Jesus said to the Father. About the Plan and my death, get serious.

[Greatest I am]

Jesus said to the Father. About the Plan and my death, get serious.

Some believe that the Father would tell Jesus that they would create humans with original sin. Then they would impregnate Mary with Himself as her child so that He could be born as human and Himself. He then would commit suicide as a sacrifice to Himself to save man from the sin that He had condemned and created man to do.

This is one view.



The real view is that we are born with sinning nature thanks to the evolutionary system that we have in place and working on an ongoing basis. We either compete/evil or cooperate/good, to evolve ourselves to a higher degree of perfection as all are created perfect.
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
The above is one view of God.
If a God actually placed evolution here, then because of it’s perfect nature, He would never have to return to fix what is working perfectly and we truly have dominion over the earth.
Man is the supreme force here. Not a God.

The vicarious redemption of Jesus as shown above is not only unlikely, it also places us all on a scapegoat and this is an immoral position that a God would not force upon us. That would be an immoral act. We are all responsible for our own actions and sins. God in fact rejected vicarious redemption--why have you forsaken me--because the death of an innocent man for the sins of others is not justice.

If scripture is to be believed then man must sin to earn heaven.
2 Peter 3:9 KJ
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.
Repentance is to follow sin. We must sin first, so it can be said that God wants man to sin.
Why? To repent because repenting is what forms our moral sense. Without sin, this is not possible.
The writers of scriptures knew this and this is why they had Eve fall. As the above shows, the fall was not a fall but a fall up, so to speak, to a moral sense.
To think that a God would hold back the knowledge of good and evil is false.
Man is not a total human without a moral sense and this can only come with the knowledge of good and evil.
Be it God’s will or evolutions purpose then there can be no hell as all are saved. In this we have no choice as to think otherwise would be to think that God’s will can be thwarted or that evolution is imperfect. Both of these I see as impossible.
Is the vicarious redemption of Jesus evil?
Does God want us to sin?

Regards
DL

[slingblade]

Oh, what the heck.

Sure. Let's say that did god exist, he would want us to sin in order to know redemption.
Rather in the same way your mom wants you to grow hungry so you will want and appreciate the nice supper she's making for you. If you're not hungry, there's no reason to cook. If you don't sin, there's no reason to redeem you.

Or we could say that your mom simply knows you will get hungry, and when you do, she will cook supper. Perhaps god simply knows you will sin, and when you do, he will offer redemption.

But since there is no god, I'm not fussed about which it is.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Oh, what the heck.

Sure. Let's say that did god exist, he would want us to sin in order to know redemption.
Rather in the same way your mom wants you to grow hungry so you will want and appreciate the nice supper she's making for you. If you're not hungry, there's no reason to cook. If you don't sin, there's no reason to redeem you.

Or we could say that your mom simply knows you will get hungry, and when you do, she will cook supper. Perhaps god simply knows you will sin, and when you do, he will offer redemption.

But since there is no god, I'm not fussed about which it is.

Repenting serves you and your moral sense, not God.

Regards
DL

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Isn't God a bit of an idiot for thinking that "sacrificing" his Son has any meaning to we poor humans and our "original sin". Why does it redeem us? Could he not just have said, "Sorry I screwed up folks. Let's start over?" Why this silly rigamarole?

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Isn't God a bit of an idiot for thinking that "sacrificing" his Son has any meaning to we poor humans and our "original sin". Why does it redeem us? Could he not just have said, "Sorry I screwed up folks. Let's start over?" Why this silly rigamarole?

Yes. As depicted in literal scripture, God looks like an idiot and even suicidal.

Regards
DL

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Repenting serves you and your moral sense, not God.

Regards
DL

From sin invented by a human institution? That I had none of my "free will" employed in? My moral sense is outraged, alright. Sorry, I don't need that sort of humility-training.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Repenting serves you and your moral sense, not God.

Regards
DL

No, it doesn't. I never repent.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Yes. As depicted in literal scripture, God looks like an idiot and even suicidal.

Regards

OK, if you are so smart, you go out and create Heaven and Earth.

