ax

A christian answer would be:
no, you can forgive someone as much as you like,but they still need god's forgiveness.
A rational answer would be:
Doesn't god make it void himself by proving the abbsurdity of his nature in the O.T??

HelenM

Hi ax

Evidently you've asked what I think are good questions, of Christians, and received arrogant, unkind, unfair, inappropriate responses...either that or you expect that the responses would be that way if you asked.

So you're angry at Christians as well as having lots of good questions.

I can't really help you there; but I do want to recommend that you see these as two different things.

Because, a few/some/a lot/most Christians behaving in ways you find offensive, doesn't actually mean that God doesn't exist.

I agree that it weakens the case...although some Christians don't even see it that way because when Christians misbehave they see that as evidence that Christian theology is right, that Christians still have 'sin natures' (or 'the flesh') and therefore still sin sometimes.

Nevertheless I recommend you making sure your primary case against the faith is based on objections to the content of the Bible or its reliability or to Christian theology.

Because you'll likely find people whose behavior offends you outside the Christian community as well as inside. And learning not to let that get to you and mess up your own life is important too.

Basically, your questions are good and some Christians who don't have answers to them feel threatened by them. They can't handle them. So they respond in irrational ways to you such as trying to pull the "I'm older and wiser than you" card.

I've had that done to me. I agree that it's totally unacceptable.

But let the evidence lead you to the truth. That's what I suggest.

Kally, thanks for the quote!

braces_for_impact, re: asking one biased source only, will not give you such good answers...exactly! That's why I think it's best not just to ask here, which is pretty much 'one biased source'! So we're agreed, right?

QofS I respect your comments which as always, show how smart and literate you are . Just one response for now - to you implying that, isn't the knowledge of good and evil better than mindless obedience? Well, I don't think there's a reason to say that obedience has to be mindless. It might be voluntary. When you exercise, (if you do) is that mindless obedience? No - it's choosing to do something because you believe it's best for you. That's how Christians see Adam's pre-fall obedience. It was a choice to believe he was doing what was in his best interests as well as God's. After all, God said he'd die if he ate the fruit off the one tree. Why? I don't know. I don't think it was poisoned and if it was, why did God put it there? And in the sermon on Sunday my pastor said "My answer to questions such as "What was the snake - which other places is referred to as the devil or satan - doing in Paradise?" is "I don't know!" I'm glad he chose to say that rather than try to answer it, in that sermon. I have lots of 'don't knows' myself.

Oh, but anyway, I was going to say, so, Christians see the point as, well, Adam already had been told that sin would lead to death. It wasn't that he didn't 'know' that. But when he ate then he experienced shame for the first time. He had the disappointment of knowing he could have done better. He had the expectation of negative consequences. He had the uncertainty of how the person who told him not to do it, would react - he'd messed up in that relationship...and so on.

So, while your comments are good and interesting, there are other ways to think about what happened in Genesis 2 and 3.

Mike McK: in saying God didn't create people with sin natures I think you're missing the point. If I put a too-full glass of milk next to a young child's arm and they knock it over, then was it their fault that they are young and unco-ordinated or was it mine for giving them something too hard to handle? If God knew that Adam was going to sin and thereafter everyone else was going to hell except those who accept Jesus as Savior, and created that system anyway, then I think it's valid to ask why a good God would create all those people He knew would go to hell. But - it's brave of you to jump in on this thread!

love
Helen

Panta Pei

I agree with HelenSl in that you will likely find people that bug you or even outright piss you off.

This is likely situational and may even depend on your mood or theirs at any given time.

The real question is:

How credulous are you?

Then we can move on to which of the thousands of fables are 'true' and why reality is so alarming for people proud to be called sheep

<waves to HelenSl>

Queen of Swords

<strong>But Christianity doesn't teach that the fruit gives us knowledge if good and evil.</strong>

"So when the woman saw that the tree was... desirable to make one wise... Then the eyes of both of them were opened..." (Genesis 3:6-7).

So, show me a bible verse that says what the tree did, if it didn't give us the knowledge of good and evil. Here's my verse : "For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genessi 3:5).

<strong>I'm at work right now and don't have my Bible with me, but I'll look into it and get back to you.</strong>

Please do.

