JEST2ASK

From this and other things you have posted , I have to agree with you that it is meant as allegory (refreshing to see that )... however I feel that the orginal writers might not agree with your (and IMO almost certainly not the literal) interpretation.




(I do admire your intellect & honesty, I just don't agree with your conclusions)

long winded fool

As opposed to love being the first and foremost? If God and love are synonymous as seems to be implied by the Bible, then what is the problem? If we should all love absolutely and unconditionally, and one poetically personifies the act of unconditional love as a father figure, you've just created a God requiring obedience and worship. Turn away from God (love) and you damn yourself to an "eternity" of Hell (unhappiness.) Perhaps not strictly scientifically accurate, but nontheless a very poetic commentary on the human condition of love vs fear. Obviously, God can't act out of any motive but love if the God of the Bible is symbolic of unconditional love. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." A very poetic, if a little redundant, notion of love as personified in a deified father figure.

spurly

QOS:

When Adam and Eve had to leave the presence of God, God was being extremely merciful. If they had stayed in his presence as sinners, they would have been blown away by his holiness, literally.

So in his mercy he did something incredible. He himself provided the first sacrifice for their sin. He slew an animal and clothed them with the skins. The blood atoned for them and covered them. This was a foreshadowing of what would eventually be done for all of us through the blood of Jesus when he died on the cross.

God is a God of justice. If he wanted to he could have executed Adam and Eve because that is what the penalty for their sin was (and that is what the penalty for any sin is - death). But instead, God, in his mercy and love, allowed them to live even though things would never be the same again - at least not until Paradise is regained at the end of time as we know it.

God's expulsion of Adam and Eve was an act of extreme mercy on hyis part. He didn't put them to death on the spot, and he even covered their sin so that they would not be disintegrated in the presence of his holiness.

Kevin

winstonjen

Please provide evidence for this. Where is the verse that said 'god killed a bear and clothed A&E in its fur'? 'god' may have put the bear there, but wasn't it up to A&E to make coverings for themselves? And couldn't they have used fig leaves (no blood)?

winstonjen

And how could they be out of his prescence? After all, god is supposed to be omnipotent and omnipresent, isn't he?

spurly

Fig leaves wouldn't do. God still saw through the fig leaves to their sin. The penalty for sin was death. And that penalty had to be paid. Life-blood had to be given.

That's why in Genesis 3:21 we are told that God clothed them in something much better than fig leaves. He clothed them in the skins of animals. Where did he get the skins? From animals who had given their life-blood so that Adam and Even could keep theirs.

That begain a flow of blood that circulated through the old covenant. Why blood? Again God's justice demanded it. However, in his mercy he allowed an innocent, perfect, sacrifice to die in our place. This culminated at the cross from which the blood was spilled to pay the penalty for everyone who would come to Jesus in faith.

winstonjen

And god could see through the animal skins, so what's your point? Besides, blood is only required because your god is bloodTHIRSTY.

Again, it's complete arbitrary. It could be blood, or sweat, or tears, etc., but it seems that god wants repentance and faith in Jesus.

JEST2ASK

HEY Fool just kidding ..... I would agree with you if god was not regarded as an enity (as generally described by most religions) the God = Love (Justice - Mercy - etc) concept is great until you add the personality traits ... I simply do not agree that the J/C god of the bible is truly omni-max (loving, knowing, powerful, present etc etc) nor do I agree with IMO the extrapolation of the Creation stories into first Judiasm and later Christianinity ...

If only it was "Turn away from God (love) and you damn yourself to an "eternity" of Hell (unhappiness.) Perhaps not strictly scientifically accurate, but nontheless a very poetic commentary on the human condition of love vs fear" instead of I have created a place and punishment for you because you dared to reject (or failed to acknowledge) me.


the difference in my mind being to let someone have their own non-optimal existence (in your opiion) .... to respect their right to be other than your reflection ... or to actively punish them ... I often see / hear the god as ultimate (Father-figure) parent arguement and I have never agreed with that premise ...
(For any of the versions of religions I have encountered)

spurly

Yes, he could. But what he saw when he looked at them was the blood of an innocent animal who gave up his life-blood so Adam and Eve could be spared.

This is a balancing act of the justice and mercy of God. God justice demanded the penalty be paid. In his mercy he allowed an animal to pay that penalty for them - and even provided the sacrifice himself. It is a tremendous picture of the intersection of justice and mercy.

And that picture repeats itself throughout the OT. It's not that God is blood thirsty, not at all. Instead he is a God of justice and mercy. When the blood flowed is signified the incredible love of God in sparing the life that was created in his image.

On the contrary, it is not arbitrary at all. It is very specific. Only life-blood can satisfy the justice of God when the law is broken.

Kevin

winstonjen

And this is only because your god decreed it so.