*drums fingers*

See, not so easy, eh?

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by shadron

From sin invented by a human institution? That I had none of my "free will" employed in? My moral sense is outraged, alright. Sorry, I don't need that sort of humility-training.

Certainly your free will is in play. What others may call sin, you do not have to agree with.

Regards
DL

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Certainly your free will is in play. What others may call sin, you do not have to agree with.

If we can't agree on what is and isn't sin, they why should we be concerned about it? To that end, why even both with the Bible, since its definitions of sin are open to any interpretation. That being the case, why should we suppose that anything in the Bible is more than just an ancient morality play?

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

If we can't agree on what is and isn't sin, they why should we be concerned about it? To that end, why even both with the Bible, since its definitions of sin are open to any interpretation. That being the case, why should we suppose that anything in the Bible is more than just an ancient morality play?

Perhaps it is through it that we are to seek the true definitions that you seek.

The Bible was what we were given as the best guess of the day. It is to us to improve on what was known or surmised or even guessed at.

While still remembering that it was a tool of social manipulation and control paied for by a tyrant emperor. It is Constantine's book. He paid for it and got what He paid for.

Regards
DL

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Perhaps it is through it that we are to seek the true definitions that you seek.

I don't seek definitions. I'm posing questions regarding the logic of using a book for certain elements of your faith, but discarding it for others.

Quote:

The Bible was what we were given as the best guess of the day. It is to us to improve on what was known or surmised or even guessed at.

So now, knowing more and better, we should just discard it as over-rated, antiquated, and oft-misquoted.

Quote:

While still remembering that it was a tool of social manipulation and control paied for by a tyrant emperor. It is Constantine's book. He paid for it and got what He paid for.

So yeah, again, why use it to support certain conclusions, but reject it when it doesn't suit your needs?

[Greatest I am]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobRoy

I don't seek definitions. I'm posing questions regarding the logic of using a book for certain elements of your faith, but discarding it for others.

Some of it makes logical sense and I use what I can find to engage Christians.

Quote:

So now, knowing more and better, we should just discard it as over-rated, antiquated, and oft-misquoted.

I agree that a major re-write is needed. To scrap it altogether would be throwing out the baby with the bath water from my point of view.

Quote:

So yeah, again, why use it to support certain conclusions, but reject it when it doesn't suit your needs?

Some of it makes logical sense and I use what I can find to engage Christians.
I agree that a major re-write is needed.
I agree that a major re-write is needed. To scrap it altogether would be throwing out the baby with the bath water from my point of view.

Regards
DL

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Some of it makes logical sense and I use what I can find to engage Christians.
I agree that a major re-write is needed.
I agree that a major re-write is needed. To scrap it altogether would be throwing out the baby with the bath water from my point of view.

Except that using your system, half the time you're throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater, so there's no reason to believe anything you say, because all responses are conditional.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Except that using your system, half the time you're throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater, so there's no reason to believe anything you say, because all responses are conditional.

I am not sure what your blanket statement is referring to so it is hard for me to give you a proper response.
I do try to be consistent.

Regards
DL

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I am not sure what your blanket statement is referring to so it is hard for me to give you a proper response.
I do try to be consistent.

It refers to using the Bible when it suits you, but not using it when it doesn't. In your attempts to be consistent, you are failing.

[Z]

I have two main problems with the story of Christ's sacrifice:

1) It wasn't much of a sacrifice. The Son dies for three whole days (ooh, ahh)... and that's that. No more suffering, or pain, or sorrow - big whip. How is that supposed to redeem billions upon billions of sins across thousands of years??

I mean, think about it. Your creditor comes, gives you the money to pay your debt to him from his own pocket (??), and then tells you to hide it from him for three days. Then he comes along, opens the cookie jar, and takes the money. "Debt repaid!" he declares.

What???

2) The story of Christ's sacrifice, the more I think about it, seems to me to be more an apology FROM God to Man for messing up with the whole free will/sin thing in the first place. Though, once again, three days isn't much of an apology.

