Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Boston tiger]

Actually I hear them say it a lot, don't hate the sinner hate the sin, they do hate things, they just try very hard to convince you they don't



Whenever they say that I tell them it's a rubbish concept, how can an all loving God allow innocent people to be brutally murdered for no apparent reason, children who have done no wrong starve to death in developing nations, natural disasters that destroy lives indiscriminately. How can a God that apparently loves the world oh so much allow for that, and not intervene when he's apparently omnipotent? It just makes zero sense, but Christians try very hard to tell you it's true

If god loved us would he let us die?
Dying for the hardcore Christian is not the end but just the beginning etc.
Still can't explain why some die nicely at an old age. While some have to bury their children etc.
Some have horrible deaths etc
But dying is as natural part of our existence.
The old T with The patience of Job put forward the test and patience theory.
I'm figuring he gave us this wonderful interesting terrible universe with all it's unknowns and mysteries plus free will, the ability to be spiritual(connect with God) and more or less said knock yourselves out and I'll see you on the other side.

 

[Roylion]

Does it really? That just sounds like spin to me. When I read it, there's clearly two completely different Gods between the O and NT, but somehow we are to believe that this vengeful murderous God in the OT is the same loving and forgiving God of the NT.

The worshippers of "God" really just worship Yahweh who was one of many deities invented by Canaanites (or possibly migratory Edomites). Yahweh was later combined with another Canaanite god 'El' to become the patron god of a small group of pastoral nomads who somewhere around 1200 BC began to settle down in farming communities in the highlands of Canaan. Yahweh was originally a cruel, vengeful storm god who lived on the top of a mountain.

Yahweh evolved into a loving personal God under the influence of Graeco-Roman culture on Judaism. All man-made inventions eventually are adapted to the needs and wants of the times. Yahweh (God) was no different.

 

[jinny1]

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

You realise far bigger problems with Christianity arise if you believe it is 4.5 billion years old and not 5000 years? It’s hilarious that it has come to the point that now Christians are desperately trying to match their beliefs with science and pathetically failing at that attempt. Christians can't see that their beliefs are incompatible with Science.

Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. - G. Richard Bozarth

 

[Boston tiger]

You realise far bigger problems with Christianity arise if you believe it is 4.5 billion years old and not 5000 years? It’s hilarious that it has come to the point that now Christians are desperately trying to match their beliefs with science and pathetically failing at that attempt. Christians can't see that their beliefs are incompatible with Science.

Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. - G. Richard Bozarth

Oh no not G. Richard Bozarth!

 

[jinny1]

Oh no not G. Richard Bozarth!

The point still stands... i have repeatedly talk about the stupidity of 'theistic evolution' and how it destroys the very fundamentals of christianity

 

[Boston tiger]

You realise far bigger problems with Christianity arise if you believe it is 4.5 billion years old and not 5000 years? It’s hilarious that it has come to the point that now Christians are desperately trying to match their beliefs with science and pathetically failing at that attempt. Christians can't see that their beliefs are incompatible with Science.

Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. - G. Richard Bozarth

At least 1 billion Christians are Ok with evolution.
I billion Christians would still have a church if there was no bible.
I billion Christians have no problem in how humans develop into the current firm only need to believe that a soul is not passed down from one generation to the next.
One billion Christians have no problem in how the universe came about as long as at some stage there was nothing.
When your Christian Church is 300 years older than the bible and your final authority isn't Bible then science and that religion can fit very nicely.

I wish people would use the term some Christians or Catholics or Baptists or fundamentalists.
The term Christian can mean so many different beliefs origins etc.

 

[jinny1]

At least 1 billion Christians are Ok with evolution.

They are 'ok' with evolution because most of them know nothing about what evolution actually entails and they are completely ignorant to how this destroys Christianity.



In the Bible, Adam is consistently treated as a single historical person, not a metaphor for humanity in general.

"by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12).

“For since by a man [Adam] came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:21-22

Genesis 4-5 lists Adam's descendants and their ages. The first chapter of 1 Chronicles mentions Adam and his pedigree as historical people. Jesus is considered a descendant of Adam by the author of the Gospel according to Luke: “Jesus was the son of Joseph, son of Heli, ... son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God. (Luke 3:23-38). So as you can see now you have to believe that none of the biblical characters/events were real since they are descendants of Adam (who is not a real person) if you believe in evolution.

