.
And why does God not want to have people around who have knowledge of
good and evil? When it was someone who didn't have knowledge of good
and evil who stole his fruit?
It doesn't make sense. It's like one of those superhero stories that
"fixes" one flaw in material written like to a hundred years ago but
itself doesn't work. And probably for the same reason: it isn't, as a
good story is, the point of itself.
Michael Stemper
>On Oct 23, 12:35=A0am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
>> good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
>> the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
>
>Let's suppose that if you eat tree-of-life every day you'll live
>forever.
Unless, of course, all of your descendants die. Then, you'll lose
interest in eating and need to invade an unfashionable western
spiral arm of the galaxy.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If it's "tourist season", where do I get my license?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
@newsfe06.iad:
>
> We are programed by our DNA to age and die.
Then by all means, carry on. Quickly.
Stupid fucking spamtards.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Syd M.
Yeah, but some people are just so afraid of dying that such fairy
tales make them feel good.
And feeling good is better then any old facts any day.
PDW
Syd M.
wrote:
> In article <4d2a6b9e-82fc-46c6-a823-500a8159a...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Robert_Carnegie=3A_Fnord=3A_cc_talk=2Dorigins=40moderators=2Eisc=2E?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?or=ADg?= <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes:
>
> >On Oct 23, 12:35=A0am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
> >> good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
> >> the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
>
> >Let's suppose that if you eat tree-of-life every day you'll live
> >forever.
>
> Unless, of course, all of your descendants die. Then, you'll lose
> interest in eating and need to invade an unfashionable western
> spiral arm of the galaxy.
>
Speaking of which, I got a copy of "And another thing" from the
library. Only peeked at a the opening page, but it is styled
differently from DNA, but the humour seems there. We'll see after I
get finished.
PDW
Terry Cross
> "VSim" <intel...@yahoo.com> ???
> ??????:6ec4f5da-
> e841-41d1-83fd-0f68b18b1...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
And they must choose without knowledge of "good and evil" that eating
the fruit would bring. It is a paradox of terrible proportions.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:13:21 -0700, Zev wrote:
> > ??????:6ec4f5da-
> > e841-41d1-83fd-0f68b18b1...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The truly interesting questions:
> >> If God didn't want it, why did He place the tree in the middle of the
> >> garden ? (Kind of: if God doesn't want us to sin, why the hell does He
> >> tempt us so hard ?) Makes you wonder if maybe it was Him who sent the
> >> serpent too.
>
> > Assuming no argument over the historicity of the story,
>
> ROFL
>
> > it has to do
> > with the challenge of choosing good. Without it, mankind is not
> > complete.
>
> El Grande Crappo de Bullo.
> That is a story invented by alpha liars to explain
> away the obvious stupidity of the story.
It is no more ridiculous than Evolution. The prophets needed to
"explain" certain things about human existence, and many here would
tell us the purpose of science is to "explain".
Evolution wanders into endless speculation with the same freedom of
tongue exhibited by the old prophets. Dawkins babbles about the gene
molecules trying to survive and gathering around themselves the flesh
of bodies to make survival possible. Dawkins knows nothing about the
truth of the matter, but he speculates freely and calls it "science".
Just so did the early prophets struggle with the problems of
mortality, human joy and misery, good and evil, sex and death. They
speculated freely -- just as Dawkins does -- and these are their
stories.
TCross
Terry Cross
And what are you, Vic? What is thought? What is purpose?
Can you explain all the mysteries of existence by pretending they
don't exist?
TCross
VSim
> On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
> > good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
> > to follow His commands one step at the time.
>
> The only additional knowledge acquired by Adam and Eve was the depth
> of misery through the curse.
They did find out that they were naked. Besides, if it's the fruit of
knowledge of good and evil, this is what it's supposed to do, isn't
it ? To give you all knowledge of good and evil.
> Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
> ("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge,
Where exactly does the Bible say this ?
> > What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> > immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> > knowledge ?
>
> Adam was already immortal.
Again, where exactly does the Bible say this ?
Anyway, this is just a minor point.
> The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
> good and evil," not immorality.
I said immortality, not immorality.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
The story said Adam was kicked out of Eden before he ate the Tree of
Life.
Terry Cross
> Terry Cross wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
> > > good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
> > > to follow His commands one step at the time.
>
> > The only additional knowledge acquired by Adam and Eve was the depth
> > of misery through the curse.
>
> They did find out that they were naked.
In Judaism, that is "evil." Sigmund Freud psychoanalyzed the
Jewishness from multiple rabbinical ancestors. Where did you think he
got all that garbage?
> Besides, if it's the fruit of
> knowledge of good and evil, this is what it's supposed to do, isn't
> it ? To give you all knowledge of good and evil.
Exactly.
> > Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
> > ("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge,
>
> Where exactly does the Bible say this ?
The curse of Adam is attributed to every man that he shall till the
earth by the seat of his brow, and curse of Eve to every woman that
she shall "bring forth children in pain."
> > > What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> > > immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> > > knowledge ?
>
> > Adam was already immortal.
>
> Again, where exactly does the Bible say this ?
> Anyway, this is just a minor point.
Don't know. Wasn't Randy saying that death did not enter the Garden
until the Fall? Maybe I misunderstood.
> > The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
> > good and evil," not immorality.
>
> I said immortality, not immorality.
Thanks for the correction. ;-)
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:39:46 -0700 (PDT), VSim <intel...@yahoo.com>
I think this thread is stumbling over a typo. Death did not enter the
Garden until Adam/Eve ate of the fruit, but they were not yet immortal
because they had not yet eaten of the Tree of Life, which had not been
previously mentioned. The story is somewhat ambiguous on this point.
They did not eat of the Tree of Microsoft Windows until much later.
And a good thing, too.
TCross
VSim
The discussion has gotten somewhat too confusing for my taste.
Coming back to what you said, looks like not having eaten the fruit is
not an excuse for disobeying God. And obviously not all descendants of
Adam inherited his knowledge, more precisely none of them did (except
maybe for the prophets), since Adam, after eating the fruit, knew
everything about good and evil and supposedly never did any other bad
thing afterwards, which is definitely not true also for his
descendants.
The idea is, God could have made Adam perfect (by means of the fruit
or by just wishing it) and did not. Why ? Don't ask me. But since Adam
was not perfect, his wrong deeds deserved punishment. That's just how
it is.
You could argue just as well that since Adam was a creation of God, he
didn't deserve punishment for anything he did but God deserved it. But
that's not how it is. You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
VSim
>
> You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
Of good and evil, that is.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Well, it's Catch-22. Wait. I can't figure out precisely how it's
Catch-22. But I'm pretty sure that it is.
Obviously it isn't that the fruit confers moral culpability, because
then the beings that ate the fruit didn't have moral culpability, but
God still throws the book at them.
If it's that the fruit confers a sense of right and wrong, then God
made the mistake in the first place of creating beings without a sense
of right and wrong and then expecting them to follow rules.
As I have said, I think the whole story is just an attempt to provide
an explanation of why God hasn't made the world a nice easy place for
his chosen people to live in (granted all the other planets known to
science are unbelievably worse), other than that he doesn't exist.
Whilst also making God able to do anything he thinks of and having no
needs that humans can fulfil. Well... pleasure. The bible describes
many things that humans can do to please God. None of it gets us off
the hook, though, does it?
Are we basically God's pleasure slaves? Is that what religion says?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
No it doesn't.
