Proof of G-d or wildly coincidental?

[Delta4Embassy]

Reread what I wrote. The text says explicitly one of the reasons G-d expelled them was so they WOULDN'T become immortal eating from the Tree of Life.

If they were immortal already why'd G-d say that? Why even have a Tree of Life if everything's already immortal?

you did not understand what I was pointing at. the reason they were expelled was they disobeyed and tried the forbidden fruit. Not the fruits of immortality.

they were expelled for their sin. if they won't eat the fruit from the tree of understanding evil - they would not be expelled ( as they were living there anyway before). And since they were not forbidden by the rule to eat from anything but the tree of understanding evil, it inferres that before they sinned they were allowed to eat from the tree of immortality - which means they were immortal or were allowed to become immortal after they would eat it.

Would they have never tasted the fruit of understanding evil - we would still be in the Garden. immortal

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
- Genesis 2

Indeed. No mention of not being allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. But as with other infered things, if it's mentioned later as being something G-d worried about then presumedly they were forbidden to eat from it and not immortal.

As an aside, verse 17 would seem to be G-d lying. And later on with the serpent telling Eve "you wont die" the serpent speaking the truth. Interesting problem.

 

[edthecynic]

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


...
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”


....


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.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

If the talking snake had half a brain, he would have told them to eat from the tree of life before eating from that evil tree of knowledge.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Something I've often wondered at is how the healthiest things for us to eat are all naturally-occuring like fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc. That's either remarkable coincidence or proof of something like G-d or intelligent design or something.

Discuss.

Twinkie hater!.......

 

[Vox]

Reread what I wrote. The text says explicitly one of the reasons G-d expelled them was so they WOULDN'T become immortal eating from the Tree of Life.

If they were immortal already why'd G-d say that? Why even have a Tree of Life if everything's already immortal?

you did not understand what I was pointing at. the reason they were expelled was they disobeyed and tried the forbidden fruit. Not the fruits of immortality.

they were expelled for their sin. if they won't eat the fruit from the tree of understanding evil - they would not be expelled ( as they were living there anyway before). And since they were not forbidden by the rule to eat from anything but the tree of understanding evil, it inferres that before they sinned they were allowed to eat from the tree of immortality - which means they were immortal or were allowed to become immortal after they would eat it.

Would they have never tasted the fruit of understanding evil - we would still be in the Garden. immortal

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
- Genesis 2

Indeed. No mention of not being allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. But as with other infered things, if it's mentioned later as being something G-d worried about then presumedly they were forbidden to eat from it and not immortal.

it is clearly mentioned that “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." and becasue of THAT he is not allowed to eat from the tree of life - because he knows good from evil.
Would the man still be oblivious to that - he would not be banned from the tree of life or the Garden altogether.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Lying, it's worth mentioning isn't forbidden. What's forbidden is lying at trial, perjury. Lying outside a trial isn't forbidden as in wars you often lie and deceive your enemies.

 

[Vox]

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


...
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”


....


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.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

If the talking snake had half a brain, he would have told them to eat from the tree of life before eating from that evil tree of knowledge.

it did not matter in that order - they already were immortal before they SINNED.
it was the SIN which caused death/mortality - to everything.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

you did not understand what I was pointing at. the reason they were expelled was they disobeyed and tried the forbidden fruit. Not the fruits of immortality.

they were expelled for their sin. if they won't eat the fruit from the tree of understanding evil - they would not be expelled ( as they were living there anyway before). And since they were not forbidden by the rule to eat from anything but the tree of understanding evil, it inferres that before they sinned they were allowed to eat from the tree of immortality - which means they were immortal or were allowed to become immortal after they would eat it.

Would they have never tasted the fruit of understanding evil - we would still be in the Garden. immortal

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
- Genesis 2

Indeed. No mention of not being allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. But as with other infered things, if it's mentioned later as being something G-d worried about then presumedly they were forbidden to eat from it and not immortal.

it is clearly mentioned that “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." and becasue of THAT he is not allowed to eat from the tree of life - because he knows good from evil.
Would the man still be oblivious to that - he would not be banned from the tree of life or the Garden altogether.

Curious choice of words, "like one of us." Is G-d a 'head angel' of some sort? Or possibly the leader of an alien expeditionary force?

Also, why is knowing good and evil forbidden? Sounds like something that's beneficial. Though I suppose if you don't know good and evil, but still have G-d's Law to obey you'd simply obey it more readily and not then question it understanding good and evil. Many commandments can be construed as evil as with killing people for certain things. Without terms like good or evil though, you'd simply obey it because it's from G-d, or not. But you wouldn't question it.

 

[Vox]

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
- Genesis 2

Indeed. No mention of not being allowed to eat from the Tree of Life. But as with other infered things, if it's mentioned later as being something G-d worried about then presumedly they were forbidden to eat from it and not immortal.

it is clearly mentioned that “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." and becasue of THAT he is not allowed to eat from the tree of life - because he knows good from evil.
Would the man still be oblivious to that - he would not be banned from the tree of life or the Garden altogether.

Curious choice of words, "like one of us." Is G-d a 'head angel' of some sort? Or possibly the leader of an alien expeditionary force?

Nothing curious. God is in Three Persons - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - so it is plural us.