It’s simply not true that all of humanity’s DNA traces back to a pair of individuals who lived no more than 6000 years ago. We evolved from a long lineage of primates and at no point were there less than several thousand humans on earth at any single time.The minimum population size associated with the worldwide expansion of humans out of Africa roughly 100,000 years ago was 2,250 individuals, while the population that remained in Africa was no smaller than about 10,000 individuals. These are minimum estimates, and ones derived from conservative assumptions

If Adam and Eve were metaphors, then death and resurrection of Jesus is meaningless. After all, his death and Resurrection occurred precisely to save us sinful humans from the transgressions of Adam and Eve. Jesus is said to die to on the Cross in order to relieve us of original sin. In Romans 5:12 Paul says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This contradicts evolution because there was death before humans even existed, so the idea that its mankind's fault that creatures die is completely contradictory to the theory of evolution. Also notice that in the bible it specifically says that sin is the result of "one man", not some underlying human nature. It says that all sin can be traced back to Adam, and Jesus died in order to relieve us of this original sin.

The death of “nephesh” organisms occurred before human sin. “Nephesh” is the Hebrew word meaning life, soul and blood. It refers to consciousness. The soul is the intellect, emotion and will. Soul is what makes a body animate. The Bible states that plants, protozoa and insects do not have nephesh while cats, dogs, cattle and humans do have nephesh. The death of plants, protozoa and insects prior to human sin is not a problem. The death of nephesh organisms prior to human sin is an overwhelming hurdle! If death of nephesh beings occurred before sin, then death is common, and the death of one man on a cross is meaningless. It is only because death came into the universe as a consequence of human sin that the death of the One sinless man on a Cross may expunge our sins and give us eternal life!

In the bible God creates a perfect world void of all death, pain, suffering, and starvation and through human sin the worlds begins to lose its perfection. Evolution is the complete opposite of this.The physical evidence collected from our planet says otherwise. We have fossils of creatures that died long before humans ever existed, so that would mean that there was death before the fall of man. We also have evidence that massive meteors hit the earth, and that the earth's climate has changed so drastically at times that all but a few creatures died out. In the bible is says that "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). So if "by a man came death", why do we have so many fossils of animals that died so long ago?

The problem with the idea proposing god used evolution to make people is that the bible says that death is a result of sin which is a result of humans. In the theory of evolution, death and natural selection are what created people. They are polar opposites.

Bible = Sin is the result of breaking God's Law, which is the manual to live life happily on Earth.

Evolution = there is no such thing as Sin. But only the concept of relative 'advantage' and 'disadvantages' concerning survival of the fittest.

Trying to throw a god into the mix really misses the point of evolution: the process isn't directed by anyone. If a god were in charge of evolution, it would be the most cruel and unfeeling being imaginable. How many millions of beings had to suffer and die from disease so that our bodies could evolve an immune system? How many had to eat each other so they could evolve sharp vision, long fangs, thick skin, fast legs, good brains, poisons, spikes, or any of the hundreds of other methods they use to survive? Saying a god set up this wasteful and savage system means that he's sent untold billions of souls to the meat grinder, when he could have conjured up an Eden that was perfect to start with. Not to mention evolution is the most ineffective system possible for a God to come up with; Over 95% of species that have ever lived are extinct!!

 

[jinny1]

I billion Christians have no problem in how humans develop into the current firm only need to believe that a soul is not passed down from one generation to the next.
.

You have to accept that we weren’t wonderfully and fearfully made in God’s image, that God never made us perfect, that we are the result of random mutations, that we are not through intelligent design but rather though chance. That God is a liar, not omnipotent, not “all good” and not omniscient as he apparently doesn’t know how to create us without making us go through eons of death and struggle Vast majority of species that have existed are extinct, that is certainly is not the work of an intelligent designer.

What sort of a God would create the world using evolutionary processes and the call the world “very good” (genesis 1:31)?? Well I guess his definition of “very good” means eons of death and struggle or that’s a metaphor for “very bad”. Natural selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species. There is an obvious contradiction here, Jesus “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). He fed the hungry, healed the sick and gave sight to the blind. But hunger, disease, blindness and death are integral parts of the evolutionary process! Survival of the fittest/natural selection only works if the unfit die or are too weak to reproduce. The contradiction is that a world full of death, sickness, hunger is described as “very good” in genesis but Jesus later on opposing the evolutionary process is also called “doing good”.

Scripture calls death an “enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26, NKJV), and the whole plan of salvation was designed to eliminate death and bring humans back to God’s original plan of eternal life. But the 'wages of sin' is not death for evolutionists, on the contrary death is very common and not an “enemy” but just the biological consequence needed for evolution.

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

Robert Davidson: "Attempts to make [the day] still more flexible, to mean different aeons or stages in the known evolution of the world, and thus reconcile Genesis 1 with modern scientific theory, are misguided."