But could it be that God was really saying, "Damn, I screwed up. Let me apologize"? Maybe the New Testament was more about God trying to reconcile his screwed-up behavior in the OT...

Of course, since the Gospels are fictional anyway, it doesn't really matter.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

It refers to using the Bible when it suits you, but not using it when it doesn't. In your attempts to be consistent, you are failing.

Rather hard to discuss the veracity of scripture without using it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Z

I have two main problems with the story of Christ's sacrifice:

1) It wasn't much of a sacrifice. The Son dies for three whole days (ooh, ahh)... and that's that. No more suffering, or pain, or sorrow - big whip. How is that supposed to redeem billions upon billions of sins across thousands of years??

I mean, think about it. Your creditor comes, gives you the money to pay your debt to him from his own pocket (??), and then tells you to hide it from him for three days. Then he comes along, opens the cookie jar, and takes the money. "Debt repaid!" he declares.

What???

2) The story of Christ's sacrifice, the more I think about it, seems to me to be more an apology FROM God to Man for messing up with the whole free will/sin thing in the first place. Though, once again, three days isn't much of an apology.

But could it be that God was really saying, "Damn, I screwed up. Let me apologize"? Maybe the New Testament was more about God trying to reconcile his screwed-up behavior in the OT...

Of course, since the Gospels are fictional anyway, it doesn't really matter.

That or He knew that He should pay some penalty for drowning the ass of millions in Noah's day. Now that was just mean. Not to man some Christians will say, so let me point to the non reason for killing all the animals. Now that was just plain mean.

Regards
DL

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Rather hard to discuss the veracity of scripture without using it.DL

That's because we're discussing the veracity of the entire book, as opposed to those scriptures you're willing to cherry-pick when it suits your needs, and those you're more than happy to reject under your own interpretation when they don't meet your criteria.

It makes a joke of your professed faith in a book that you claim as being fundamental . . . but only some of the time.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

The real view is that we are born with sinning nature thanks to the evolutionary system that we have in place and working on an ongoing basis.

If this really is 'the real view', then you really will have no real problem defining our real 'sinning nature'... so... really... please do

TYIA

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

OK, if you are so smart, you go out and create Heaven and Earth.

*drums fingers*

See, not so easy, eh?

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

To think that a God would hold back the knowledge of good and evil is false.
Man is not a total human without a moral sense and this can only come with the knowledge of good and evil.
<serious snippage from the OP>
Does God want us to sin?

The whole "good and evil" thing is very problematic with religion, taken as a philosophy, meaning trying to make actual sense out of it. I think the problem is a misunderstanding of what it is exactly one would receive as a benefit from consuming of such a thing.
Of course I have to imagine it is all about a bad translation from the Hebrew. So here is my translation of what the hell this thing was:
"The tree which has the property of inducing upon the one who partakes of it, a state of mind that considers it preferable to be in a condition of disagreement, or contentiousness with someone especially in a position of authority."
So what you end up with, using my translation, is nothing other than what they did. They decided that going against God was a good thing to do. That's it. The tree was just the material illustration of their thought processes, in a practical model.
No special powers. No magic box to be opened. Just people turned bad in their own minds. Depends on what you consider bad, though. What God thinks is bad is not what you think is bad. That's it, really. The disagreement. Gods (not literally God, but gods, as in powerful spirit beings) can be that way. Let's say you have God on this throne, as illustrated by the "mercy seat" or lid of the Ark, and it has two opposing cherubim (the close ones). What is mercy? Judgement. So one on the right and one on the left. One says yes and one says no. God sits in the middle and decides. Does God kill the one who He ends up deciding against? No.
How about people? Nope. We have to always agree with whatever God says, or die. Apparently our ancient ancestors thought, "Damn it! I'm not going to run around this garden naked for God's amusement!" or something like that.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

That's because we're discussing the veracity of the entire book, as opposed to those scriptures you're willing to cherry-pick when it suits your needs, and those you're more than happy to reject under your own interpretation when they don't meet your criteria.

It makes a joke of your professed faith in a book that you claim as being fundamental . . . but only some of the time.