> I think this thread is stumbling over a typo. Death did not enter the
> Garden until Adam/Eve ate of the fruit, but they were not yet immortal
> because they had not yet eaten of the Tree of Life, which had not been
> previously mentioned. The story is somewhat ambiguous on this point.
Try my version. The Tree of Life makes you immortal for one day.
Adam and Eve ate one every day.
Alternatively, why do we really die? Because the physical mechanisms
of our bodies break down. Mutations in cell DNA build up.
"Housekeeping" functions fail. Pollution accumulates in the brain.
Calcium compounds leach out of bones. Muscles deteriorate, and that
includes the heart. And blood vessels clog with fat. And that's
without accounting for infectious disease, microorganisms that seize
our bodies and abuse them - and of course physical accident.
If we suppose that the Garden of Eden was disease-free and accident-
free, there's still a lot of repair to be done on the human body.
Now... the bible proposes that early generations of humans lived for
many hundreds of years. Really, though, we can't see how that could
be so.
So in fact it's all hokum, isn't it?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Oct 23, 2:39 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Terry Cross wrote:
> > > Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
> > > ("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge,
> >
> > Where exactly does the Bible say this ?
>
> The curse of Adam is attributed to every man that he shall till the
> earth by the seat of his brow, and curse of Eve to every woman that
> she shall "bring forth children in pain."
Well, I shop at supermarkets. And I don't have children.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Richard Dawkins knows plenty. If a pattern of atoms /accidentally/
occurs that can duplicate itself and multiply, that pattern of atoms
will veery soon be seen all around. A molecule called RNA does this,
I think, in the presence of the right ingredients: a copy of the RNA
molecule naturally forms alongside the first molecule. It isn't firm
science to say that this is definitely how living things came into
existence, but RNA also is used by our bodies as a copy of DNA - or
perhaps DNA is used by RNA as a way to copy itself more faithfully.
Although language of intentions and deliberate acts isn't really
appropriate for molecules.
James A. Donald
Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> Richard Dawkins knows plenty. If a pattern of atoms
> /accidentally/ occurs that can duplicate itself and
> multiply, that pattern of atoms will veery soon be
> seen all around. A molecule called RNA does this, I
> think, in the presence of the right ingredients: a
> copy of the RNA molecule naturally forms alongside the
> first molecule. It isn't firm science to say that
> this is definitely how living things came into
> existence, but RNA also is used by our bodies as a
> copy of DNA - or perhaps DNA is used by RNA as a way
> to copy itself more faithfully. Although language of
> intentions and deliberate acts isn't really
> appropriate for molecules.
The general principle is correct - that self replicating
molecules may not necessarily be impossibly hard to
arise by accident under the right conditions, but RNA
cannot occur under natural abiotic conditions of the early
earth.
It is a lot harder for life to originate than you
suggest.
My own wild speculation is that on a large comet or
radically non earthlike planet with an active liquid
vapor solid cycle, conditions did occur, producing non
rna life, which gave rise to rna life, which gave rise
to rna/protein life, which gave rise to dna/rna/protein
life. Meteors or comet fragments then carried
lithotropic bacteria to earth after the hadean period.
Eukaryotes, and eventually tardigrades may have evolved
in situ, or arrived in the same manner. (The original
planet is no longer in our solar system, never was in
our solar system, or it was too small to retain its
atmosphere, thereby conveniently destroying the
evidence.)
Another possibility is that for life to spontaneously
arise is indeed astronomically unlikely, but in an
infinite universe, the astronomically unlikely is in
fact certain, in which case we will find an empty
universe awaiting the touch of life.
Terry Cross
That is the paradox. If good/evil equals obedience/disobedience as we
are told, then without knowledge of good.evil as the fruit would give,
we have no knowledge of obedience/disobedience.
TCross
Terry Cross
Oh, yes, but not good poetry either.
TCross
Suzanne
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:41:30 +0200, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > Hannele wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:49:09 +0200, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 19, 3:29 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam.
> >>>> Adam saw God create. Eve didn't.
> >>> Not fooled? Adam did eat that fruit, didn't he?
> >> Yeah, but only because she MADE him do it <snigger>
>
> > So she got punished for his lack of responsibility. That sounds familiar,
> > somehow.
>
> He was in a hurry to blame her: "But... but... but... she made me eat it!".
>
There's something else in there, too. Adam said to God, "The woman
which THOU gavest me, gave it to me and I did eat." Sounds like he was
ultimately blaming God.
>
Suzanne
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
It isn't whether you win or lose; it's how you place the blame.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
William December Starr
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> It isn't whether you win or lose; it's how you place the blame.
"Did we win?"
"No, but if we think fast we might live to lie about it."
-- wds
Suzanne
> One fine day in alt.atheism, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
> > observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
> > good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>
> Lots of times I've seen this fruit represented by an apple. But apples are
> grocery stores. And they buy apples.
>
> Go figure...
>
event was told as being real,
and we do have in the genealogies of Jesus, the
real Adam listed. Adam is also listed in the N.T.
and spoken of as being a real person.
>
Adam and Eve were closed off from the Garden
of Eden after that, and the reason is given so
that they would not eat of the Tree of Life. That
was not a denial for later heaven, but for the fact
that if they ate of it in the fallen state, they would
be doomed to be, forever in a fallen, and therefore
lost state. They put their trust in the promised
Messiah, there called the Seed of the Woman, that
would be born in the future. That they allowed God
to clothe them with clothes that he, himself sewed
for them shows that they put on his righteousness,
which is to say they trusted in his plan of salvation,
which meant they trusted the Seed/Redeeemr to be their Lord and
Savior. We know that their children,
Cain and Abel knew to bring a sacrifice of an animal,
and that always represented the type of the one that
would follow, which is the Messiah who would take
away their sins.
>
Suzanne
>
David Johnston
>
>We are programed by our DNA to age and die. But
>can we be _re-programed_ not to do so
No. Because we aren't programmed. We're hard wired.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Where do you get this stuff from, may I ask?
The fact Cain did /not/ bring an appropriate sacrifice, if I correctly
recall who did what, was the basis of trouble. And Abel brought a
sacrifice that pleased God and then was murdered by his brother.
Pleasing God and finding a dollar gives you the price of a Starbucks
plastic teaspoon, apparently.
Ron Dean
guardian Snow
Not "Semantics"... beliefs. If he believes he is "hard wired" then he
is and if you believe otherwise then you shall be able to shift from
that faulty belief and change the wiring.
Buddha said, “He is able who thinks he is able. All that we are is
the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an
evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure
thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.
All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed can
wrong-doing remain?”
Modern science can’t explain it away except to call it the, “Placebo
effect”. Pills, potions and even false surgeries have been conducted
to study the power of belief. Endorphins begin the healing effects
on those who simply believe, that is science fact. All that is needed
or required is already with you and that power resides in your belief.
Suzanne
> Why look at trivial sequence issues for biblical contradictions? *
>
> What about "Turn the other cheek" vs. "eye for an eye"?
>
> Basically, you have a fire and brimstone Old Testament, with the New
> Testament preaching something entirely different. Vengeful old school
> deity vs. nice new age deity (except for those pesky Temple sales
>
Interesting post, well written.
>
> dudes). Nothing subtle or allegorical.
>
> That dichotomy is something Christians understand quite well,
> apparently, as an impressive amount are fans of the death penalty even
> while they preach peace and love. To put it differently, 80+% of
> Americans believe in God, and the death penalty is generally deeply
> disliked in less religious Western countries. Yup, bet Jesus would
> feel right at home in Texas.