John Skinner: "The interpretation of yom as aeon, a favorite resource of harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage, and has no warrant in Hebrew usages."

Jesus himself accepts creation as a literal historical event. Referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, He said, “He which made them at the beginning” (Matthew 19:4, NKJV). The expression “at the beginning” is the same hebrew expression used in the first three verses of Genesis. If each day of creation was an eon, the creation of human, occurring at the end of the sixth day of Creation, would not have been at the beginning of creation, but rather after six long eons of time (approximately 4.5 billion years).

 

[tesseract]

if you believe in satan (or any devil) could you please explain why a god allows it to exist at all? does god see some benefit to the universe, or us, by graciously allowing satan to exist?

Finally, a non-believer asks a good and pertinent question that gets to the crux of the issue. I've answered this previously in God related threads, but will do so again.

God could destroy Satan at any time he so desires, but with God created spirit sons and humankind able to know of God's reaction to Satan's challenge of universal sovereignty, for God to immediately destroy Satan would leave the question of who is the rightful sovereign of the universe unanswered, and thus leaving God's position questionable. (Answering this question is the main point of the bible). So, in answer to Satan's challenge, God has allowed Satan a period of time to rule over the earth. With God having created humankind in a state of sinless perfection, and Satan's convincing of Eve to go against God's orders, sin was introduced into the world by Satan's actions. How this relates to the issue of universal sovereignty is how by Satan's actions and under Satan's rulership the earth and all the wickedness that's occurred is all on Satan's watch. Thus God allowing what's occurring on earth at present is proving a point to all as to whom has the right to rule and make a better universal sovereign. Either it be God and his desire for humankind who originally had sinless perfection and has promised in the bible to return faithful humankind to such a state once He calls time on Satan's period of rulership over the earth; or Satan, and we've seen during our lifetime and by means of history books the anguish, misery and death that by means of his actions he has wrought onto humankind during his rule.

Satan and the rebellious spirit beings who followed him have contempt for humankind and know they have only a limited period of time before God calls time on Satan's rulership. Thus in Satan's great anger, knowing his limited time before God finally does away with him, is attempting to drag down with him as many people as possible by turning folks against God, thus making these ones worthy of destruction at God's hand when execution of judgement on Satan's corrupted system and peoples is carried out at what the bible refers to as Armageddon.

 

[Boston tiger]

You have to accept that we weren’t wonderfully and fearfully made in God’s image, that God never made us perfect, that we are the result of random mutations, that we are not through intelligent design but rather though chance. That God is a liar, not omnipotent, not “all good” and not omniscient as he apparently doesn’t know how to create us without making us go through eons of death and struggle Vast majority of species that have existed are extinct, that is certainly is not the work of an intelligent designer.

What sort of a God would create the world using evolutionary processes and the call the world “very good” (genesis 1:31)?? Well I guess his definition of “very good” means eons of death and struggle or that’s a metaphor for “very bad”. Natural selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species. There is an obvious contradiction here, Jesus “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). He fed the hungry, healed the sick and gave sight to the blind. But hunger, disease, blindness and death are integral parts of the evolutionary process! Survival of the fittest/natural selection only works if the unfit die or are too weak to reproduce. The contradiction is that a world full of death, sickness, hunger is described as “very good” in genesis but Jesus later on opposing the evolutionary process is also called “doing good”.

Scripture calls death an “enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26, NKJV), and the whole plan of salvation was designed to eliminate death and bring humans back to God’s original plan of eternal life. But the 'wages of sin' is not death for evolutionists, on the contrary death is very common and not an “enemy” but just the biological consequence needed for evolution.



Robert Davidson: "Attempts to make [the day] still more flexible, to mean different aeons or stages in the known evolution of the world, and thus reconcile Genesis 1 with modern scientific theory, are misguided."

John Skinner: "The interpretation of yom as aeon, a favorite resource of harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage, and has no warrant in Hebrew usages."

Jesus himself accepts creation as a literal historical event. Referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, He said, “He which made them at the beginning” (Matthew 19:4, NKJV). The expression “at the beginning” is the same hebrew expression used in the first three verses of Genesis. If each day of creation was an eon, the creation of human, occurring at the end of the sixth day of Creation, would not have been at the beginning of creation, but rather after six long eons of time (approximately 4.5 billion years).

