Sauron

It also says that Satan rebelled against God, and 1/3 of the angels of heaven were cast out along with him.

Isn't rebellion against God a sin?

If the angels didn't sin, then why were they ejected from heaven?

Helmabob's explanation sounds like another homemade fundie escape hatch, hastily assembled without thinking it through very carefully.

Helpmabob

Hi Spin – I don’t agree that that is a meaningless statement. Sin is anything that God abhors; anything that is offensive to him. Surely you have heard of pride; greed; envy; gluttony; lust; hate; and sloth? These things are opposed to all that God is about. We are stuck with them. Happily God is not and has the grace to offer to extricate us from the situation.Do you feel that because I write here along the lines of others that have gone before (something like this is in the bible) that I cannot be representative what I actually experience? Or that it is suspicious that I have had a very similar experience to others that live now and some that have gone before? My previous comment is accurate, although perhaps I can add to what I wrote before. I am convinced that all we need is in God - but this comes by faith, not by clear and unequivocal sight. It sounds like faith is a poor relation to visual sight, but living by faith is fabulous. Meanwhile, I hope you can understand that there are certain things that I will not be able to explain scientifically, whether in my own words or those of others.It is not my gospel as you have written it – it is God’s. Men preach the gospel but God gives the message power that appeals to those that hear. It is not the power or intelligence of the preacher, but the God-given power of the message that produces the miracle of faith. In fact with regard to the results, how can the gospel not have power? It is the very reason why iidb specifically censors preaching of the gospel.
God gives it power.I’ll never fully understand, but I am increasingly growing in the knowledge of God. And I have become more like Him. Can you blame me for being excited and humbled by this? And if the prophecy of the bible finally holds as well as it has done so far, there is so much more to look forward to...

Agreed. So it is possible that humans could mistakenly think there is no God. Because after all, He can’t be seen.Absolutely, plenty. It is one of the facets that lends authenticity strength and validity to the biblical message and renders it so convincing and satisfying. For example the High Priests dealt with the apostles thus: If what they have planned is of human origin it will disappear, but if it comes from God, you cannot possibly defeat them.[Acts 5:38,39]They were not defeated and the message continues to live and flourish today. This shows it is of divine origin. And prophecy must be divine in origin or it is worthless.

As an atheist Johnny, can you tell me what is the point of forgiving other people?

Does it not bother you that it was a talking serpent? It was no ordinary serpent – it succeeded in convincing a woman that she could be like God. I contend that it should be considered supernatural in origin. There is no dogmatic input to this – this happens to be what I think.

Whereabouts please?Yes, sin is rebellion against God.They were not ‘of the world’. All the physical things we can see, or could have seen had we been around at the correct time are ‘of the world’.

spin

Umm, god is without anything that god abhors.

When you cite someone else's mysticism, you are only distancing yourself from your own feelings.

I don't start with the apparently unjustifiable presupposition that there is a god, so your conviction doesn't seem rational to me, since you have no way of separating this conviction from that of any schizophrenic and his/her delusions..

How does that make your case any different from the schizophrenic's? You both have faith and no evidence that will allow others to objectively see that you base your thought on reality.

Why would you believe such things if you are, like the schizophrenic, in no position to be able to substantiate them?

It's your gospel, as you have taken it on board. Others have different gospels. Some have pie in the sky, while others have pie in their pocket books, yet others in guns and walking tall.

While I understand that you believe this, you have no way of demonstrating it. And this notion you euphemistically call the "miracle of faith" puts you on par with the schizophrenic. Irrational representation of reality.

How can placebos not cure people?

No. Your need to prove you exist for some reason is not the food of this forum, biblical criticism and history. If you don't want to talk about biblical criticism and history, you should find another forum. You don't impose your desires on those who have constituted a group in order to talk about other things. This forum is not the place for you to proselytise. And I have found that you incessantly want to decay into babbling about issues that are not related to biblical criticism and history, as though you think you have some right to do so. Normally if you interrupt a meeting dealing with a particular subject to foist your own topic, you are physically ejected.

Until you can demonstrate how such a proposition is possible, it verges on the meaningless.

Your proposition is like the notion that the telephone company gives the phonebook power.

If you have no means of verifying this claim, why would you make it? It should be as meaningless, ie void of content, to you as it is to most other people.

