Bible Questions

[Derideo_Te]

Another question!!!

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Does this mean Eden was in heaven? If it was so dangerous for Adam and Eve to have knowlege of good and evil, they were then no longer "pure" of spirit as God originally intended? Did I make sense??

Side question: God did not name Adam and Eve. It doesn't say he named them, so I guess Adam chose that name for himself, then chose Eve's name as well?

No. There were two trees in the Garden. The Tree of Life and the Tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve were able to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Life as long as they were obedient to God. When they ate of the fruit of knowledge, they became mortal. They learned the difference between good and evil, but if they had eaten of the friut of the Tree of life at this point, they would have been made immortal in their sins. They wouldn't have had a period of repentence. They would forever be cut off from the presence of God and never obtain Eternal Life with no chance of Redemption.

Instead, God provided them with time to repent and provide them with an Atonement. So when they do obtain immortality, they would not be in their fallen state.

Unless you have been tasked with authoring a further revised bible, your re-writing of the current bibles is flawed.

The tree in the genesis fable is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The part you left out, "... of good and evil" is important because the gods had already created evil prior to *poofing* A&E into existence. Have you ever actually studied the genesis fable?

Per the existing fable (not your revised version), god gave A&E (not the cable station), neither the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them...

Simply remember the foundations of your Theism--The curse of all humanity for the actions of the "first" man and woman to use their free will to gain knowledge-- The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Ever notice that in the Genesis story Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions (we don't get the "Oh, yeah, by the way, there is a Hell, Okaay?" information until waaay too late)? Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?

The fallacy that knowledge is somehow "evil" (even if it is only the knowing the difference between good and evil) is the foundation for a lot of the anti-science crusades by the creationists. To equate knowledge with sin is ludicrous. The only actual "sin" was disobedience. Condemning the entire human race for all eternity because of the foolish act of a single ignorant individual is arbitrary and capricious to say the least.

The concept that everyone is "born a sinner" and requires "redemption" is ridiculous. The reality is that everyone is born an atheist and has to be taught to believe in fables like Adam and Eve.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've found that Christians tend to view any questioning of their faith as an immediate attack.

Look at the reaction of the Christians in this thread to any requirement for facts to support all the varying interpretations of how scripture is to be viewed. There's an apparent siege mentality with the religiously insane types as represented by koshergirl being the wannabe suicide bomber.

It is true, some Christians defend their fiath in an unpleasant manner which is unfortunate, and I am sure it grieves the Holy Spirit for nobody will be drawn to God in that kind of exchange.

However, you cannot blame Christians for not feeding you links, knowing that you routinely dismiss them as bogus, most especially when you back up your accusations with little or nothing more than your own (wrong) opinion. It's just the way it usually is.

Technically it is unchristian to do so. Foxfyre must be credited for being civil in the defense of his/her faith even if he/she doesn't comprehend many aspects of how it impinges on the lives of nonbelievers. Nothing is served by vitriol except to harden the positions of each side. Both sides must be open to understanding the valid points of the other. Neither side is either completely right nor completely wrong. Until Christians are willing to acknowledge that they have no "God given right" to impose their beliefs on everyone else and Atheists acknowledge that Christians have the right to their beliefs this debate will never be resolved.

I prefer to think that neither Christians nor Atheists have any ABILITY to impose their beliefs on anybody else, and, under the freedoms afforded by our Constitution, nobody should be able to use the government to require us to go through the motions either. So if you, a non believer, hear my prayer, it harms you in no way. Nor does your affirming your own conviction that there is no God and you simply are unable to believe harm me in any way to hear that.