The Jesus bit would be argued. Who he was talking to and in what context and what message etc.
If I was talking to you now and wanted to talk to about something in the beginning I'd refer to the Big Bang theory because I know that is what you understand. Even though I do that that it was made by a giant rabbit. I would not mention it because it would be quite problematic and defeat the purpose of what I want to portray.
That's how I image your Jesus citing Old Testament would be explained away.
Not sure though but I'm confident there would be a good explanation

 

[evo]

God could destroy Satan at any time he so desires, but with God created spirit sons and humankind able to know of God's reaction to Satan's challenge of universal sovereignty, for God to immediately destroy Satan would leave the question of who is the rightful sovereign of the universe unanswered, and thus leaving God's position questionable. (Answering this question is the main point of the bible). So, in answer to Satan's challenge, God has allowed Satan a period of time to rule over the earth. With God having created humankind in a state of sinless perfection, and Satan's convincing of Eve to go against God's orders, sin was introduced into the world by Satan's actions. How this relates to the issue of universal sovereignty is how by Satan's actions and under Satan's rulership the earth and all the wickedness that's occurred is all on Satan's watch. Thus God allowing what's occurring on earth at present is proving a point to all as to whom has the right to rule and make a better universal sovereign.

etc

"Universal sovereignty." It is not even good science fiction.

To reiterate: Scientology is more plausible.

 

[tesseract]

"Universal sovereignty." It is not even good science fiction.

To reiterate: Scientology is more plausible.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that many critics of the bible don't even understand its main point, or any particular point therein, before firing a shot. Such critics thus openly display their ignorance, and not only that, but their unwillingness to understand in which makes them either ideologues driven by dogma or just plain haters. Each to their own, though.

The bible points out that the vast majority will pay no heed and that few are the one's finding salvation. It also points to peoples hearts will be haughty with mocking, just as in the days of Noah. People of those times, just as today, paid no attention until what Noah gave them advance warning of what is to occur begun; but when what Noah said would occur finally arrived it was too late for the unbelievers to turn around. And it's at that stage, when the unbelievers come face to face with their own impending and inevitable mortality that the gnashing of teeth and/or weeping with thoughts of: 'why didn't I just pay attention when I had the chance' comes to mind. Human hearts haven't changed from then until now, history repeats, and as The Offspring have said: "It all just happens again way down the line."

I don't look at this issue as to plausibility because such isn't faith, as 'plausible' amounts to doubt. I look at it as to whether I'm firmly convinced through my own thorough research. That way I can hold an unwavering faith.

 

[skilts]

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that many critics of the bible don't even understand its main point, or any particular point therein, before firing a shot. Such critics thus openly display their ignorance, and not only that, but their unwillingness to understand in which makes them either ideologues driven by dogma or just plain haters. Each to their own, though.

The bible points out that the vast majority will pay no heed and that few are the one's finding salvation. It also points to peoples hearts will be haughty with mocking, just as in the days of Noah. People of those times, just as today, paid no attention until what Noah gave them advance warning of what is to occur begun; but when what Noah said would occur finally arrived, it was too late for the unbelievers to turn around. And it's at that stage, when the unbelievers come face to face with their own impending and inevitable mortality that the gnashing of teeth and/or weeping with thoughts of: 'why didn't I just pay attention when I had the chance' comes to mind. Human hearts haven't changed from then until now, history repeats, and as The Offspring have said: "It all just happens again way down the line."

I don't look at this issue as to plausibility because such isn't faith, as 'plausible' amounts to doubt. I look at it as to whether I'm firmly convinced through my own thorough research. That way I can hold an unwavering faith.

Which in no way rebuts evo's well-founded doubts about "universal sovereignty". Is it any wonder people are unable to understand, as you say, when you pretend to be addressing their concerns, when rather you are doing no such thing. Instead, you adopted the "This was predicted, that people who disagree with me, would be 'haughty' and unable to see the error of their ways." to divert attention from the inadequacy of a non-existent argument. Your illness is having an increasingly debilitating effect. Until you understand the irrelevance of your beliefs to anything, no matter how steadfastly you hold them, your hope of recovery is zilch.

 

[tesseract]

Which in no way rebuts evo's well-founded doubts about "universal sovereignty". Is it any wonder people are unable to understand, as you say, when you pretend to be addressing their concerns, when rather you are doing no such thing. Instead, you adopted the "This was predicted, that people who disagree with me, would be 'haughty' and unable to see the error of their ways." to divert attention from the inadequacy of a non-existent argument. Your illness is having an increasingly debilitating effect. Until you understand the irrelevance of your beliefs to anything, no matter how steadfastly you hold them, your hope of recovery is zilch.

I didn't attempt a rebuttal of evo's post, just as his post didn't attempt to rebut mine. His post was a scoff, so I had no need to rebut such an unsupported opinion, as there was nothing to rebut. My comment was a general one, applicable to all critics. I merely used his comment as a springboard.