>
> The reason I am not religious is personal lack of belief. Something I
> regret, as a belief in afterlife would be nicely comforting. The
> reason I wonder about Christians is because few of them seem to have
> internalized Christ's teachings and many are all about Hell instead.
> I deeply respect "nice" Christians, but the rest amuse me.
>
Real Christianity is simply someone's putting their trust in Jesus
Christ and him alone for salvation. None of us can be perfect, so
there is no need in trying to be perfect, because that won't earn
salvation. "Believing,"
is not a matter of trying to conjure up an image that
you believe, so much as it is a decision that one makes
to put their trust in Christ to be the payment for all of their sins.
With that decision to trust in what Christ did
on the cross to take our place to pay the penalty for our sins, we
decide to turn to the Lord to lead our lives.
That turning is called "repentance," and is not the straight-jacket of
trying to be good in order to earn
salvation, but it simply means that you turn to God in faith to lead
you in your life. The word "repentance," simply means that you
redirect your pathway in life to
allow the Lord to govern your life and to lead you. It is not a
"feeling" it is an action and decision to trust, and as best you can
do, to accept his lead and do what he leads you to do. As a person
follows, his faith will grow
stronger. He will know what is the right thing by reading the Bible,
and also by the inward influence of the Holy Spirit who has come to
live inside of him. Salvation is just that simple. You plug into "I
can't be good enough to earn my way into Heaven, so I'm going to place
my trust in Jesus who already paid for my ticket to get there, if I
receive it." and then turning to him for guidance, instruction,
comfort, and intervention in your life. When one makes this decision,
he is not going to tell you to now go climb Mt. Everest. He will say
simple things to you daily as the day unfolds, such as "write your
Grandmother. Do the dishes. Go to work. Milk the cows, gather the
eggs, invite people over, read 30 minutes in the Bible" and as you do
these things, he will give you peace. Sometimes things can seem hard,
like if you lose your job or something like that, but he calls you to
trust him through that, and when you get to the other side of it and
get a new job, you will have stretched your faith and grown
spiritually to where you will trust him more and more. It's just
simple faith, one event after another, that we will follow as a
Christian.
>
Some of those things above that I described, you do already because
your own inner conscience tells you to do them, but after you have put
your trust in Christ for salvation, when you do those things, you do
them with a new motivation, and that makes them easier to do.
You get a sort of "mechanical advantage," from the fact that your life
has changed gears, just like you change gears when riding on a 10
speed bicycle, when you are climbing a hill. Faith is not going by
feelings, it's trusting.
>
> On another note, I read an historical analysis of the New Testament
> gospels and the author, a historian, did a pretty good job convincing
> me they were actually _quite_ coherent with each other, if considered
> as historical records of the same events written at different times by
> different people. He managed to kind of tease out what seemed to be
> little author "embellishments" by comparing the different versions
> contents to each other.
>
> I think it may have been "Jesus", by Michael Smith, who usually does
> Roman & Ancient history. He never did say if he was a believer or
> not, something quite refreshing. Can look it up.
>
> * I understand that if one book says A>B and the other says A<B then
> that is a pretty stark technical contradiction. IMHO it misses the
> big picture of nice vs. vengeful.
>
I'm not sure if you are talking about the contrast of the Old
Testament to that of the New Testament here, since you mention
vengeance vs. nice, but the nice does show up in the lives of the
patriarchs in the O.T. when they put their trust in the Lord to be
their Savior.
They trusted in the promised Messiah looking forward to the cross,
while today we trust Him, looking back at the cross. For example, when
Jacob wrestled with the
"angel," he was troubled about facing Esau again, and his sin from
having tricked Esau out to the birthright and blessing troubled him.
It doesn't say there what transaction was made exactly, but later in
Jacob's
life, he referred back to that time as being the time
when all of his iniquity was taken away. That means
that his sins were taken away, as in his having put his trust in the
Lord to be his Savior. Jacob's name had
been changed by the Lord to be "Israel." Even though the Bible
continues to call him Jacob for identity purposes, the phrase "the
Holy One of Israel" doesn't refer to all the Israelite people, but to
the one whom
Jacob put his trust in, that being the pre-incarnate Word of God which
John 1:1-3 tells about who was made flesh and dwelt on earth, which is
Christ. By the time that Jacob continued on his journey, he was amazed
to find that the Lord had changed his brother's heart and that he was
gladly received by him.
>
Suzanne
>
Yap
Why did you assume the following:
1)> That There was a god?
2)> That it created anything?
3)> That Adam and Eve were his creation?
4)> That a tree was created?
5)> That the fruits were anything but forbidden?
Doesn't this illustrate the stupid of your god?
Yap
What are these nonsense?
Human was thought of created and left to forbid eating fruits?
A god of no sense to teach and guide, just to command?
Do our present parents do that?
No....it defies all possible logics.
Mankind survived a very long history, without resorting to the mythic
way of ancient stories.
And this world does not belong to the whites and Jews.
Many people of other races, in fact, majority of world population have
nothing to do with your god but prospered, without even heard of JC.
Yap
Who had the right to re-write the OT into a NT?
This shows however ridiculous, the theists could not defend this act
in re-writing of the original "god's word".
The changes was necessary in order to rid of the barbaric teaching and
evilness of the word of god.
Ron Dean
> On Oct 26, 3:03 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:32:22 -0400, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> We are programed by our DNA to age and die. But
>>>> can we be _re-programed_ not to do so
>>> No. Because we aren't programmed. We're hard wired.
>> >
>> Semantics in this case
>
> Not "Semantics"... beliefs. If he believes he is "hard wired" then he
> is and if you believe otherwise then you shall be able to shift from
> that faulty belief and change the wiring.
>
> the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an
> evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure
> thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.
> All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed can
>
> Modern science can�t explain it away except to call it the, �Placebo
> effect�. Pills, potions and even false surgeries have been conducted
> to study the power of belief. Endorphins begin the healing effects
> on those who simply believe, that is science fact. All that is needed
> or required is already with you and that power resides in your belief.
>
studying this subject, although a doubter, I thought that creationist
had the better arguement, however, I could not explain why a good,
benevolent and compassionate creator
would alter our DNA to cause us to age and die. Our single cell
ancestors were immortal. But when we evolved into multi-cellular
organisms we our somatic cells which make up our bodies became mortal.
>
>
Suzanne
>
Why do you assume not?
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Oct 25, 10:33 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 5:21 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > VSim wrote:
>
> > > > You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
>
> > > Of good and evil, that is.
>
> > That is the paradox. If good/evil equals obedience/disobedience as we
> > are told, then without knowledge of good.evil as the fruit would give,
> > we have no knowledge of obedience/disobedience.
>
> > TCross
>
> What are these nonsense?
>
in concise words that are loaded with meaning. Those words are not
nonsense.
>
> Human was thought of created and left to forbid eating fruits?
> A god of no sense to teach and guide, just to command?
> Do our present parents do that?
> No....it defies all possible logics.
>
Isaiah 55:8:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
saith the LORD."
>
> Mankind survived a very long history, without resorting to the mythic
> way of ancient stories.
>
>
> And this world does not belong to the whites and Jews.
> Many people of other races, in fact, majority of world population have
> nothing to do with your god but prospered, without even heard of JC.