Can I blame a schizophrenic for getting excited about being told by his invisible friendly giant rabbit that the schizophrenic is about to meet his maker?

Prophecies are wonderfully self-fullfilling. You cast something as a prophecy then you make it happen if it regards yourself or else your fabricate the data to make it happen to your satisfaction. If you are content with such artifice, then nothing anyone can say will turn you from your folly. Perhaps it would be in bad taste to do so.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helpmabob: What is righteousness? If I was able to create hurricanes and determine where they go, and if I deliberately killed people with them, including my family and friends, even though I had declared that killing people is wrong, would you claim that I was a righteous person? A person who helps, hurts, and kills people is irrational, bi-polar, and mentally incompetent. Why should the actions of a God be considered any differently? God is a hypocrite, and he should be rejected. Actually, rational minded and fair minded people are not able to will themselves to accept the God of the Bible. If God wants to punish decent people for refusing to love a being who endorses 1) favoritism, 2) deliberately killing people even though he says that killing people is wrong, 3) unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, while at the same time endorsing mercy, and 4) revealing his existence to some people who never accept him, while refusing to reveal his existence and will to some people who would accept him if they knew that he existed, that is his chioce. There is nothing that decent people can do about that. It is interesting to note that you have said you would not be able to love any God who endorsed lying. Will you please tell us why you consider lying to be worse than many of the atrocities that God has committed against mankind? One wonders to what extent you would endorse barbaric behavior based upon threats.

2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." There are not any doubts whatsoever that God IS willing that some people perish or he would have done much more than he has done to prevent it. Decent people are not able to will themselves to love any being who endorses such detestable behavior.

Are you aware that there is not one single tangible thing in this life that you can ask God for and expect to receive it? This is exactly what is to be expected if God does not exist, or if he does exist and does not care any more about our tangible needs than he does about the tangible needs of animals. Some animals, and some evil people, live long, healthy, happy lives.

Tangible evidence is much more valid than spiritual evidence. Why doesn't God provide us a lot more tangible evidence than he does? Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Matthew 14:14 And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

Johnny: It is interesting to note that Acts 14:3 refers to events that took place AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church. Now readers, why do Christians suppose that after all of the preceding evidence, INCLUDING the presence of the Holy Sprit, that God felt the need to provide even more tangible confirmations, only to leave us with precious few tangible confirmations today, including no surviving eyewitnesses?

It is said that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. This truth obviously does not apply to people who become Christians. There is no doubt whatsoever that ANY powerful being who showed up and healed all of the sick people in the word would immediately attract a lot of followers, especially if his message was deemed to be acceptable, such as 1) promising salvation by merit, 2) not requiring faith, 3) providing tangible evidence of his existence, power, and goodness for everyone to see, thereby eliminating most doubt, and most religious wars, and 4) being available to have frequent discussions with everyone, tangibly, in person. If such a being started a new religion, it would quickly become the largest religion in history, and yet some Christians claim that it would be counterproductive for God to do anything more than he has already done. How utterly absurd.

Christians would be quite pleased if God healed all of the sick people in the world, but yet, they are quite content that God refuses to heal all of the sick people in the world. Do Christians actually have any opinions of their own? Apparently not.

Gullwind

From any other source, the talking serpent would indicate this is a myth. Why should we assume different in this case?

Where is it stated that sin only applies to things "of the world?" According to Christian beliefs, Satan sinned by rebelling against God. God cast him down to earth. Sin therefore entered the world when Satan arrived. It seems pretty simple to me. Why doesn't Satan's sin and being cast down to earth qualify as bringing sin into the world?

Sauron

It was not a talking serpent. Serpents do not talk, therefore it isn't true.

Or a myth. If we were reading the Greek stories of creation, we'd assume this was a myth. Why should we do otherwise with the bible?

Well, the fundies and evangelicals interpret it from this text from Isaiah (even though they have to take it out of context to do so):

ISA 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

ISA 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

ISA 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

ISA 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

And they combine it with this verse:

REV 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.


So then we agree that according to your bible -- or at least your interpretation of it -- the angels did in fact sin?

How is that releveant to the question of why they were ejected from heaven? Are you saying that sin only happens if beings are "of the world"?

If so, then that means no sin occurred in Heaven, thus neither Satan nor the angels sinned?