It is only when either side presumes to use the government to force the other to behave according to a specific belief that we begin to run into abridgment of rights. And when either of us accuse the other of being delusional or ignorant or fanatical or misguided or terrible people or any other, both the accuser and accused are diminished by the negativity and ill will.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Gracie, Even in spirit form we are recognized. Spirits have vocal chords, memory, tongues, eyes to see. They can reason, regret, get thirsty.
In Luke 16: 19-31 we get a glimpse of how spirits can interact. If you want to know what it is like to be dead and in Spirit form, look at yourself in the mirror, and then just close your eyes. You can't see you now, but nothing else has changed. You still know who you are.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is true, some Christians defend their fiath in an unpleasant manner which is unfortunate, and I am sure it grieves the Holy Spirit for nobody will be drawn to God in that kind of exchange.

However, you cannot blame Christians for not feeding you links, knowing that you routinely dismiss them as bogus, most especially when you back up your accusations with little or nothing more than your own (wrong) opinion. It's just the way it usually is.

Technically it is unchristian to do so. Foxfyre must be credited for being civil in the defense of his/her faith even if he/she doesn't comprehend many aspects of how it impinges on the lives of nonbelievers. Nothing is served by vitriol except to harden the positions of each side. Both sides must be open to understanding the valid points of the other. Neither side is either completely right nor completely wrong. Until Christians are willing to acknowledge that they have no "God given right" to impose their beliefs on everyone else and Atheists acknowledge that Christians have the right to their beliefs this debate will never be resolved.

I prefer to think that neither Christians nor Atheists have any ABILITY to impose their beliefs on anybody else, and, under the freedoms afforded by our Constitution, nobody should be able to use the government to require us to go through the motions either. So if you, a non believer, hear my prayer, it harms you in no way. Nor does your affirming your own conviction that there is no God and you simply are unable to believe harm me in any way to hear that.

It is only when either side presumes to use the government to force the other to behave according to a specific belief that we begin to run into abridgment of rights. And when either of us accuse the other of being delusional or ignorant or fanatical or misguided or terrible people or any other, both the accuser and accused are diminished by the negativity and ill will.

We are mostly on the same page here.

Where we differ is on what constitutes the use of government to force others to behave according to their beliefs. Those are primarily social issues and as long as both sides respect the rights of the individual rather than try to impose their own beliefs there should be no problems.

Finally the use of negative accusations does nothing to promote dialogue and does weaken the accuser's position. These topics do engender strong feelings and it is up to both sides to not allow them to deflect attention from the issue at hand. Easier said than done and all are fallible so being willing to forgive and move on is the path to take in my opinion. After all if Bishop Tutu could convince an entire nation to do it there is no reason why we can't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've found that Christians tend to view any questioning of their faith as an immediate attack.

Look at the reaction of the Christians in this thread to any requirement for facts to support all the varying interpretations of how scripture is to be viewed. There's an apparent siege mentality with the religiously insane types as represented by koshergirl being the wannabe suicide bomber.

It is true, some Christians defend their fiath in an unpleasant manner which is unfortunate, and I am sure it grieves the Holy Spirit for nobody will be drawn to God in that kind of exchange.

However, you cannot blame Christians for not feeding you links, knowing that you routinely dismiss them as bogus, most especially when you back up your accusations with little or nothing more than your own (wrong) opinion. It's just the way it usually is.

Technically it is unchristian to do so. Foxfyre must be credited for being civil in the defense of his/her faith even if he/she doesn't comprehend many aspects of how it impinges on the lives of nonbelievers. Nothing is served by vitriol except to harden the positions of each side. Both sides must be open to understanding the valid points of the other. Neither side is either completely right nor completely wrong. Until Christians are willing to acknowledge that they have no "God given right" to impose their beliefs on everyone else and Atheists acknowledge that Christians have the right to their beliefs this debate will never be resolved.

Technically it is un-Christian to defend my faith in a manner you consider rude? Where the frack did you get that idea? Jesus routinely insulted people who challenged him, comparing them to whitewashed tombs, calling them hypocrites, and pointing out that people who demanded that others follow their version of religion only did so to score political points.