>
that, so I'll let you off the hook. It's been said, by the way, that
the gospel of Jesus has been preached in every country.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
The New Testament is not a re-write of the Old Testament. It is formed
by the testimony of Jesus'
followers as he set it forth from his prayer in the
Garden of Gethsemane that people should be sanctified by God's word
(the Old Testament) plus
the testimony of his followers (the New Testament).
Here, I'll show you:
John 17:17; 19:
17. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
19. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word."
The latter verse applies to those of us that hear the word after the
time of the early followers of Christ, as well as those that heard the
followers' testimonies in that time.
Then the New Testament goes on to say that the word increased as the
testimony of the followers was spread:
Acts 6:7:
"And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples
multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests
were obedient to the faith."
Suzanne
Terry Cross
> On Oct 25, 10:33 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 5:21 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > VSim wrote:
>
> > > > You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
>
> > > Of good and evil, that is.
>
> > That is the paradox. If good/evil equals obedience/disobedience as we
> > are told, then without knowledge of good.evil as the fruit would give,
> > we have no knowledge of obedience/disobedience.
>
> > TCross
>
> What are these nonsense?
> Human was thought of created and left to forbid eating fruits?
> A god of no sense to teach and guide, just to command?
> Do our present parents do that?
> No....it defies all possible logics.
> Mankind survived a very long history, without resorting to the mythic
> way of ancient stories.
And what evidence have you for that? None?
TCross
William Hyde
>
> Buddha said, “He is able who thinks he is able..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
William Hyde
Robibnikoff
"Suzanne" <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eff53d8-54b1-4b64...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
No objective evidence god(s) exist.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Terry Cross
> "Suzanne" <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7eff53d8-54b1-4b64...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 2:34 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why did you assume the following:
> > 1)> That There was a god?
> > 2)> That it created anything?
> > 3)> That Adam and Eve were his creation?
> > 4)> That a tree was created?
> > 5)> That the fruits were anything but forbidden?
> > Doesn't this illustrate the stupid of your god?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Why do you assume not?
>
> >Suzanne
>
> No objective evidence god(s) exist.
But of course not. Objects have no knowledge of god and cannot
witness for him.
Does a raindrop speak of a cloud? Does a shadow speak of the sun?
Only to those who have prior knowledge of clouds and suns.
Does a cow-pie speak of a cow? Only to those who have prior knowledge
of cows.
You will find no footprints, no fingernail clippings, no fossilized
eggs, no tooth-marks, no fossilized bones from god.
All will appear "natural." Or if an exception is found, natural laws
will be invented to account, and all will again appear natural.
And "no objective evidence [of] god(s) [will] exist."
TCross
Howard Brazee
>
>We are programed by our DNA to age and die.
I'm not sure this is true. We're programmed to live long enough to
assist our children. And we're programmed to adapt. Maybe the
only way to live forever is to avoid changing (adapting). Except
we'd die from causes other than old age.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Free Lunch
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1ae96312-b9ca-4c6b...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
So you agree that all the religious claims about gods are completely
unfounded.
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:50:11 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> <1ae96312-b9ca-4c6b-b2e3-c5c57fa81...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
kind of evidence, as you well know.
TCross
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
> you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
> kind of evidence, as you well know.
It is the only kind that matters in any sort of rational discussion.
Terry Cross
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
> > you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
> > kind of evidence, as you well know.
>
> It is the only kind that matters in any sort of rational discussion.
So! In your universe, all discussion of art, aesthetics, patriotism,
purpose, emotions, loyalty, and anything else not visible on a
microscope slide -- is not "rational" ??
You must be a graduate of American public school system, with a
graduate degree in military zombie-ism. If it moves, kill it, etc.
And yet, on casual observation, you might be mistaken for a living
human being.
Your kind is a tragedy for all civilization.
TCross
David Johnston
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 8:35�pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
><seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>> > Of course not. � Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
>> > you call "objective" evidence. �But objective evidence is not the only
>> > kind of evidence, as you well know.
>>
>> � � � � It is the only kind that matters in any sort of rational discussion.
>
>
>So! In your universe, all discussion of art, aesthetics, patriotism,
>purpose, emotions, loyalty, and anything else not visible on a
>microscope slide -- is not "rational" ??
>
What makes you think there is no objective evidence for all those
things?
The Doctor
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 5:59=A0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:50:11 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
>> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <1ae96312-b9ca-4c6b-b2e3-c5c57fa81...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 26, 3:00=A0pm, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>> >> "Suzanne" <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>.
>> >> On Oct 26, 2:34 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Why did you assume the following:
>> >> > 1)> That There was a god?
>> >> > 2)> That it created anything?
>> >> > 3)> That Adam and Eve were his creation?
>> >> > 4)> That a tree was created?
>> >> > 5)> That the fruits were anything but forbidden?
>> >> > Doesn't this illustrate the stupid of your god?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >Why do you assume not?
>>
>> >> >Suzanne
>>
>> >> No objective evidence god(s) exist.
>>
>> >witness for him.
>>
>> >Does a raindrop speak of a cloud? =A0Does a shadow speak of the sun?
>> >Only to those who have prior knowledge of clouds and suns.
>>
>> >of cows.
>>
>> >You will find no footprints, no fingernail clippings, no fossilized
>> >eggs, no tooth-marks, no fossilized bones from god.
>>
>> >will be invented to account, and all will again appear natural.
>>
>> >And "no objective evidence [of] god(s) [will] exist."
>>
>> So you agree that all the religious claims about gods are completely
>> unfounded.
>
>
>Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
>you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
>kind of evidence, as you well know.
>
>TCross
Ever invited a Creation Scientist into the thread?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/
Terry Cross
> In article <173de3ae-0244-489f-97d9-69916d8d8...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
I have never met one on or off the 'Net.
TCross
Taemon
> Ever invited a Creation Scientist into the thread?
What is that?
T.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Oct 26, 8:35 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>>> Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
>>> you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
>>> kind of evidence, as you well know.
>> It is the only kind that matters in any sort of rational discussion.
>
>
> So! In your universe, all discussion of art, aesthetics, patriotism,
> purpose, emotions, loyalty, and anything else not visible on a
> microscope slide -- is not "rational" ??
Art is purely a matter of opinion; Aesthetics are a matter of opinion.
"God" is a phenomenon which, if extant, would be a physical reality, not
a matter of opinion.
Patriotism and purpose, emotions and loyalty, can be discussed on
rational grounds -- both their origin and their usefulness or lack
thereof. While emotions cannot necessarily be CONTROLLED rationally --
we are complex combinations of analytical intellect and animal instinct
with a lot of not-well-understood interactions -- they can be understood
and dealt with rationally.
>
> You must be a graduate of American public school system,
I am a SURVIVOR of the American public school system. It never taught
me anything.
with a
> graduate degree in military zombie-ism.
A graduate degree in Information Science, actually. Nobody OFFERED
Military Zombieism as a graduate course back in my day. Or if they did
no one offered scholarships on it.
Suzanne
> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> > Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> > What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day
> > 6. He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made
> > the things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The
> > trees, etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam,
> > to see what he would name them. He didn't make all of
> > the animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE
> > GARDEN.
>
> This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
> observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
> good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>
>
The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an
allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the
trees in the Garden of Eden were real
trees. God would not teach with a lie.
If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree.
Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as
being a real person.
>
> If the redactor was a much of a literalist as you are he
> would have made a bigger effort to harmonize the
> creation stories.