I'm the arbiter of intent for my posts, not you. You prattle on about my intent but could not possibly know what it is. So, you instead make it up as you go along in order for it to neatly fit into whatever narrative you've conjured. You start with a flawed premise and it goes downhill even further from there.

"Your illness is having an increasingly debilitating effect. Until you understand the irrelevance of your beliefs to anything, no matter how steadfastly you hold them, your hope of recovery is zilch" makes my point for me. Thank you for providing such a fine example.

 

[Cooldude]

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that many critics of the bible don't even understand its main point, or any particular point therein, before firing a shot. Such critics thus openly display their ignorance, and not only that, but their unwillingness to understand in which makes them either ideologues driven by dogma or just plain haters. Each to their own, though.

One word: projection

 

[Roylion]

God could destroy Satan at any time he so desires, but with God created spirit sons and humankind able to know of God's reaction to Satan's challenge of universal sovereignty, for God to immediately destroy Satan would leave the question of who is the rightful sovereign of the universe unanswered, and thus leaving God's position questionable. (Answering this question is the main point of the bible). So, in answer to Satan's challenge, God has allowed Satan a period of time to rule over the earth. With God having created humankind in a state of sinless perfection, and Satan's convincing of Eve to go against God's orders, sin was introduced into the world by Satan's actions. How this relates to the issue of universal sovereignty is how by Satan's actions and under Satan's rulership the earth and all the wickedness that's occurred is all on Satan's watch. Thus God allowing what's occurring on earth at present is proving a point to all as to whom has the right to rule and make a better universal sovereign. Either it be God and his desire for humankind who originally had sinless perfection and has promised in the bible to return faithful humankind to such a state once He calls time on Satan's period of rulership over the earth; or Satan, and we've seen during our lifetime and by means of history books the anguish, misery and death that by means of his actions he has wrought onto humankind during his rule.

Satan and the rebellious spirit beings who followed him have contempt for humankind and know they have only a limited period of time before God calls time on Satan's rulership. Thus in Satan's great anger, knowing his limited time before God finally does away with him, is attempting to drag down with him as many people as possible by turning folks against God, thus making these ones worthy of destruction at God's hand when execution of judgement on Satan's corrupted system and peoples is carried out at what the bible refers to as Armageddon.

You essentially are a Zoroastrian in belief, as all of the above is essentially from the older Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, which is centralised on Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu (Ahriman). Zoroaster taught that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman would continually battle each other until the God of Evil (Ahriman) is finally defeated. At this time, the dead will be resurrected, a Last Judgement will divide all the people that have ever lived into two groups; the evil go to Hell for all eternity; the good go to Paradise.

Before the Exile and Persian contact, Jews believed that the souls of the dead went to a dull, Hades-like place called Sheol. The Persians conquered Babylon in 539 BC and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem shortly after with another major wave of exiles returning between 450-420 BC, including possibly Ezra and Nehemiah, in whose books many Zoroastrian ideas about the battle between good and evil are found. The Jews were on particularly good terms with the Persians. From the latter's religion, Zoroastrianism, the Jews picked up a number of concepts: the immortality of the soul, angels, and of course Satan. After the Exile, the idea of a moralized afterlife, with heavenly rewards for the good and hellish punishment for the evil, appear in Judaism. One of the words for heaven in the Bible is Paradise - and this word, from the ancient Iranian words pairi-daeza, 'enclosed garden', is one of the very few definite Persian loan-words in the Bible and indicates a significant Zoroastrian influence. The idea of an afterlife in Paradise is central to both Christianity and Islam.

Not surprisingly, given the above, writings about "Satan" being the opponent of God in Jewish literature also first appear when the Jews were in exile in Babylon. The Zoroastrian / Persian dualism now concept appeared in other Jewish writings: God was now looked upon as wholly good; Satan as profoundly evil. History was seen as a battle between them. Satan, and his demons, were now humanity's greatest enemies.

For example in the story of Adam and Eve, the snake represents Satan, or the Devil, Ahriman, the Evil Spirit. According to the Persian legend in the Bundish, the full version of which will have been among the lost parts of the Zend-Avesta, Meschia and Meschiane, the first man and woman, were seduced by Ahriman, in the form of a serpent, and they committed “in thought, word, and deed, the carnal sin, and thus tainted with original sin all their descendants”. The six days of creation also in Genesis finds a parallel in the six periods of Creation described in the Zoroastrian scriptures.

And there are plenty of other similarities. The post-Exilic Jews (and hence Christianity) lifted much of their theology from Zoroastrianism.

 

[JHF1870]

I hadn't even thought about the devil as mentioned in the last few pages.