<strong>Because we're discussing what Christianity teaches, it's assumed that it does exsist.</strong>

That what does exist? The god of the Old Testament? The god of the New Testament? That every word of the bible is true? Sorry, I find it hard to simply assume something to exist. You'll have to be a bit more specific about the assumptions you want me to make for the purposes of discussion.

<strong>Not at all. Holiness and sin cannot coexsist.</strong>

Why not? I thought that with god, all things were possible.

<strong>His nature is holy. Ours is sinful. </strong>

Again, I disagree with this. He does plenty of evil things himself, if you believe what the bible says.

<strong>If He didn't want us to be reconciled to Him, then He wouldn't have gone to such heroic lengths to justify us. </strong>

What a shame that the heroic lengths will not prevent most of the human race from burning in hell for all eternity, simply because

1. they happened to be born into the wrong culture.
2. they happened to have died before they heard of Jesus.
3. they happened to have died before Jesus did.
4. they happened to have made choices that god didn't like.

<strong>No, I saw that. If you know "very well" what Christianity teaches, then why are you misrepresenting such basic doctrinal teachings?</strong>

What basic doctrinal teachings would those be? I have yet to see you back up your "basic doctrinal teachings" with Scripture.


<strong>And I pointed out the logical conclusion that man did have that knowledge. </strong>

This is not a logical conclusion. Do you even have any scriptural justification for it?

<strong>No. Christianity teaches that some attributes of God are communicable and some are incommunicable.</strong>

Again, do you have any bibilical backing for this? How about a verse that says, "We were created in the image and likeness of god, therefore he gave us the ability to differentiate between good and evil prior to eating the fruit, but he gave us none of his other powers"?

<strong>Obviously, we are only created "in God's image" to the extent that we recieve His communicable attributes,</strong>

Please provide bibilical backing to demonstrate what god's communicable attributes are.

<strong>Not impossible, but highly unlikely given the language of the Biblical account of her temptation. </strong>

Where in the bible does it say that Eve realized she was doing something wrong, as opposed to merely parroting what god had told her (and even exaggerating that - Genesis 3:3)?

Please point out testable, observable differences between spiritual life and spiritual death. Why is spiritual death a bad thing?

<strong>Spiritual death is a bad thing because it seperates us from God (i.e. "Hell").</strong>

No observable, testable differences. In other words, there is no way to see any difference between "spiritual life" and "spiritual death" until after you actually die - in which case it won't matter any longer.

If God is truly loving, he would provide proof that what you were doing was dangerous.

I notice you didn't address this.

He wouldn't kill you for one mistake, either.

<strong>Nowhere in Christianity does it teach that God "kills you" for one mistake.</strong>

Maybe not in your version of Christianity, but the bible says so in Genesis 2:17.

Actually, he doesn't. He threatens to torture you for all eternity if you don't accept it. That's hardlly "freedom".

<strong>That's not taught anywhere in Christianity.

(a) God doesn't "torture" anyone </strong>

If he created hell, he's responsible for what happens to people in it.

<strong>and (b) you come out of the gate on your way to Hell. </strong>

What gate?

<strong>It's God who steps in and offers you a way out. It's completely up to you whether or not you accept it. </strong>

Except that if you don't accept it, he sends you to hell for all eternity. So this is one of those Godfather-like "offers you can't refuse". If you refuse it - for any reason - you are tortured for all eternity. Hardly compassionate of him, and certainly not resembling "freedom" by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, it wouldn't. What kind of people does he want in heaven? The kind who don't take that final step of thought, the kind who will do whatever he says, up to and including killing their own children (Genesis 22). That doesn't describe any atheists I know, and it certainly doesn't describe me.

<strong>Abraham did NOT kill Isaac and God never intended for Abraham to kill Isaac. Rather than have Abraham kill Isaac, God sent a ram for Abraham to offer as a sacrifice.</strong>

You miss my point (perhaps deliberately?). Abraham was prepared to murder a child because a god ordered him to. Do you disagree with this?

My point is that I wouldn't murder a child for any reason, including a god's say-so, so perhaps I'd make a very poor follower of your god.