I have no faith in literal reading of scripture and the few lines I have quoted are hardly the whole book. The Bible God is not my God.

The scriptures I used do go well with the OP though.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by six7s

If this really is 'the real view', then you really will have no real problem defining our real 'sinning nature'... so... really... please do

TYIA

In evolutionary terms, cooperation is good and competition is evil. Both are required and in that sense even the evil is of benefit and good.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

The whole "good and evil" thing is very problematic with religion, taken as a philosophy, meaning trying to make actual sense out of it. I think the problem is a misunderstanding of what it is exactly one would receive as a benefit from consuming of such a thing.
Of course I have to imagine it is all about a bad translation from the Hebrew. So here is my translation of what the hell this thing was:
"The tree which has the property of inducing upon the one who partakes of it, a state of mind that considers it preferable to be in a condition of disagreement, or contentiousness with someone especially in a position of authority."
So what you end up with, using my translation, is nothing other than what they did. They decided that going against God was a good thing to do. That's it. The tree was just the material illustration of their thought processes, in a practical model.
No special powers. No magic box to be opened. Just people turned bad in their own minds. Depends on what you consider bad, though. What God thinks is bad is not what you think is bad. That's it, really. The disagreement. Gods (not literally God, but gods, as in powerful spirit beings) can be that way. Let's say you have God on this throne, as illustrated by the "mercy seat" or lid of the Ark, and it has two opposing cherubim (the close ones). What is mercy? Judgement. So one on the right and one on the left. One says yes and one says no. God sits in the middle and decides. Does God kill the one who He ends up deciding against? No.
How about people? Nope. We have to always agree with whatever God says, or die. Apparently our ancient ancestors thought, "Damn it! I'm not going to run around this garden naked for God's amusement!" or something like that.

I must be tired. What is your point? Does God want us to sin or not?
Did Eve do the right think?

Regards
DL

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I have no faith in literal reading of scripture and the few lines I have quoted are hardly the whole book. The Bible God is not my God.

The scriptures I used do go well with the OP though.

Then what was the point of quoting them?

Are you saying you're not a Christian?

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I have no faith in literal reading of scripture and the few lines I have quoted are hardly the whole book. The Bible God is not my God.

The scriptures I used do go well with the OP though.

That's a fairly lame defense I'm afraid. If you believe in the veracity of these statments enough to quote them in support of your claims, but reject the rest of the book as erroneous, then again, you're cherry-picking to suit your own needs, and there is no basis for the truth you're claiming. In short, if you deny the veracity of the majority of the Bible, then there is no reason why I should believe the sections you quoted have any more truth to them than the rest of the book you're rejecting as flawed.

Quick question, are you saying you're not a Christian?

[slingblade]

He says he's a gnostic christian.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by slingblade

He says he's a gnostic christian.

Well, that's what I thought. But his line above about about not reading the Bible literally, and the Bible God not being his God made the question necessary.

If he is a Christian, then he must accept some parts of the Bible as truth, but then he rejects other parts as false or lacking veracity. It's the cherry-picking syndrome I keep pointing at. Take what you want, quote what you want, but only when it lines up with what you're trying to say. If someone quotes something that discounts or denies, just claim it isn't true, requires something other than a literal reading, or is the work of someone who had another agenda.

It's a lame argument.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Well, that's what I thought. But his line above about about not reading the Bible literally, and the Bible God not being his God made the question necessary.

If he is a Christian, then he must accept some parts of the Bible as truth, but then he rejects other parts as false or lacking veracity. It's the cherry-picking syndrome I keep pointing at. Take what you want, quote what you want, but only when it lines up with what you're trying to say. If someone quotes something that discounts or denies, just claim it isn't true, requires something other than a literal reading, or is the work of someone who had another agenda.

It's a lame argument.

Constantine’s Bible and the religion that he bought created a book that was to be a tool for social manipulation and control. It worked quite well.
It begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster.

Just how literally should I take this book?

All Bibles and other books of philosophy have bits of wisdom in them. Of course I will select from wherever I chose if it suit’s the discourse.
Further, what is it about, it is hard to discus the Bible and religion without quoting it, that you do not understand?