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/why-did-god-create-the-devil/

But I'm reading something here, and I don't understand how grown, and intelligent adults can read this, and take it seriously.

 

[Boston tiger]

They are 'ok' with evolution because most of them know nothing about what evolution actually entails and they are completely ignorant to how this destroys Christianity.



In the Bible, Adam is consistently treated as a single historical person, not a metaphor for humanity in general.

"by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12).

“For since by a man [Adam] came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:21-22

Genesis 4-5 lists Adam's descendants and their ages. The first chapter of 1 Chronicles mentions Adam and his pedigree as historical people. Jesus is considered a descendant of Adam by the author of the Gospel according to Luke: “Jesus was the son of Joseph, son of Heli, ... son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God. (Luke 3:23-38). So as you can see now you have to believe that none of the biblical characters/events were real since they are descendants of Adam (who is not a real person) if you believe in evolution.

It’s simply not true that all of humanity’s DNA traces back to a pair of individuals who lived no more than 6000 years ago. We evolved from a long lineage of primates and at no point were there less than several thousand humans on earth at any single time.The minimum population size associated with the worldwide expansion of humans out of Africa roughly 100,000 years ago was 2,250 individuals, while the population that remained in Africa was no smaller than about 10,000 individuals. These are minimum estimates, and ones derived from conservative assumptions

If Adam and Eve were metaphors, then death and resurrection of Jesus is meaningless. After all, his death and Resurrection occurred precisely to save us sinful humans from the transgressions of Adam and Eve. Jesus is said to die to on the Cross in order to relieve us of original sin. In Romans 5:12 Paul says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This contradicts evolution because there was death before humans even existed, so the idea that its mankind's fault that creatures die is completely contradictory to the theory of evolution. Also notice that in the bible it specifically says that sin is the result of "one man", not some underlying human nature. It says that all sin can be traced back to Adam, and Jesus died in order to relieve us of this original sin.

The death of “nephesh” organisms occurred before human sin. “Nephesh” is the Hebrew word meaning life, soul and blood. It refers to consciousness. The soul is the intellect, emotion and will. Soul is what makes a body animate. The Bible states that plants, protozoa and insects do not have nephesh while cats, dogs, cattle and humans do have nephesh. The death of plants, protozoa and insects prior to human sin is not a problem. The death of nephesh organisms prior to human sin is an overwhelming hurdle! If death of nephesh beings occurred before sin, then death is common, and the death of one man on a cross is meaningless. It is only because death came into the universe as a consequence of human sin that the death of the One sinless man on a Cross may expunge our sins and give us eternal life!

In the bible God creates a perfect world void of all death, pain, suffering, and starvation and through human sin the worlds begins to lose its perfection. Evolution is the complete opposite of this.The physical evidence collected from our planet says otherwise. We have fossils of creatures that died long before humans ever existed, so that would mean that there was death before the fall of man. We also have evidence that massive meteors hit the earth, and that the earth's climate has changed so drastically at times that all but a few creatures died out. In the bible is says that "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). So if "by a man came death", why do we have so many fossils of animals that died so long ago?

The problem with the idea proposing god used evolution to make people is that the bible says that death is a result of sin which is a result of humans. In the theory of evolution, death and natural selection are what created people. They are polar opposites.

Bible = Sin is the result of breaking God's Law, which is the manual to live life happily on Earth.

Evolution = there is no such thing as Sin. But only the concept of relative 'advantage' and 'disadvantages' concerning survival of the fittest.

Trying to throw a god into the mix really misses the point of evolution: the process isn't directed by anyone. If a god were in charge of evolution, it would be the most cruel and unfeeling being imaginable. How many millions of beings had to suffer and die from disease so that our bodies could evolve an immune system? How many had to eat each other so they could evolve sharp vision, long fangs, thick skin, fast legs, good brains, poisons, spikes, or any of the hundreds of other methods they use to survive? Saying a god set up this wasteful and savage system means that he's sent untold billions of souls to the meat grinder, when he could have conjured up an Eden that was perfect to start with. Not to mention evolution is the most ineffective system possible for a God to come up with; Over 95% of species that have ever lived are extinct!![/

Sort seeing where you are coming at but aren't you just hammering away at the fundamentalists here.
They believe a snake spoke to Eve.

A few people have asked why God has bothered to make this world and universe so challenging and not just make it perfect and i suppose its its business.


Maybe it's this amazing canvas that humans have the chance to discover and create in. And it just keeps driving us forward. If it was perfect we would stop.