>
Your lack of understanding the harmony of the creation does not make
it suddenly be not so, though.
Pastor Dave told you the truth when he said that Gen. 2 is a
continuation of Gen. 1. Chapter 5 proves it.
Compare these:
Genesis 1:26-27:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them.
Compare with these:
Genesis 5:1-2:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God
created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female
created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the
day when they were created.
>
> But even if we take it allegorically, the stories are
> still somewhat contradictory. In the first story, to
> fill the earth and subdue it is a duty and a right. In
> the second story, a duty and a punishment.
>
It's hard to understand what you mean, but I suppose you are referring
to the fact that Eve would bear children in sorrow. That means that
she would have childbirth pains. It doesn't mean that she will be
sorry to give birth. Children are a blessing.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Oct 20, 6:41 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 3:29 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Many people of course, have opinions about this subject.
> > > But what's important is the Bible facts, amen? I mean,
> > > what it _actually_ says is what's important, is it not?
>
> > > Most people believe that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are
> > > two different stories about the Creation and that they
> > > have things being created in a different order and then
> > > of course, creeps in the story of "Lilith" and people
> > > assume that this was Adam's first wife and that she
> > > was created in Genesis 1 and that Eve was created
> > > in Genesis 2.
>
> > > But does this make sense? Let's examine it and see,
> > > because opinions do not equate to automatic fact. :)
>
> > > And you may want to have your Bible open while reading
> > > this, or e-Sword on your computer, or whatever Biblical
> > > text you use.
>
> > > Anyway... :)
>
> > > The problem here, is that these people misread the text,
> > > thinking that there is a contradiction between the two
> > > chapters and then scramble to find an explanation,
> > > based on that false conclusion.
>
> > > Knowing how to read, means looking at ALL of the words. :)
>
> > > Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
> > > much later. There were no chapter divisions in the
> > > original text. No verse divisions either. While
> > > unbelievers like to claim that chapter 2 was inserted
> > > later, they forget that it was actually one continuous
> > > text. We must also ask ourselves, is any writer
> > > stupid enough to write Genesis 1 and then directly
> > > contradict himself like this? Hello??? :)
>
> > > And even if as some people claim, chapter 2 was
> > > later inserted, you still have to be pretty stupid to
> > > put it there and have it directly contradict the text!
>
> > > And as I said, there were no chapter divisions, to
> > > be able to insert a new chapter between two others.
>
> > > Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
> > > Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
> > > What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day 6.
> > > He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made the
> > > things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The trees,
> > > etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam, to see
> > > what he would name them. He didn't make all of the
> > > animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE GARDEN.
> > > it says, IN THE GARDEN. Chapter 2 is discussing THE
> > > GARDEN, not the entire Earth!
>
> > > To reiterate in a bit more detail...
>
> > > If we examine the text carefully, we see that Genesis 1
> > > is an overview of the entire Creation.
>
> > > Genesis 2 expands on the sixth day. It describes the
> > > Creation in the Garden of Eden. Read the text CAREFULLY.
> > > It describes the creation of the garden and THEN the
> > > creation of the things within the garden. The animals,
> > > for example, were created in the garden. Not the original
> > > creation of animals, but simply another one, to be put
> > > in front of Adam, for him to name.
>
> > > Note: As I said, read Genesis 2:1-6 as a continuation
> > > of Genesis 1 and you'll see it's a better fit there.
>
> > > Note: Genesis 2:7, goes into the sixth day, in which
> > > man is created.
>
> > > Note: Genesis 2:8 shows that God made the Garden of
> > > Eden.
>
> > > Note: As I said, Genesis 2:9 is discussing the creation
> > > of plants, etc., IN THE GARDEN.
>
> > > How do we know this? Read Genesis 2:10. It clearly
> > > talks about the river going into the garden. Thus,
> > > Genesis 2:9 is surrounded (v8 + v10) by two statements
> > > about the garden.
>
> > > Note: It continues to discuss the garden and then, in v19,
> > > makes the statement about the creation of animals, but only
> > > for the purpose of seeing what Adam will name them and
> > > THEY ARE STILL IN THE GARDEN, which is where the context
> > > of the verses say that this takes place. All of this was on
> > > the sixth day, AFTER the rest of the world and life was
> > > already created.
>
> > > Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam.
> > > Adam saw God create. Eve didn't.
>
> > > The bottom line is that God's word does not contradict
> > > itself, period! And when someone thinks it does, then
> > > instead of jumping to conclusions and since God's word
> > > has proved itself to be true and accurate so many times,
> > > they should stop, realize that they're not as smart as God
> > > and _carefully_ examine the text, looking at each and
> > > every word slowly and with caution and respect and care
> > > and see where _they_ have erred, since God does _not_
> > > make mistakes and He is fully capable of preserving His
> > > truths for us to have!
>
> > > Amen and amen!!!
>
> > > --
>
> > > Pastor Dave
>
> > > The following is part of my auto-rotating
> > > sig file and not part of the message body.
>
> > > "Weakness of faith ought not be mistaken for falseness
> > > of promise." - Unknown
>
> He said the chapters were divisions and G2 was not inserted.
> Therefore the whole thing was written by the same authors.....but he
> did not touch on the contradiction, merely brushed it off.
>
Which thing are you speaking of, that you think is a contradiction?
>
> Then when the stupid god created the animals and plants in the tiny
> Middle-eastern land, how on earth other animals and plant species were
> flourishing else where 10s of thousands of miles away?
> If the naive pastor wish to justify his belief, he simply failed
> miserably.
>
> And weakness of faith creeps in from unfulfilled promises all the
> time, eventually leading to "no faith".- Hide quoted text -
>
God is not a genie in a bottle. He is someone that loves you and wants
to give you things that are best for you.
Too many people go to him though and say "gimmee gimmee." It would do
well with people to ask the Lord once in a while what he wants.
>
Suzanne
Terry Cross
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 8:35 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> >>> Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
> >>> you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
> >>> kind of evidence, as you well know.
> >> It is the only kind that matters in any sort of rational discussion.
>
> > So! In your universe, all discussion of art, aesthetics, patriotism,
> > purpose, emotions, loyalty, and anything else not visible on a
> > microscope slide -- is not "rational" ??
>
> Art is purely a matter of opinion;
If you mean that it is not objective, you are correct. My message is
leaking in.
> Aesthetics are a matter of opinion.
Again, not objective. Batting 1000 so far.
> "God" is a phenomenon which, if extant, would be a physical reality, not
> a matter of opinion.
God would definitely NOT be physical. You are thinking of the god-
statues in Conan stories, which is possibly where you get your
information.
> Patriotism and purpose, emotions and loyalty, can be discussed on
> rational grounds -- both their origin and their usefulness or lack
> thereof.
"On rational grounds" is a designation too sloppy for application.
You can put Astrology "on rational grounds" with volumes of look-up
charts, computers, telescopes, and graphs, and you still would not
have a "rational" subject.
> While emotions cannot necessarily be CONTROLLED rationally --
What does "not necessarily" mean in a rational discussion? Is that an
affirmation or denial?
> we are complex combinations of analytical intellect and animal instinct
> with a lot of not-well-understood interactions -- they can be understood
> and dealt with rationally.
Waffle-speak does not qualify. So far, you say they are both "no-well-
understood" and "can be understood." One of those may be true, but
not both.
> > You must be a graduate of American public school system,
>
> I am a SURVIVOR of the American public school system. It never taught
> me anything.