Regards
DL

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Well, that's what I thought. But his line above about about not reading the Bible literally, and the Bible God not being his God made the question necessary.

If he is a Christian, then he must accept some parts of the Bible as truth, but then he rejects other parts as false or lacking veracity. It's the cherry-picking syndrome I keep pointing at. Take what you want, quote what you want, but only when it lines up with what you're trying to say. If someone quotes something that discounts or denies, just claim it isn't true, requires something other than a literal reading, or is the work of someone who had another agenda.

It's a lame argument.

I see your point, but I took it differently. I saw it as a somewhat more sophisticated approach to a religious view.

Bible literalists might be divided into two camps. The apologists and the acceptors. The apologists contrive complex arguments often with little or no supporting evidence that venture into fantasy and strange interpretations that make the meaning of the bible so ambiguous that he could mean anything. The accepters don't think about it much beyond the idea that they are comforted by what the literalist apologists claim.

Greatest I am is neither one of those. He understands that the bible is just so implausible in places that it is intellectually dishonest to even attempt to develop explanations for those sections beyond just accepting that the bible is not always literally true. But he says that some parts are true and have value to him as a believer. That strikes me as a reasonable approach albeit to a belief system that is inconsistent with my view of the world.

I think his approach is similar to what I see as the approach of mainstream catholicsome.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Constantine’s Bible and the religion that he bought created a book that was to be a tool for social manipulation and control. It worked quite well.
It begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster.

Just how literally should I take this book?

You shouldn't at all. In fact, any portions of the book that you cannot verify from outside sources, should be rejected utterly as the scribblings of folk with, as you apparently agree, an agenda to fill.

Quote:

Further, what is it about, it is hard to discus the Bible and religion without quoting it, that you do not understand?

It's not that I don't understand your quotes. It's that I don't understand your motivation. I don't understand how you can, on the one hand, reject the the Bible, but then on the other hand quote it to support your conclusion. Do you see how this raises HUGE questions regarding your claims? For example: If I were to claim that the Book of Mormon were false in its majority, but then quote from it to support my own conclusion, wouldn't you call me on it? Wouldn't it strongly suggest to you that I also had an agenda, and was using what suited my needs, despite my previous claims of error?

Cherry-picking from the Bible strongly suggests to me that your claims are false, and that you are being just like Constantine: selecting what you want to check the boxes of your agenda.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I must be tired. What is your point? Does God want us to sin or not?
Did Eve do the right think?

Maybe this is a little esoteric. You are probably not used to my so-called re-translating the Bible, one disagreeable verse at a time. I developed the philosophy that the major difficulties in Christianity are aggravated by bad translations.
To me, a big problem comes up because of this notion that there was this power of discernment that was secret or held back from mankind at their coming into the world. It makes God seem bad because He decided it was in the best interest for everyone involved if this special knowledge was never attained by the subjects so named as Adam and Eve.
I have long thought that if it was somehow knowable exactly what this so-called knowledge was, we could better come to a determination of whether God was correct in His assessment of what was good or bad for these people to know. What I came to realise was that there was no special knowledge but a frame of mind that is being contrary with God's wishes and best advice. One of the sticking points for me was, what in the world could have been the purpose of having such a thing as a tree of Knowledge, in the first place. Surely it was of some use to someone, just not Man. Well it could be useful to certain entities that may need to have an alternative opinion on things, like whatever spiritual entity that was manifesting itself in the serpent. In this instance, he went beyond is ordinary bounds and used this ability with Man, instead of what may have been the proper role of this individual. So, he becomes Satan because the results of his acting out as a persuader led to the downfall of Man.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I see your point, but I took it differently. I saw it as a somewhat more sophisticated approach to a religious view.

Bible literalists might be divided into two camps. The apologists and the acceptors. The apologists contrive complex arguments often with little or no supporting evidence that venture into fantasy and strange interpretations that make the meaning of the bible so ambiguous that he could mean anything. The accepters don't think about it much beyond the idea that they are comforted by what the literalist apologists claim.