But that concept is foreign to you as you are not Christian

 

[edthecynic]

it is clearly mentioned that “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." and becasue of THAT he is not allowed to eat from the tree of life - because he knows good from evil.
Would the man still be oblivious to that - he would not be banned from the tree of life or the Garden altogether.

Curious choice of words, "like one of us." Is G-d a 'head angel' of some sort? Or possibly the leader of an alien expeditionary force?

Nothing curious. God is in Three Persons - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - so it is plural us.

But that concept is foreign to you as you are not Christian

So your one (1) God is really 3 (three) people not one (1) God.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


...
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”


....


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.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Ancient myths and legends do not constitute ‘proof’ or ‘evidence.’

Otherwise, god might ‘exist’ as a life philosophy, but is a creation of man nonetheless; the consequence of man’s arrogance and fear.

 

[theword]

If gods were aliens, and our 'creation story' was aliens deposited life here on Earth long ago, then isn't it sensible they'd have deposited food-bearing plants and animals for us as well? Maybe the 'creationists' and ID'ers are right, but not entirely, and G-d isn't like religion thinks of it, but rather like how science thinks of aliens?

God created religion to teach His people how to build things, not to teach everyone about God. Through religion, everything else came into existence like cities, governments, education, schools, sciences, man's laws, courts, lawyers, etc.

 

[Agit8r]

So... humans are well adapted to eat what was naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years?

I wouldn't call that either A or B

 

[pacer]

"The source of all creation has no beginning or end and has always existed. All thought, all consciousness, all ideas, all intelligence, all existence has been formed and will continue to be formed from this most refined source, both tangible and intangible, living and nonliving. It has as many forms as there are infinite numbers. Having an eternal nature, it cannot be created or destroyed, but can be duplicated and intertwined with forms of itself infinitely through learning and introspection producing the weave of all existence. The source of all creation I will name sorigence: the source and original essence of all that is."

Untitled Document

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Always trippy when I get to writing about religion, and my constant doubt comes up, then something very curious happens that gives me pause. Last night, after all the 'G-d may not exist' chatter I was checking solar activity on spaceweather.com before logging off and the site had a pic of a neat snowflake someone snapped and a link to his site with others. Checking that site I instantly noticed this one:

Maybe Stars of David are a not-uncommon pattern in snowflakes, but the timing of finding it was what seemed interesting to me, just minutes after writing about my personal doubts and reinterpretations.

"What if there are no coinicidences?" - "Signs"

 

[Vox]

Curious choice of words, "like one of us." Is G-d a 'head angel' of some sort? Or possibly the leader of an alien expeditionary force?

Nothing curious. God is in Three Persons - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - so it is plural us.

But that concept is foreign to you as you are not Christian

So your one (1) God is really 3 (three) people not one (1) God.

God is three PERSONS, not three PEOPLE.

 

[Vox]

Always trippy when I get to writing about religion, and my constant doubt comes up, then something very curious happens that gives me pause. Last night, after all the 'G-d may not exist' chatter I was checking solar activity on spaceweather.com before logging off and the site had a pic of a neat snowflake someone snapped and a link to his site with others. Checking that site I instantly noticed this one:

Maybe Stars of David are a not-uncommon pattern in snowflakes, but the timing of finding it was what seemed interesting to me, just minutes after writing about my personal doubts and reinterpretations.

"What if there are no coinicidences?" - "Signs"

it is called synchronicity

Read Carl Jung - he coined the term


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

 

[edthecynic]

Nothing curious. God is in Three Persons - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - so it is plural us.

But that concept is foreign to you as you are not Christian

So your one (1) God is really 3 (three) people not one (1) God.

God is three PERSONS, not three PEOPLE.

A PERSON is a Human Being, and 3 Human Beings are 3 PEOPLE.
Your God is therefore 3 Human Beings, if you don't like the word "people."

 

[Sunshine]

Curious choice of words, "like one of us." Is G-d a 'head angel' of some sort? Or possibly the leader of an alien expeditionary force?

Nothing curious. God is in Three Persons - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - so it is plural us.

But that concept is foreign to you as you are not Christian

So your one (1) God is really 3 (three) people not one (1) God.

The Trinity is not 'three people.' 'God' is the nature of the trinity like 'mankind' is the nature of man, and 'dog' is the nature of dogs. Each nature of being on earth has multiple numbers of individuals in it.

 

[edthecynic]

Nothing curious. God is in Three Persons - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - so it is plural us.

But that concept is foreign to you as you are not Christian

So your one (1) God is really 3 (three) people not one (1) God.

The Trinity is not 'three people.' 'God' is the nature of the trinity like 'mankind' is the nature of man, and 'dog' is the nature of dogs. Each nature of being on earth has multiple numbers of individuals in it.

So the "one" God is actually multiple individual Gods.

 

[Vox]

So your one (1) God is really 3 (three) people not one (1) God.

God is three PERSONS, not three PEOPLE.

A PERSON is a Human Being, and 3 Human Beings are 3 PEOPLE.
Your God is therefore 3 Human Beings, if you don't like the word "people."

nope. a person is not a human being. it is a separate personified being which is triune with the other two persons which are not human.

human nature has almost nothing to do with it except that to some degree it is a copy of the God's persona.