>
> > with a
> > graduate degree in military zombie-ism.
>
> A graduate degree in Information Science, actually. Nobody OFFERED
> Military Zombieism as a graduate course back in my day. Or if they did
> no one offered scholarships on it.
Military zombie-ism was always available to anyone, but not as highly
developed as it is now.
TCross
Taemon
> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an
> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the
> trees in the Garden of Eden were real
> trees. God would not teach with a lie.
> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree.
> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as
> being a real person.
You have to admit that this is rather funny. Or it would be, if I believed
the poster to be serious. Cute!
T.
Robibnikoff
"Suzanne" <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>God is not a genie in a bottle.
Of course not - They don't exist either.
Free Lunch
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<0ad17f12-f1e8-4be0...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
You enjoy misleading people.
Free Lunch
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in
<hc5vtv$k97$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>:
Anyone, no matter how deluded, is invited to involve themselves in any
thread here. Those who sell the fraudulent doctrine of Creation Science
tend to run away because their doctrines are so obviously false and
there are so many people who can point out the falsehoods that hold the
sham together.
Free Lunch
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<173de3ae-0244-489f...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
excuses for making unsupportable claims by asserting that there is some
magical kind of mystical or subjective evidence. You've never even tried
to demonstrate that your claim is correct.
Hannele
> On Oct 19, 5:59 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
>> > Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2 (v7).
>> > What you'll find, is that God made man. This is day
>> > 6. He planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made
>> > the things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The
>> > trees, etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam,
>> > to see what he would name them. He didn't make all of
>> > the animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE
>> > GARDEN.
>>
>> This is weaseling. You will get out of it easier by
>> observing that "the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
>> good and evil" is pretty obviously an allegorical tree.
>>
> He was not weaseling.
>>
> The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not an
> allegorical tree. It was a real tree, just like all the
> trees in the Garden of Eden were real
> trees. God would not teach with a lie.
> If he says it is a tree, then it is a tree.
You are posting to an atheist group. Atheists don't believe in any gods,
so they also don't believe in your god. If you want to make us think like
you do, you've got to convince us, and talking about your god as if it
should be real to us won't do it. Do you have any certifiable facts for us?
> Adam was also a real person because he is listed in the genealogies as
> being a real person.
>>
>> If the redactor was a much of a literalist as you are he
>> would have made a bigger effort to harmonize the
>> creation stories.
>>
> Your lack of understanding the harmony of the creation does not make
> it suddenly be not so, though.
> Pastor Dave told you the truth when he said that Gen. 2 is a
> continuation of Gen. 1. Chapter 5 proves it.
> Compare these:
> Genesis 1:26-27:
> 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
> let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
> the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
> creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
> him; male and female created he them.
>
> Compare with these:
> Genesis 5:1-2:
> 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God
> created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female
> created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the
> day when they were created.
Don't quote the bible to atheists like it is a text to be taken seriously,
for us it is of no more worth than any fairytale or just-so story.
>>
>> But even if we take it allegorically, the stories are
>> still somewhat contradictory. In the first story, to
>> fill the earth and subdue it is a duty and a right. In
>> the second story, a duty and a punishment.
>>
> It's hard to understand what you mean, but I suppose you are referring
> to the fact that Eve would bear children in sorrow. That means that
> she would have childbirth pains. It doesn't mean that she will be
> sorry to give birth. Children are a blessing.
I love my children and I'm not sorry I gave birth to them. But blessing
implies god(desse)s, which I don't believe in. Do you want to rephrase
that last sentence?
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Hannele
wrote:
>
> "Suzanne" <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
>> God is not a genie in a bottle.
>
> Of course not - They don't exist either.
So it is exactly like a genie in a bottle. :-D
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Wayne Throop
: So it is exactly like a genie in a bottle. :-D
That would seem to imply that Sherlock Holmes is
exactly like Sam Spade. And that seems pretty unlikely.
That is, unlikely that anybody would mistake the one for the other.
Well... unless Sherlock were disguising himself as Sam.
He's supposed to be very good with disguises, so good he can
fool Watson in face-to-face conversation. Similarly, God
could probably disguise Himself as a burning bush... or a genie.
The burning bush disguise would probably have worked, at least
until he broke character and spoke.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:38:14 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> <173de3ae-0244-489f-97d9-69916d8d8...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
Do you allege that if another person were standing in your shoes
living your life, that person would make the same decisions you do?
If not, why not?
TCross
Alex W.
> "Suzanne" <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
>>God is not a genie in a bottle.
>
> Of course not - They don't exist either.
Sure they do.
Tanqueray, Beefeater, Gordon's, Bombay Sapphire ....
Mitchell Holman
d98c54...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
So God created man and woman at the same time.
Doesn't that contradict the following?
Eve created alone.
Gen:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made
he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Robibnikoff
"Hannele" <han...@lycos.nl> wrote in message
news:op.u2hev...@laptophannele.lan...
Ah! I stand corrected! :)
Yap
> On Oct 26, 2:34 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > The fruit of knowledge meant they instantly learned *everything* about
> > > > > > > good and evil, which for some reason God did not want. He wanted them
> > > > > > > to follow His commands one step at the time.
>
> > > > > > The only additional knowledge acquired by Adam and Eve was the depth
> > > > > > of misery through the curse.
>
> > > > > They did find out that they were naked.
>
> > > > In Judaism, that is "evil." Sigmund Freud psychoanalyzed the
> > > > Jewishness from multiple rabbinical ancestors. Where did you think he
> > > > got all that garbage?
>
> > > > > Besides, if it's the fruit of
> > > > > knowledge of good and evil, this is what it's supposed to do, isn't
> > > > > it ? To give you all knowledge of good and evil.
>
> > > > Exactly.
>
> > > > > > Supposedly, as a Son of Adam
> > > > > > ("Adamite"), you have all Adam's knowledge,
>
> > > > > Where exactly does the Bible say this ?
>
> > > > The curse of Adam is attributed to every man that he shall till the
> > > > earth by the seat of his brow, and curse of Eve to every woman that
> > > > she shall "bring forth children in pain."
>
> > > > > > > What would have happened if Adam had first eaten from the tree of
> > > > > > > immortality (which he had no interdiction to) and then from that of
> > > > > > > knowledge ?
>
> > > > > > Adam was already immortal.
>
> > > > > Again, where exactly does the Bible say this ?
> > > > > Anyway, this is just a minor point.
>
> > > > Don't know. Wasn't Randy saying that death did not enter the Garden
> > > > until the Fall? Maybe I misunderstood.
>
> > > > > > The tree was "the tree of knowledge of
> > > > > > good and evil," not immorality.
>
> > > > > I said immortality, not immorality.
>
> > > > Thanks for the correction. ;-)
>
> > > > TCross
>
> > > The discussion has gotten somewhat too confusing for my taste.
> > > Coming back to what you said, looks like not having eaten the fruit is
> > > not an excuse for disobeying God. And obviously not all descendants of
> > > Adam inherited his knowledge, more precisely none of them did (except
> > > maybe for the prophets), since Adam, after eating the fruit, knew
> > > everything about good and evil and supposedly never did any other bad
> > > thing afterwards, which is definitely not true also for his
> > > descendants.
> > > The idea is, God could have made Adam perfect (by means of the fruit
> > > or by just wishing it) and did not. Why ? Don't ask me. But since Adam
> > > was not perfect, his wrong deeds deserved punishment. That's just how
> > > it is.