When I step up to defend my faith I use the full arsenal of weapons I have, including being insulting and rude, That way you end up looking like the whiny little bitch you are by complaining about me calling you names.

Feel free to act like a whiny little bitch now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. There were two trees in the Garden. The Tree of Life and the Tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve were able to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Life as long as they were obedient to God. When they ate of the fruit of knowledge, they became mortal. They learned the difference between good and evil, but if they had eaten of the friut of the Tree of life at this point, they would have been made immortal in their sins. They wouldn't have had a period of repentence. They would forever be cut off from the presence of God and never obtain Eternal Life with no chance of Redemption.

Instead, God provided them with time to repent and provide them with an Atonement. So when they do obtain immortality, they would not be in their fallen state.

Unless you have been tasked with authoring a further revised bible, your re-writing of the current bibles is flawed.

The tree in the genesis fable is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The part you left out, "... of good and evil" is important because the gods had already created evil prior to *poofing* A&E into existence. Have you ever actually studied the genesis fable?

Per the existing fable (not your revised version), god gave A&E (not the cable station), neither the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them...

Simply remember the foundations of your Theism--The curse of all humanity for the actions of the "first" man and woman to use their free will to gain knowledge-- The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Ever notice that in the Genesis story Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions (we don't get the "Oh, yeah, by the way, there is a Hell, Okaay?" information until waaay too late)? Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?

The fallacy that knowledge is somehow "evil" (even if it is only the knowing the difference between good and evil) is the foundation for a lot of the anti-science crusades by the creationists. To equate knowledge with sin is ludicrous. The only actual "sin" was disobedience. Condemning the entire human race for all eternity because of the foolish act of a single ignorant individual is arbitrary and capricious to say the least.

The concept that everyone is "born a sinner" and requires "redemption" is ridiculous. The reality is that everyone is born an atheist and has to be taught to believe in fables like Adam and Eve.

The drooling idiot speaketh.

The fallacy is your assertion that knowledge, in and of itself, was considered evil. The idea is that humans were created innocent, like children, and that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was, for a period of time, forbidden. Despite the generations of idiots that teach that God put the tree there as a test there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that He intended to deny them that knowledge for all time, anymore than a parent who, when a 2 year old asks about where babies comes from, intends to forever deny that child knowledge about sex and reproduction if they do not give a full and complete answer to the question.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't smart enough to discuss religion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is true, some Christians defend their fiath in an unpleasant manner which is unfortunate, and I am sure it grieves the Holy Spirit for nobody will be drawn to God in that kind of exchange.

However, you cannot blame Christians for not feeding you links, knowing that you routinely dismiss them as bogus, most especially when you back up your accusations with little or nothing more than your own (wrong) opinion. It's just the way it usually is.

Technically it is unchristian to do so. Foxfyre must be credited for being civil in the defense of his/her faith even if he/she doesn't comprehend many aspects of how it impinges on the lives of nonbelievers. Nothing is served by vitriol except to harden the positions of each side. Both sides must be open to understanding the valid points of the other. Neither side is either completely right nor completely wrong. Until Christians are willing to acknowledge that they have no "God given right" to impose their beliefs on everyone else and Atheists acknowledge that Christians have the right to their beliefs this debate will never be resolved.

Technically it is un-Christian to defend my faith in a manner you consider rude? Where the frack did you get that idea? Jesus routinely insulted people who challenged him, comparing them to whitewashed tombs, calling them hypocrites, and pointing out that people who demanded that others follow their version of religion only did so to score political points.

When I step up to defend my faith I use the full arsenal of weapons I have, including being insulting and rude, That way you end up looking like the whiny little bitch you are by complaining about me calling you names.

Feel free to act like a whiny little bitch now.

James 3:9-13

"Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom."


1st Peter 1:14-16

"As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."


1st Thessalonians 5:21-22

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil."


Proverbs 10:31-31

"The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out.
The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness."


Matthew 12:35-36

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."


