rhutchin

It does not appear that Adam/Eve saw anything but the serpent. I am not aware that Job ever saw Satan else he would have had some idea of the reasons for his distress. The anti-Christ (which is anyone who is anti (against) Christ) is anyone under the influence of Satan, but while the influence would be visible in the actions of the person, Satan would not be visible.

Wayne Delia

Yes, they are. It's really pretty simple.

I asked my 12-year-old son his opinion, and it turns out he can understand it. "Human concepts of morality don't apply to God" contradicts "I disagree that God tortures people, kills babies and encourages soldiers to rape virgin girls, since it is not part of His nature," since those are human concepts of morality. The Bible explicitly says God does that, and you do not believe it because it contradicts human standards of morality.

You don't have to prove that you believe the second claim; people believe all sorts of wacky-ass things. But in order to establish the second claim, though, you need to apply human standards of morality, which contradict your claim that human standards of morality do not apply to God.

I think you understand the point just fine; you're just avoiding the question.

WMD

Nice Squirrel

I still see original sin as the sin of judging things as ether good or evil. We cannot not do it. Stepping in dog poo -- evil. Other people stepping in dog poo -- Comedy!

No need for Satan to be a serpent or even a dung beetle the whole story reeks of a big ol' metaphore and when people try to literalize it they have to jump through funny hoops and step on bags of burning dog poo which I find amazing. Sometimes I think God created Literalists soley for my entertainment of watching them squirm defending their positions.

Jimmy Higgins

So if Adam wrote the story, then wouldn't be of note that the fact the serpent could talk didn't surprise him, which certainly would have been worthy of notice had such a fact been uncommon, therefore suggesting that the serpent was nothing more than a wise creature?

That has to be the most simplistic and unscholarly answer I've heard yet. The woman was stupid argument. However, the story's narrator doesn't suggest that the woman spoke wrongly of the prohibition. So your conclusion on Eve is based merely on what you need to believe for your own conclusion.

One can deceive with the truth? The serpent spoke only truth in its dealings with Eve. She didn't die, God would see her eyes were open. Both things happen.

If anyone is guilty of deception, that'd be God for saying they would "surely die" if they ate the fruit. The serpent being the cunning one saw right through God's lie.

What part of: And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
don't you understand? If man were to of eaten of the Tree of Life, man would have become immortal like God. Most importantly, you make it sound like man and woman sinned. Where did God say that eating the fruit was morally wrong? Where did God say that he would punish man and woman for eating that fruit? God offered a warning that eating the fruit would lead to death, a claim that was a lie, how can someone Godly lie? God never states that the death would be caused by him as retribution for breaking the prohibition. In fact, it is never stated that it is a prohibition!
That is weak. No where does it speak that man would have lived forever if they didn't eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is an assumption you make that isn't based on any scripture. To assume that man would have lived forever would have been some sort of paradise, but man wasn't made to bask in paradise, but to be a servent. To assume immortality is wrong.
God never links the two trees together as part of a prohibition. In fact, you are assuming its a prohibition in the first place. The truth of the story is quite obvious. God wanted obedient servents that would follow whatever he said. Once the man and woman obtained knowledge of all things, they could no longer be under his thumb. Had they ate from the Tree of Life, they would have been Gods and not servents. God was jealous of the power they then had.

Equinox

rhutchin wrote:


Whoa!! Rhutchin, are you sure you want to say that? I thought the Bible was divinely inspired, the inerrant word of God. If it’s just what some people wrote down based on what they remember then we can’t rely on it at all. Police know quite well that eyewitnesses remember things that didn’t happen, and all kinds of other errors. Our judicial system is well aware of this – that’s why we have juries and evidence instead of just asking the eyewitness and closing the case.

What you are saying is that the Bible is just some stories that some humans wrote down, based on what they remembered. So much for the holy spirit inspiring the Bible. This throws the whole Bible into serious doubt.

For example - just looking at this story, if all we have to go on is some story from Adam, then how do we know that God himself didn’t possess the snake for God’s own secret purposes? The story would have looked the same to Adam.

Do you want to keep your position of calling the Bible unreliable, or would you like to change that answer?

Originally Posted by rhutchin
OK, let me try to clarify the contradiction.

Imagine two scenarios:
Scenario 1: God is supreme, and all morality is based on what God decides is the thing to do at the time. Thus, Gods actions are always moral by definition. What is that definition of morality again? It is this:

Morality = “what God decides�

Scenario 2: There is some property called morality that exists outside of God. This morality is a separate property, and thus we can reason out what is moral and not moral, and look at any behavior to decide if that behavior is moral or not. Thus we can look at Jim’s behavior, and decide if Jim is moral, and we can look at God’s behavior, and decide if God is moral.

Notice that these two scenarios are completely contradictory.

Now, look back at your two statements.

Statement one is consistent with Scenario #1. Morality is what God decides, so human conceptions of morality don’t apply to God, since human conceptions of morality aren’t real – God decides morality, not humans.

Statement two is consistent with Scenario #2, and not Scenario #1. To decide that some things are bad, and that God is good (so God wouldn’t do those bad things) is to use an outside, logical criteria of morality. In statement two you are applying this outside morality to God and God’s actions.

You may have either view of morality. Which do you have, Scenario #1 or Scenario #2?



Have a fun day-

-Equinox

P. S. You didn’t respond to my examples of God torturing people and killing babies. Do we agree that the Bible describes God doing both of these things multiple times?

John A. Broussard

Any idea how Adam recorded this incident? Stone tablets? Did he put them in cuneiform on clay tablets? Papyri?

And what language? Hebrew? Aramaic? Proto-Indo-European?

What date did he use in his record? 4000 BC?

Thanks for venturing a guess.

Mageth

He typed it up on his Apple, of course!

Before the Original Sin, he used Word Perfect. Afterwards, it was Microsoft Word.

John A. Broussard

A fundamentalist archaeologist recently dug up Adam's hard drive.

Stand by!

Equinox

Originally Posted by Mageth
Or was that World Perfect? :devil3:

rhutchin

As to God’s purpose, Romans 9 provides one explanation:

Romans 9
23 And that [God] might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I don’t think God wants to show people how powerful He is but to express His power on behalf of His elect. This is suggested here

2 Chronicles 16
9 For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.

A failed prophecy is likely one that is yet to be fulfilled. Adam/Eve did not have to know the difference between right and wrong. They merely had to know what God had commanded and obey that command. They knew the command; they chose to disobey. I do not see trickery in the examples of Job and Pharoah.

I believe it is your beliefs and requirements that I fail, not my apologetics.