<strong>This was to illustrate the vicarious sacrifice of the coming Messiah.</strong>

This was also to show that people can be ordered to kill their own children if they believe in the authority of the person telling them to do so, much like Jim Jones and the People's Temple.

<strong>Who does God want in Heaven? Who does John 3:16 say that Christ died for? "Whosoever". God wants everyone home who wants to come home and He grieves for those who don't.</strong>

Assuming that that verse is accurate, I still doubt that he grieves for the people whom he sends to hell to burn for all eternity. How long does he grieve for them, anyway?

<strong>QoS, for someone who says they were a Christian, you sure don't know much about the most basic teachings of Christianity.</strong>

But Mike, that is your false impression because you've obviously been raised in the wrong faith. Some of your beliefs have no bibilical justification. This clearly indicates that you are on the wrong road. Only open your eyes and read the bible, and you will see the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Oh, and one last question : If, as you say, the tree of knowledge was to discern whether Adam and Eve were good or evil, was the tree of life meant to discern whether they were alive or not-alive?

Queen of Swords

Thanks for the compliments, Helen.

<strong>
Well, I don't think there's a reason to say that obedience has to be mindless. It might be voluntary. When you exercise, (if you do) is that mindless obedience? No - it's choosing to do something because you believe it's best for you.</strong>

I agree with this, but I'm not convinced that Adam and Eve could make the distinction between "what's good for you" and "what's bad for you". They were babes in the wood.

<strong>That's how Christians see Adam's pre-fall obedience. It was a choice to believe he was doing what was in his best interests as well as God's. After all, God said he'd die if he ate the fruit off the one tree. </strong>

Was there even death in the garden prior to the Fall? The way I see it, if you tell a three-year-old child that he's going to die if he does something wrong, it's maybe not going to have much of an impact on his behavior because he doesn't understand what dying is.

And I'm not even sure that Adam and Eve were that old.

<strong>Why? I don't know. I don't think it was poisoned and if it was, why did God put it there?</strong>

I've wondered that too, especially in light of James 1:13.

HelenM

Originally posted by QueenofSwords:
Thanks for the compliments, Helen.

You're welcome! You deserve them

I'm not convinced that Adam and Eve could make the distinction between "what's good for you" and "what's bad for you". They were babes in the wood.

Was there even death in the garden prior to the Fall? The way I see it, if you tell a three-year-old child that he's going to die if he does something wrong, it's maybe not going to have much of an impact on his behavior because he doesn't understand what dying is.

And I'm not even sure that Adam and Eve were that old.

It all depends how you 'fill in the gaps'. Believing God is good entails that it was a 'fair situation', I think. So Christians assume that it was. Non-Christians allege that it wasn't. I think I understand the arguments on both sides.

I'd say that we could assume the author thought God was fair...being a believer...

But I see why people question that, in ways such as you have.

And, fwiw, I think it's rather disingenuous of Christians, to speak as if it's 'obvious' that it was a 'fair situation', when really, they have assumed that a priori, as a corollary of God being good. The story itself doesn't spell out how how it was fair. I'd say it's definitely a belief, or an assumption, that it was. One that I can't see why non-Christians would make, actually, about the situation. But of course I see why Christians (or any theists who believe God is wholly good) do.

Helen: Why? I don't know. I don't think it was poisoned and if it was, why did God put it there?

I've wondered that too, especially in light of James 1:13.

Yeah really!

Don't ask me - I don't know!

Fwiw, QofS, I appreciated you interacting with the story itself rather than simply saying it's a myth so who cares?

I like doing that, whether it's a myth or not...

love
Helen

HelenM

&lt;waves back&gt;

Godless Dave

Ax,

Eat the fruit. Take the red pill.

Anunnaki

I`m perplexed as to why theres even a discussion of the Christian implications of Adam & Eve. Why is it necassary to get into the myth time machine to try and sort all this nonsense out in the mythical realm?

Isn`t the fact that this story is indeed mythical enough to end the debate? It seems to me that this little fact is enough to keep this debate from starting in the first place.

Why is it always 1 step forward followed by 10 steps backwards when dealing with Christians.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Mad Kally

Beats me Anunnaki.

Here's another quote since Helen likes them so much.

"Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent."

--Robert Green Ingersoll