Matthew 15:11
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."


Colossians 3:8

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth."


Ephesians 4:29-30

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."


1st Corinthians 10:31-33

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

 

[Derideo_Te]

Unless you have been tasked with authoring a further revised bible, your re-writing of the current bibles is flawed.

The tree in the genesis fable is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The part you left out, "... of good and evil" is important because the gods had already created evil prior to *poofing* A&E into existence. Have you ever actually studied the genesis fable?

Per the existing fable (not your revised version), god gave A&E (not the cable station), neither the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them...

Simply remember the foundations of your Theism--The curse of all humanity for the actions of the "first" man and woman to use their free will to gain knowledge-- The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Ever notice that in the Genesis story Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions (we don't get the "Oh, yeah, by the way, there is a Hell, Okaay?" information until waaay too late)? Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?

The fallacy that knowledge is somehow "evil" (even if it is only the knowing the difference between good and evil) is the foundation for a lot of the anti-science crusades by the creationists. To equate knowledge with sin is ludicrous. The only actual "sin" was disobedience. Condemning the entire human race for all eternity because of the foolish act of a single ignorant individual is arbitrary and capricious to say the least.

The concept that everyone is "born a sinner" and requires "redemption" is ridiculous. The reality is that everyone is born an atheist and has to be taught to believe in fables like Adam and Eve.

The drooling idiot speaketh.

The fallacy is your assertion that knowledge, in and of itself, was considered evil. The idea is that humans were created innocent, like children, and that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was, for a period of time, forbidden.

Substantiation?

Despite the generations of idiots that teach that God put the tree there as a test there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that He intended to deny them that knowledge for all time, anymore than a parent who, when a 2 year old asks about where babies comes from, intends to forever deny that child knowledge about sex and reproduction if they do not give a full and complete answer to the question.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't smart enough to discuss religion.

So if Adam and Eve were mere "2 year old" babies then why did your "loving" God condemn them as adults to eternal damnation?

 

[Lipush]

I got a bible from my sister as a gift. I am going to start reading it soon and have started briefly..little at a time. To mentally digest, so to speak. I am spiritual but the bible itself I don't take much stock in. Why read it, then, you may ask? Because I can learn things. Some I will take at face value, some I will be suspicious about because...in my opinion...it was written BY man FOR man. And no man was perfect and had agendas since the beginning of time..which means all those translations can't be perfectly correct.

Anyway..I digress. I am going to read it...maybe hopping around, maybe from front to back. I won't know until I delve in to it more. So this is where you guys come in. The ones that DO believe the bible wholeheartedly. I ask for opinions. Some I will accept. Some I will not. Depends on what feels "right" to me, since I also believe each person has their own path, their own beliefs, their own gut instinct of what seems to be right for them..individually.

So for my very first question, here is a quote that made me stop reading for awhile until I digest what your opinions are in the meaning of the following:

26 And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.”27And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

1. Who is US and OUR?
2. If God is spiritual and not flesh and blood...how does a spirit have form to look humanoid?

In Judaism, anyway, it is refered that God is often called "HaShem Tzvaot", The Lord of the Armies, and the plural can be refered to the both God and the armies, means God's fenomenal spiritual creations.

To the second question, God is refered to as a righteous, and a justice seeker, and he wished his creation, best one of yet, to be the "shadow" of what he stands for.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

James 3:9-13

"Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom."


1st Peter 1:14-16

"As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."


1st Thessalonians 5:21-22

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil."


Proverbs 10:31-31

"The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out.
The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness."


Matthew 12:35-36

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."


Matthew 15:11
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."


Colossians 3:8

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth."


Ephesians 4:29-30

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."


1st Corinthians 10:31-33

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Rule of thumb, atheist only quote from the Bible to prove how hypocritical they are. The explanation of this is that they think quoting from a book they do not believe in somehow short circuits the common sense of people who actually believe what the Bible says.