Helpmabob

There is one gospel because it is God’s. If there are others, they are at least partially man-made and I can probably point out where they are inaccurate if you like. It can all be tried and tested.The correspondents here are sheltered from the gospel message by the forum rules. The emphasis is heavily skewed towards hatred for God and ridicule of those whose faith rests in God. I know the rules, and I abide by them, but lets not be coy about what the aim of the rules. I have kept to this thread title, biblical prophecy wherever possible.For someone who regards the Bible as unprophetic, and man-made, this is an entirely understandable statement. To someone who has seen lives transformed and God glorified it is clearly daft.When Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah it was not fabricated.

Why do you bother to forgive people Johnny? But then reserve such vitriol for God.

You can make your own mind up about that. Personally I regard it as a supernatural being - Satan.Satan introduced sin to mankind through Adam.

Not a literal talking serpent, but a supernatural being.Thanks for that.I think I agree. I hope I didn’t write anything to the contrary above.NoSatan sinned in heaven. Following his ejection from there, he caused sin to be introduced to mankind on earth via Adam.

One man introduced sin and one man’s sacrifice offers the gracious pardon. But at the end of the day, it is ourselves that are sinful, and it is happening now. It is difficult to argue this fact if you examine your innermost being and it’s actions you find that the prophetic words of Romans 3: 9-18 are true: There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." [Romans 3:10-12]

Katastrophikus

[claim]It is quite clear that your text and prophecies are sent to deceive the worthy. You belong to the forces of chaos that will outnumber and overcome the loyal guardians of order. It is only a matter of time before Loki and his monstrous children will burst their bonds and the dead will sail from Niflheim to attack the living. We are in the end times. This is Ragnarök, when Odin will be swallowed by Fenrir wolf. However, some of us worthies will survive and will populate a new world.[/claim]

How is your claim any more valid than mine? These truths were prophecied to Odin by a dead Völva.

Asking us to take your claims that a god breathed truth into some arbitrary, inconsistant text is just not reasonable.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helpmabob: Do you mind giving us an example of a prophecy that came true? One will do for now.

Because I am much better at keeping God's commandent to be merciful than he is. Why do you approve of God making people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, killing people with hurricanes, including babies, punishing people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5, and refusing to do everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, as few people as possible go to hell?

God is not worthy of being accepted by anyone. Any human who helped people AND injured and killed people would be considered mentally incompetent. Why should the behavior of God be considered any differently? It HAS NOT been reasonably established that in order for God to help increase the number of Christians in the world that he needs to injure and kill people, and give the appearance that no one can learn about his specific existence and will of God except through human effort. Do you know of anyone who God has EVER told about the Gospel message himself? Well of course you don't. Hundreds of millions of people died without have heard the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it. Human effort never has, and never will be sufficient to let everyone know about the Gospel message, but then that has been God's intention all along. In the first century, the "lucky" people who heard the Gospel message were people who lived in close proximity to Palestine, which is just what is to be expected if God does not exist. What good is a better covenant if people do not know about it? Letting everyone know about the Gospel message is obviously not one of God's top priorities, but for some strange reason you have made it one of your top priorities.

Is it your position that God helps people in tangible ways today? Can any Christian, or anyone else, expect God to provide them with food, shelter, clothing, good health, or long life? Well of course they can't. Tangible good things and bad things are distributed in ways that DO NOT indicate divine intervention. The same is true of animals. Some humans and animals are "blessed" with good health. Some are not. Some humans and animals die from starvation. Some do not. Some devout and faithful Christians die after having suffered terribly for years. Some evil people enjoy excellent health for their entire lives. How does it feel to know that God does not care any more about your tangible needs that he does about the tangible needs of animals. There is no guarantee that you will not develop awful health problems and die a slow, painful death. If God does not exist, it is to be expected that the only kind of blessing that anyone could expect from him would be salvation and emotional comfort.

Jack the Bodiless

But, when we test the Bible's claims, we discover that many of them are false. Why are you seeking to pretend that this has never been done, or that the result was otherwise?
Indeed, let's not be coy about the fact that what you're saying is rubbish. The rules are there to limit the tendency of some Christians to spout vast quantities of unsupported myth and speculation as if it were factual, thereby interfering with any attempt at informed discussion.

As you are demonstrating.