> > > You could argue just as well that since Adam was a creation of God, he
> > > didn't deserve punishment for anything he did but God deserved it. But
> > > that's not how it is. You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
>
> > Why did you assume the following:
> > 1)> That There was a god?
> > 2)> That it created anything?
> > 3)> That Adam and Eve were his creation?
> > 4)> That a tree was created?
> > 5)> That the fruits were anything but forbidden?
> > Doesn't this illustrate the stupid of your god?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Why do you assume not?
hands down?
>
> Suzanne
Yap
> On Oct 26, 2:50 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 10:33 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 23, 5:21 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > VSim wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
>
>
> > > That is the paradox. If good/evil equals obedience/disobedience as we
> > > are told, then without knowledge of good.evil as the fruit would give,
> > > we have no knowledge of obedience/disobedience.
>
> > > TCross
>
> > What are these nonsense?
>
> Terry is an unusual person. Terry has the ability to answer something
> in concise words that are loaded with meaning. Those words are not
> nonsense.
No. Terry is as an ordinary ignorant and naive person the same as you,
nothing unusual.
>
> > Human was thought of created and left to forbid eating fruits?
> > A god of no sense to teach and guide, just to command?
> > Do our present parents do that?
> > No....it defies all possible logics.
>
> Do ya think: Get a load of this:
> Isaiah 55:8:
> "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
> saith the LORD."
Wow, if you ever is capable to think, you won't follow the evil
teaching contained in the scripture.
>
> > Mankind survived a very long history, without resorting to the mythic
> > way of ancient stories.
>
> Apparently not, since man has known about God since the beginning.
Your assertion does not make any sense.
Simply, a child is born even without the ability to recognize his own
mother until a few months old.
And, in the beginning, people are concerned about their stomach and
weather. Were there time for anything else?
>
> > And this world does not belong to the whites and Jews.
> > Many people of other races, in fact, majority of world population have
> > nothing to do with your god but prospered, without even heard of JC.
>
> I'd tell you to prove all your assertions, but I know you can't do
> that, so I'll let you off the hook. It's been said, by the way, that
> the gospel of Jesus has been preached in every country.
I don't have to prove my words at all, since we are equipped with
common sense.
You do wish to spread the lies to all corners, but you are taking the
intelligence of people for granted.
You will see atheism is a disease within, to destroy the immoral lies
and fairy tales.
>
> Suzanne
Pastor Dave
<douhe...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>Why look at trivial sequence issues for biblical contradictions? *
>
>What about "Turn the other cheek" vs. "eye for an eye"?
>
>Basically, you have a fire and brimstone Old Testament, with the New
>Testament preaching something entirely different. Vengeful old school
>deity vs. nice new age deity (except for those pesky Temple sales
>dudes). Nothing subtle or allegorical.
>
>That dichotomy is something Christians understand quite well,
>apparently, as an impressive amount are fans of the death penalty even
>while they preach peace and love. To put it differently, 80+% of
>Americans believe in God, and the death penalty is generally deeply
>disliked in less religious Western countries. Yup, bet Jesus would
>feel right at home in Texas.
Yes folks, when faced with the fact that Genesis 1 & 2
do not contradict each other, make sure to snip it all
and attack the faith. That'll prove your honesty!
<chuckle>
Yap
> On Oct 26, 3:01 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 2:22 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 1:45 am, DouhetSukd <douhets...@gmail.com> wrote:> Why look at trivial sequence issues for biblical contradictions? *
>
> > > > What about "Turn the other cheek" vs. "eye for an eye"?
>
> > > > Basically, you have a fire and brimstone Old Testament, with the New
> > > > Testament preaching something entirely different. Vengeful old school
> > > > deity vs. nice new age deity (except for those pesky Temple sales
>
>
> > > > dudes). Nothing subtle or allegorical.
>
> > > > That dichotomy is something Christians understand quite well,
> > > > apparently, as an impressive amount are fans of the death penalty even
> > > > while they preach peace and love. To put it differently, 80+% of
> > > > Americans believe in God, and the death penalty is generally deeply
> > > > disliked in less religious Western countries. Yup, bet Jesus would
> > > > feel right at home in Texas.
>
> > > > regret, as a belief in afterlife would be nicely comforting. The
> > > > reason I wonder about Christians is because few of them seem to have
> > > > internalized Christ's teachings and many are all about Hell instead.
> > > > I deeply respect "nice" Christians, but the rest amuse me.
>
> > > Real Christianity is simply someone's putting their trust in Jesus
> > > Christ and him alone for salvation. None of us can be perfect, so
> > > there is no need in trying to be perfect, because that won't earn
> > > salvation. "Believing,"
> > > is not a matter of trying to conjure up an image that
> > > you believe, so much as it is a decision that one makes
> > > to put their trust in Christ to be the payment for all of their sins.
> > > With that decision to trust in what Christ did
> > > on the cross to take our place to pay the penalty for our sins, we
> > > decide to turn to the Lord to lead our lives.
> > > That turning is called "repentance," and is not the straight-jacket of
> > > trying to be good in order to earn
> > > salvation, but it simply means that you turn to God in faith to lead
> > > you in your life. The word "repentance," simply means that you
> > > redirect your pathway in life to
> > > allow the Lord to govern your life and to lead you. It is not a
> > > "feeling" it is an action and decision to trust, and as best you can
> > > do, to accept his lead and do what he leads you to do. As a person
> > > follows, his faith will grow
> > > stronger. He will know what is the right thing by reading the Bible,
> > > and also by the inward influence of the Holy Spirit who has come to
> > > live inside of him. Salvation is just that simple. You plug into "I
> > > can't be good enough to earn my way into Heaven, so I'm going to place
> > > my trust in Jesus who already paid for my ticket to get there, if I
> > > receive it." and then turning to him for guidance, instruction,
> > > comfort, and intervention in your life. When one makes this decision,
> > > he is not going to tell you to now go climb Mt. Everest. He will say
> > > simple things to you daily as the day unfolds, such as "write your
> > > Grandmother. Do the dishes. Go to work. Milk the cows, gather the
> > > eggs, invite people over, read 30 minutes in the Bible" and as you do
> > > these things, he will give you peace. Sometimes things can seem hard,
> > > like if you lose your job or something like that, but he calls you to
> > > trust him through that, and when you get to the other side of it and
> > > get a new job, you will have stretched your faith and grown
> > > spiritually to where you will trust him more and more. It's just
> > > simple faith, one event after another, that we will follow as a
> > > Christian.
>
> > > Some of those things above that I described, you do already because
> > > your own inner conscience tells you to do them, but after you have put
> > > your trust in Christ for salvation, when you do those things, you do
> > > them with a new motivation, and that makes them easier to do.
> > > You get a sort of "mechanical advantage," from the fact that your life
> > > has changed gears, just like you change gears when riding on a 10
> > > speed bicycle, when you are climbing a hill. Faith is not going by
> > > feelings, it's trusting.
>
> > > > On another note, I read an historical analysis of the New Testament
> > > > gospels and the author, a historian, did a pretty good job convincing
> > > > me they were actually _quite_ coherent with each other, if considered
> > > > as historical records of the same events written at different times by
> > > > different people. He managed to kind of tease out what seemed to be
> > > > little author "embellishments" by comparing the different versions
> > > > contents to each other.
>
> > > > I think it may have been "Jesus", by Michael Smith, who usually does
> > > > Roman & Ancient history. He never did say if he was a believer or
> > > > not, something quite refreshing. Can look it up.