They, of course, are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fallacy that knowledge is somehow "evil" (even if it is only the knowing the difference between good and evil) is the foundation for a lot of the anti-science crusades by the creationists. To equate knowledge with sin is ludicrous. The only actual "sin" was disobedience. Condemning the entire human race for all eternity because of the foolish act of a single ignorant individual is arbitrary and capricious to say the least.

The concept that everyone is "born a sinner" and requires "redemption" is ridiculous. The reality is that everyone is born an atheist and has to be taught to believe in fables like Adam and Eve.

The drooling idiot speaketh.

The fallacy is your assertion that knowledge, in and of itself, was considered evil. The idea is that humans were created innocent, like children, and that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was, for a period of time, forbidden.

Substantiation?

Despite the generations of idiots that teach that God put the tree there as a test there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that He intended to deny them that knowledge for all time, anymore than a parent who, when a 2 year old asks about where babies comes from, intends to forever deny that child knowledge about sex and reproduction if they do not give a full and complete answer to the question.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't smart enough to discuss religion.

So if Adam and Eve were mere "2 year old" babies then why did your "loving" God condemn them as adults to eternal damnation?

Substantiate your assertion that they were condemned to damnation.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The fallacy that knowledge is somehow "evil" (even if it is only the knowing the difference between good and evil) is the foundation for a lot of the anti-science crusades by the creationists. To equate knowledge with sin is ludicrous. The only actual "sin" was disobedience. Condemning the entire human race for all eternity because of the foolish act of a single ignorant individual is arbitrary and capricious to say the least.

The concept that everyone is "born a sinner" and requires "redemption" is ridiculous. The reality is that everyone is born an atheist and has to be taught to believe in fables like Adam and Eve.

The drooling idiot speaketh.

The fallacy is your assertion that knowledge, in and of itself, was considered evil. The idea is that humans were created innocent, like children, and that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was, for a period of time, forbidden.

Substantiation?

Despite the generations of idiots that teach that God put the tree there as a test there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that He intended to deny them that knowledge for all time, anymore than a parent who, when a 2 year old asks about where babies comes from, intends to forever deny that child knowledge about sex and reproduction if they do not give a full and complete answer to the question.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't smart enough to discuss religion.

So if Adam and Eve were mere "2 year old" babies then why did your "loving" God condemn them as adults to eternal damnation?

Where on earth did you get that Adam and Eve were condemned to eternal damnation???????

There are standards that God imposes like it or not. Not the Law, but there are requirements that need to be met, for our own good. Eden was pure. Sin could not reside there. The requirement to live in Eden was to leave a tree alone. Eve was tricked into breaking the rules. Eve ate sin, and had to relocate. Adam accepted Eve's sin, and chose to eat and relocate with her because he was crazy in love with his wife. His eyes were wide open.
Eve made a mistake. Adam made a choice. God clothed them after their sin out of compassion, so they wouldn't feel ashamed. They went on to live long and productive lives, in their new location. Reminiscent of the old joke, Adam and the kids were walking and as they past the gate to Eden, Adam said, "Look kids, that's where we used to live before your Mom ate us out of house and home."

God didn't condemn them, but you had no problem condemning God, for something He didn't do, so. Doesn't that make you as low down as the God you bear false witness against? (And then you sent poor old Adam and Eve to Hell!)
Their loving Father remained with them, through thick and thin. What did God do to their son, Cain, who's transgression was far worse than eating the fruit? Did our cruel Father take an eye for an eye? God marked him to keep him safe from any human that wanted Cain's eye. That's the Father you condemn.

Unless you know my God, you have no right to condemn my God. Especially based on your erroneous assumptions and lack of knowledge of who He is!