 

[Moti]

You essentially are a Zoroastrian in belief, as all of the above is essentially from the older Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, which is centralised on Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu (Ahriman). Zoroaster taught that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman would continually battle each other until the God of Evil (Ahriman) is finally defeated. At this time, the dead will be resurrected, a Last Judgement will divide all the people that have ever lived into two groups; the evil go to Hell for all eternity; the good go to Paradise.

Before the Exile and Persian contact, Jews believed that the souls of the dead went to a dull, Hades-like place called Sheol. The Persians conquered Babylon in 539 BC and allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem shortly after with another major wave of exiles returning between 450-420 BC, including possibly Ezra and Nehemiah, in whose books many Zoroastrian ideas about the battle between good and evil are found. The Jews were on particularly good terms with the Persians. From the latter's religion, Zoroastrianism, the Jews picked up a number of concepts: the immortality of the soul, angels, and of course Satan. After the Exile, the idea of a moralized afterlife, with heavenly rewards for the good and hellish punishment for the evil, appear in Judaism. One of the words for heaven in the Bible is Paradise - and this word, from the ancient Iranian words pairi-daeza, 'enclosed garden', is one of the very few definite Persian loan-words in the Bible and indicates a significant Zoroastrian influence. The idea of an afterlife in Paradise is central to both Christianity and Islam.

Not surprisingly, given the above, writings about "Satan" being the opponent of God in Jewish literature also first appear when the Jews were in exile in Babylon. The Zoroastrian / Persian dualism now concept appeared in other Jewish writings: God was now looked upon as wholly good; Satan as profoundly evil. History was seen as a battle between them. Satan, and his demons, were now humanity's greatest enemies.

For example in the story of Adam and Eve, the snake represents Satan, or the Devil, Ahriman, the Evil Spirit. According to the Persian legend in the Bundish, the full version of which will have been among the lost parts of the Zend-Avesta, Meschia and Meschiane, the first man and woman, were seduced by Ahriman, in the form of a serpent, and they committed “in thought, word, and deed, the carnal sin, and thus tainted with original sin all their descendants”. The six days of creation also in Genesis finds a parallel in the six periods of Creation described in the Zoroastrian scriptures.

And there are plenty of other similarities. The post-Exilic Jews (and hence Christianity) lifted much of their theology from Zoroastrianism.

Yeah this is a funny one. It certainly has a great story to tell when looking at the locality of the belief system, particularly when the interaction happens around the greatest jolt to the Jewish people. Also, the concepts contained have great similarities. But they do share another similar feature when discussing this from the perspective of a sceptic, the time period of the source. People tend to rile the bible, mainly the NT because the earliest copies are a couple of hundred years after Jesus. The earliest known Zoroastrian text is much younger, around the 10th Century AD if I remember. Perhaps Roylion can confirm because my studies are probably far less extensive on other religions outside of apologetics and personal study. This raises the issue of who borrowed from who and whether the similarities were in line with the real ancient beliefs or added to make the religion more appealing in a post Christian/Islamic world. There is also the question of when Zoroaster was actually around. Some say 2000 years BC, some say 1600 and others place him around the time of the Exile. Then we also need to add that prior to the exile the concepts surrounding monotheism in Jewish tradition existed but were far less noticeable than after the exile. Jewish tradition centres on the exile being the jolt that finally made them see the light on one true God, unfortunately because he left them, others would say that not only Zoroastrian but other religions of the time influenced the religion enough to change some of the theology.

Anyway, thought I would add the query that exists on this one.

 

[Boston tiger]

I hadn't even thought about the devil as mentioned in the last few pages.

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/why-did-god-create-the-devil/

But I'm reading something here, and I don't understand how grown, and intelligent adults can read this, and take it seriously.

Here's another one. This is from a Pope so they are all into it. Talking about a fallen angel.

When, by an act of his own free will, he rejected the truth that he knew about God, Satan became the cosmic "liar and the father of lies" (Jn 8:44). For this reason, he lives in radical and irreversible denial of God and seeks to impose on creation--on the other beings created in the image of God and in particular on people--his own tragic "lie about the good" that is God.

 

[skilts]

I didn't attempt a rebuttal of evo's post, just as his post didn't attempt to rebut mine. His post was a scoff, so I had no need to rebut such an unsupported opinion, as there was nothing to rebut. My comment was a general one, applicable to all critics. I merely used his comment as a springboard.

I'm the arbiter of intent for my posts, not you. You prattle on about my intent but could not possibly know what it is. So, you instead make it up as you go along in order for it to neatly fit into whatever narrative you've conjured. You start with a flawed premise and it goes downhill even further from there.