>
> > > > * I understand that if one book says A>B and the other says A<B then
> > > > that is a pretty stark technical contradiction. IMHO it misses the
> > > > big picture of nice vs. vengeful.
>
> > > I'm not sure if you are talking about the contrast of the Old
> > > Testament to that of the New Testament here, since you mention
> > > vengeance vs. nice, but the nice does show up in the lives of the
> > > patriarchs in the O.T. when they put their trust in the Lord to be
> > > their Savior.
> > > They trusted in the promised Messiah looking forward to the cross,
> > > while today we trust Him, looking back at the cross. For example, when
> > > Jacob wrestled with the
> > > "angel," he was troubled about facing Esau again, and his sin from
> > > having tricked Esau out to the birthright and blessing troubled him.
> > > It doesn't say there what transaction was made exactly, but later in
> > > Jacob's
> > > life, he referred back to that time as being the time
> > > when all of his iniquity was taken away. That means
> > > that his sins were taken away, as in his having put his trust in the
> > > Lord to be his Savior. Jacob's name had
> > > been changed by the Lord to be "Israel." Even though the Bible
> > > continues to call him Jacob for identity purposes, the phrase "the
> > > Holy One of Israel" doesn't refer to all the Israelite people, but to
> > > the one whom
> > > Jacob put his trust in, that being the pre-incarnate Word of God which
> > > John 1:1-3 tells about who was made flesh and dwelt on earth, which is
> > > Christ. By the time that Jacob continued on his journey, he was amazed
> > > to find that the Lord had changed his brother's heart and that he was
> > > gladly received by him.
>
> > > Suzanne
>
> > Who had the right to re-write the OT into a NT?
> > This shows however ridiculous, the theists could not defend this act
> > in re-writing of the original "god's word".
> > The changes was necessary in order to rid of the barbaric teaching and
> > evilness of the word of god.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The New Testament is not a re-write of the Old Testament. It is formed
> by the testimony of Jesus'
> followers as he set it forth from his prayer in the
> Garden of Gethsemane that people should be sanctified by God's word
> (the Old Testament) plus
> the testimony of his followers (the New Testament).
Why would these monkeys not throw out one version and stick with NT?
Are you sure your above assertion is true?
> Here, I'll show you:
Why would you not having your own thoughts, except for borrowing
ancient lies?
Doesn't our modern knowledge mean anything to you?
>
> John 17:17; 19:
> 17. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
> 19. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
> believe on me through their word."
What happen when I told you I am speaking the truth?
If you reject me, why would you believe those irresponsible
fabrications?
>
> The latter verse applies to those of us that hear the word after the
> time of the early followers of Christ, as well as those that heard the
> followers' testimonies in that time.
Testimonies are OK, but claims of supernatural powers and god-like
abilities are white lies !
>
> Then the New Testament goes on to say that the word increased as the
> testimony of the followers was spread:
You have not put forward reasons as to why OT was replaced by NT?
>
> Acts 6:7:
> "And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples
> multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests
> were obedient to the faith."
A faith is a blind following, without the need for reasons and logics.
Human are not the species of animal capable of such.
Those who did, are without brain cells, if you agree with me.
>
> Suzanne
Yap
> On Oct 26, 12:50 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 10:33 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 23, 5:21 pm, VSim <intel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > VSim wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to obey God without eating any fruit.
>
> > > > Of good and evil, that is.
>
> > > That is the paradox. If good/evil equals obedience/disobedience as we
> > > are told, then without knowledge of good.evil as the fruit would give,
> > > we have no knowledge of obedience/disobedience.
>
> > > TCross
>
> > What are these nonsense?
> > A god of no sense to teach and guide, just to command?
> > Do our present parents do that?
> > No....it defies all possible logics.
> > way of ancient stories.
>
What evidence is required when my reasoning is based on common sense?
But of course you have no such ability and therefore asking for
evidence.
When you had your diner, would you allow me to cut open your stomach
to verify the food?
>
> TCross
Yap
> On Oct 26, 5:59 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:50:11 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > <1ae96312-b9ca-4c6b-b2e3-c5c57fa81...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >On Oct 26, 3:00 pm, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> > >> "Suzanne" <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:7eff53d8-54b1-4b64...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> No objective evidence god(s) exist.
>
> > >But of course not. Objects have no knowledge of god and cannot
> > >witness for him.
>
> > >Does a raindrop speak of a cloud? Does a shadow speak of the sun?
> > >Only to those who have prior knowledge of clouds and suns.
>
> > >Does a cow-pie speak of a cow? Only to those who have prior knowledge
> > >of cows.
>
> > >You will find no footprints, no fingernail clippings, no fossilized
> > >eggs, no tooth-marks, no fossilized bones from god.
>
> > >All will appear "natural." Or if an exception is found, natural laws
> > >will be invented to account, and all will again appear natural.
>
> > >And "no objective evidence [of] god(s) [will] exist."
>
> > So you agree that all the religious claims about gods are completely
> > unfounded.
>
> Of course not. Religious experiences are not based on objects, what
> you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
> kind of evidence, as you well know.
An objective evidence is what you and us can agree on a subject or
object.
>
> TCross
Yap
> On Oct 26, 8:35 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > > you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
> > > kind of evidence, as you well know.
>
>
> So! In your universe, all discussion of art, aesthetics, patriotism,
> purpose, emotions, loyalty, and anything else not visible on a
> microscope slide -- is not "rational" ??
subjects.
But there are indirect evidence that can be examined or verified.
>
> You must be a graduate of American public school system, with a
> graduate degree in military zombie-ism. If it moves, kill it, etc.
> And yet, on casual observation, you might be mistaken for a living
> human being.
>
> Your kind is a tragedy for all civilization.
>
> TCross
Yap
> In article <173de3ae-0244-489f-97d9-69916d8d8...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 26, 5:59=A0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:50:11 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> >> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> <1ae96312-b9ca-4c6b-b2e3-c5c57fa81...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> "Suzanne" <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >.
> >> >> On Oct 26, 2:34 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Why did you assume the following:
> >> >> > 1)> That There was a god?
> >> >> > 2)> That it created anything?
> >> >> > 3)> That Adam and Eve were his creation?
> >> >> > 4)> That a tree was created?
> >> >> > 5)> That the fruits were anything but forbidden?
> >> >> > Doesn't this illustrate the stupid of your god?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >Why do you assume not?
>
> >> >> >Suzanne
>
> >> >> No objective evidence god(s) exist.
>
> >> >witness for him.
>
> >> >Does a raindrop speak of a cloud? =A0Does a shadow speak of the sun?
> >> >Only to those who have prior knowledge of clouds and suns.
>
> >> >of cows.
>
> >> >You will find no footprints, no fingernail clippings, no fossilized
> >> >eggs, no tooth-marks, no fossilized bones from god.
>
> >> >will be invented to account, and all will again appear natural.
>
> >> >And "no objective evidence [of] god(s) [will] exist."
>
> >> So you agree that all the religious claims about gods are completely
> >> unfounded.
>
> >you call "objective" evidence. But objective evidence is not the only
> >kind of evidence, as you well know.
>
>
> Ever invited a Creation Scientist into the thread?
front of the public forum.
Not a good sight.
> --
> Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
> God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!http://twitter.com/rootnl2khttp://www.myspace.com/502748630
> For the latest World News go tohttp://www.cuttingedge.org/