Herod could hear John the Baptist screaming at him from the dungeon telling the King to leave his sister-in-law alone. Moses just kicked the living shit out of Egypt.
God is not politically correct. And His people vary as much as Mother Teressa, vs Paul, a whisper and a roar.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, since it has been brought up, QW and DT, Jesus NEVER insulted somebody by calling him names for what he did or did not believe or for being wrong or for sinning. He reserved his negative adjectives for those who preached rules and laws and presumed to accuse, judge, and condemn others when they themselves failed to understand and follow the intent of the Law. In other words he criticized those who would dishonestly harm others physically, emotionally, or materially in the name of God.

In fact in Matthew 5, in what we have dubbed 'The Sermon on the Mount" he ordered much caution in accusing and criticizing our fellow humans:

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.​

Now as with much of the scriptures, we don't have to take that 100% literally with our 21st Century understanding, but the intended message is pretty clear. It is a bad and dangerous thing to presume such superiority over another person and we sin when we do so.

In truth the 'sermon' was probably not a single sermon but rather an illustration of the kind of setting Jesus used in his ministry and was a collection of 'pericopes' (short, easy to understand sayings) that the ancient rabbis used in their teachings and were remembered and pulled together for the compiled manuscripts that would become the four Gospels of the New Testament.

 

[Derideo_Te]

James 3:9-13

"Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom."


1st Peter 1:14-16

"As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."


1st Thessalonians 5:21-22

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil."


Proverbs 10:31-31

"The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out.
The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness."


Matthew 12:35-36

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."


Matthew 15:11
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."


Colossians 3:8

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth."


Ephesians 4:29-30

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."


1st Corinthians 10:31-33

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Rule of thumb, atheist only quote from the Bible to prove how hypocritical they are. The explanation of this is that they think quoting from a book they do not believe in somehow short circuits the common sense of people who actually believe what the Bible says.

They, of course, are wrong.

Ironic!

 

[Foxfyre]

As for the story of Adam and Eve, it is no more idiotic to use that as a teaching mechanism for children or adults than it is to use "The Grinch" or "A Christmas Carol" to teach how Christmas can change hearts or to use Aesop's Fables to illustrate universal principles of life.

Of course according to the story, Adam and Eve introduced sin into the world where none had existed before. So they were not subject to 'original' sin. Various theologies over the ages have addressed the concept of 'original sin' as a) something that taints all subsequent generations--I don't subscribe to that one personally--or b) refers to the reason Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, for since Adam and Eve sinned, nobody is capable of keeping the whole of the Law. (I can go along with that one.)

It's fun to think of Adam and Eve as the only humans who didn't have belly buttons. As to their two-year-old phase, the Scriptures don't speak to that. It would seem reasonable that since there were no parents to raise them, that God formed them as adults and they skipped childhood, puberty, and all that. Just fun things to think about.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The drooling idiot speaketh.

The fallacy is your assertion that knowledge, in and of itself, was considered evil. The idea is that humans were created innocent, like children, and that eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was, for a period of time, forbidden.

Substantiation?

Despite the generations of idiots that teach that God put the tree there as a test there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that He intended to deny them that knowledge for all time, anymore than a parent who, when a 2 year old asks about where babies comes from, intends to forever deny that child knowledge about sex and reproduction if they do not give a full and complete answer to the question.

Go play with your dolls, you aren't smart enough to discuss religion.

So if Adam and Eve were mere "2 year old" babies then why did your "loving" God condemn them as adults to eternal damnation?

Substantiate your assertion that they were condemned to damnation.

You alleged that there was a "time limit" and invented ridiculous aspects that were never in Genesis. Too bad you have no ability to support your own claims while hypocritically demanding that others must do so. When you are capable of behaving like an adult you can expect to be treated like one. Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Okay, since it has been brought up, QW and DT, Jesus NEVER insulted somebody by calling him names for what he did or did not believe or for being wrong or for sinning.

It was QW that made the egregious claim that Jesus insulted people. He was using Jesus as a shield to cover his own objectionable behavior.