"Your illness is having an increasingly debilitating effect. Until you understand the irrelevance of your beliefs to anything, no matter how steadfastly you hold them, your hope of recovery is zilch" makes my point for me. Thank you for providing such a fine example.

For this to be true, one must interpret your posts as completely meaningless. If they in no way reflect your views, what is the point of you posting them? Are you a being whose views provide no reflection of the way you think? If this be so, you are more ill than I first thought.

 

[Moti]

I have been reading the last few pages or so about some of the theology, free will and sin and thought I would put in the view from my side. Quick note, God created things with order, whether that be commands given in the bible or the scientific laws that govern our world.


Free Will

Free Will is necessary if we are to make decisions about whether we come into agreement with God or not. You can’t say no to something if you can’t.

Angels have free will but do not have dominion over anything. They are assigned tasks and positions to carry out God’s will.

Man has Free Will to make decisions and has also been given dominion over the Earth, except man itself.

For God to have a true relationship, a created being would have to have free will to decide the depth and extent of that relationship. Otherwise we would be robots and that would be kinda boring.


Place of Sin

No other subject creates as much anguish as the concept of sin and what it causes on the earth. Whether you believe or not, there is usually a pretty big opinion somewhere.


Lucifer committed the first sin; he was the chief worshipper and led the other angels in worship. He was created with instruments as part of his body including percussion, strings and wind instruments. He was also very beautiful with a list of jewels over his body.


He wondered why only God should receive worship and he elevated himself as an object of worship. So the first sin was worshipping a being other than God. This led to the rebellion where he was cast out of heaven. God does not allow sin (being in opposition to God) so he had the authority to expel him. He created what we call hell (not created with the décor we know now) as it was a place to set apart the fallen angels from heaven. It was probably a pretty barren place without form.


As an interesting aside, as heaven lost its chief worshipper, you could say that there could have been a gap in the choir of heaven, a chance for Lucifer to tell God that he didn’t have anyone to fill the role and who is going to worship you now! God’s response was us, we have woodwind (windpipe), strings (vocal chords) and percussion (hands) and that is why we are “made to worship”. The church is also adorned with the exact same jewels as Lucifer was created with in Revelation when New Jerusalem descends from heaven.


When Earth is populated with humanity, we had the ability to sin if we chose but were not born inherently to do so. It took the snake enticing the woman with the same thought he originally had (being like God) to create a situation where God had to separate himself from man. However, he had already given dominion to man for the Earth so God left the Earth instead of casting us out. That is why we have a nature that is therefore able to and willing to sin without a change of mind and Spirit. That is why when we die, we only have two choices, heaven, or what we call hell. In the heavenly realm they are the choices. Unfortunately hell is already populated so not the greatest place to go.


Lucifer becomes Satan due to his changed nature. God changed Jacob’s name, so it isn’t a first. He hates man as we are his replacement and God didn’t end it all when we did reject him.

regarding sacrifices, the payment for a sin is the blood of another. God set the currency exchange and until Jesus we did not have the right amount to get back into contact with God. His blood needed to be spilt in order for a sacrifice perfect enough to pay for all sins to have the power.


So all will be good, right?

Jesus died to allow the saints access to God, whether that be on earth or heaven. That is why we can access God now directly. So that means we don’t need priests, Pharisees or other religious heads to intercede for us, forgive our sins or talk to God on our behalf. However, they can walk with us, join with you in prayer for intercession and teach according to their individual gifting.


Regarding the final destination, often we are told our goal is heaven, but that is wrong. We are actually destined to end back on earth in New Jerusalem. That is the city that descends from heaven with the Saints in tow. God will inhabit the city and walk with us. So does that mean is sin is done and dusted? Well the question is actually, do we have free will still?


The answer is yes and yes. Why build a city with 12 gates and angels designated to keep the city holy and keep sin out if it could not exist. Man will still have a choice, but unlike Lucifer, we will have a clear understanding of how that will turn out.

Very quick overview, but that is the state of play on those points.

 

[Pie eyed]

Sort seeing where you are coming at but aren't you just hammering away at the fundamentalists here.
They believe a snake spoke to Eve.

A few people have asked why God has bothered to make this world and universe so challenging and not just make it perfect and i suppose its its business.


Maybe it's this amazing canvas that humans have the chance to discover and create in. And it just keeps driving us forward. If it was perfect we would stop.

Stop what?

 

[Boston tiger]

Stop what?

Growth. Eg rich kid with everything v make your own way.

Just theories on what good old God might have planned. Not that I do worry its a few people here are pretty sure that if there was a God it would make sure everything was perfect with no pain.

 

[tesseract]

One word: projection

One word: deflection.