He reserved his negative adjectives for those who preached rules and laws and presumed to accuse, judge, and condemn others when they themselves failed to understand and follow the intent of the Law. In other words he criticized those who would harm others physically or materially in the name of God.

Exactly.

In fact in Matthew 5, in what we have dubbed 'The Sermon on the Mount" he ordered much caution in accusing and criticizing our fellow humans:

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.​

Now as with much of the scriptures, we don't have to take that 100% literally with our 21st Century understanding, but the intended message is pretty clear. It is a bad and dangerous thing to presume such superiority over another person and we sin when we do so.

Once again you are correct.

In truth the 'sermon' was probably not a single sermon but rather an illustration of the kind of setting Jesus used in his ministry and was a collection of 'pericopes' (short, easy to understand sayings) that the ancient rabbis used in their teachings and were remembered and pulled together for the compiled manuscripts that would become the four Gospels of the New Testament.

Would it be that your fellow Christians shared your rationality, temperament and insight.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, since it has been brought up, QW and DT, Jesus NEVER insulted somebody by calling him names for what he did or did not believe or for being wrong or for sinning.

It was QW that made the egregious claim that Jesus insulted people. He was using Jesus as a shield to cover his own objectionable behavior.

He reserved his negative adjectives for those who preached rules and laws and presumed to accuse, judge, and condemn others when they themselves failed to understand and follow the intent of the Law. In other words he criticized those who would harm others physically or materially in the name of God.

Exactly.

In fact in Matthew 5, in what we have dubbed 'The Sermon on the Mount" he ordered much caution in accusing and criticizing our fellow humans:

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.​

Now as with much of the scriptures, we don't have to take that 100% literally with our 21st Century understanding, but the intended message is pretty clear. It is a bad and dangerous thing to presume such superiority over another person and we sin when we do so.

Once again you are correct.

In truth the 'sermon' was probably not a single sermon but rather an illustration of the kind of setting Jesus used in his ministry and was a collection of 'pericopes' (short, easy to understand sayings) that the ancient rabbis used in their teachings and were remembered and pulled together for the compiled manuscripts that would become the four Gospels of the New Testament.

Would it be that your fellow Christians shared your rationality, temperament and insight.

Most do actually. But most Christians don't get drawn into these kinds of discussions.

For reasons way too complicated and boring to go into here, I have probably been blessed with more intensive Bible study, historical research, and theological perspective than the average Christian, and that allows me to speak with a bit of authority--not to be confused with any superiority. I would be the first to say that there is more that I don't know than what I know, and I never assume that I've got it all figured out after decades of trying.

 

[Gracie]

I am loving reading this whole thread. And yes..I am learning a lot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, since it has been brought up, QW and DT, Jesus NEVER insulted somebody by calling him names for what he did or did not believe or for being wrong or for sinning. He reserved his negative adjectives for those who preached rules and laws and presumed to accuse, judge, and condemn others when they themselves failed to understand and follow the intent of the Law. In other words he criticized those who would dishonestly harm others physically, emotionally, or materially in the name of God.

In fact in Matthew 5, in what we have dubbed 'The Sermon on the Mount" he ordered much caution in accusing and criticizing our fellow humans:

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.​

Now as with much of the scriptures, we don't have to take that 100% literally with our 21st Century understanding, but the intended message is pretty clear. It is a bad and dangerous thing to presume such superiority over another person and we sin when we do so.

In truth the 'sermon' was probably not a single sermon but rather an illustration of the kind of setting Jesus used in his ministry and was a collection of 'pericopes' (short, easy to understand sayings) that the ancient rabbis used in their teachings and were remembered and pulled together for the compiled manuscripts that would become the four Gospels of the New Testament.

I do not call people names for what they believe either, I call out people who try to dictate my behavior based on their interpretation of the Bible, especially when they also make it clear they do not believe it themselves. I also reject the notion that I should treat the people who mock God and my belief in Him with respect just because people kind find verses about me treating believers with respect.