Greatest I am is neither one of those. He understands that the bible is just so implausible in places that it is intellectually dishonest to even attempt to develop explanations for those sections beyond just accepting that the bible is not always literally true. But he says that some parts are true and have value to him as a believer. That strikes me as a reasonable approach albeit to a belief system that is inconsistent with my view of the world.

I think his approach is similar to what I see as the approach of mainstream catholicsome.

Except that they are 20 years behind.
They are as Fundamental as Fundamentals of all religions. Some are not listening to their Pope.

Thanks for your other comments.
Being Franglais, I sometimes have difficulty conveying the flow of the general idea.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

You shouldn't at all. In fact, any portions of the book that you cannot verify from outside sources, should be rejected utterly as the scribblings of folk with, as you apparently agree, an agenda to fill.



It's not that I don't understand your quotes. It's that I don't understand your motivation. I don't understand how you can, on the one hand, reject the the Bible, but then on the other hand quote it to support your conclusion. Do you see how this raises HUGE questions regarding your claims? For example: If I were to claim that the Book of Mormon were false in its majority, but then quote from it to support my own conclusion, wouldn't you call me on it? Wouldn't it strongly suggest to you that I also had an agenda, and was using what suited my needs, despite my previous claims of error?

Cherry-picking from the Bible strongly suggests to me that your claims are false, and that you are being just like Constantine: selecting what you want to check the boxes of your agenda.

My motivation is probably none of your business and if you concentrated on what is written instead of why it is written then you might just get it.

Just to shut you up about it though, I can tell you that part of my motivation is to have people think properly about religion and God.

Most that I meet here and elsewhere do not.

The vast majority of Religionist think more like me. The silent majority who see the social value of churches but have a hard time with their Gods.

Regards
DL

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

My motivation is probably none of your business and if you concentrated on what is written instead of why it is written then you might just get it.

Just to shut you up about it though, I can tell you that part of my motivation is to have people think properly about religion and God.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're the one who posted claims about those subjects on a skeptics forum and invited comment. Why are you suddenly shocked that someone is being skeptical about your claims, especially when you state that your source document is faulty?

I'm more than willing to discussion your concept of thinking "properly about religion and God", but I want some baseline information first. If you're unable or unwilling to provide it, then that's hardly an open invitation to dialogue and discussion, now is it?

So, at the risk of repeating myself again, I'll ask once again:

1 - How do I know that, in cherry-picking from your faulty source, you aren't including faulty information, and thus your thinking is not proper either?

2 - What is the filter you're using to determine which parts of the Bible are true and proper, and which ones are wrong?

3 - Why is this filter superior to anyone elses?

If you can't answer these satisfactorily, then I see no reason to believe that your claims are anything but another Christian agenda.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Maybe this is a little esoteric. You are probably not used to my so-called re-translating the Bible, one disagreeable verse at a time. I developed the philosophy that the major difficulties in Christianity are aggravated by bad translations.
To me, a big problem comes up because of this notion that there was this power of discernment that was secret or held back from mankind at their coming into the world. It makes God seem bad because He decided it was in the best interest for everyone involved if this special knowledge was never attained by the subjects so named as Adam and Eve.
I have long thought that if it was somehow knowable exactly what this so-called knowledge was, we could better come to a determination of whether God was correct in His assessment of what was good or bad for these people to know. What I came to realise was that there was no special knowledge but a frame of mind that is being contrary with God's wishes and best advice. One of the sticking points for me was, what in the world could have been the purpose of having such a thing as a tree of Knowledge, in the first place. Surely it was of some use to someone, just not Man. Well it could be useful to certain entities that may need to have an alternative opinion on things, like whatever spiritual entity that was manifesting itself in the serpent. In this instance, he went beyond is ordinary bounds and used this ability with Man, instead of what may have been the proper role of this individual. So, he becomes Satan because the results of his acting out as a persuader led to the downfall of Man.

I hope that we are not talking real talking snakes and Satans.

The Genesis myth, I see as a coming of age story to KIS.
The snake is society drawing children away from a home/garden.
We must all eat of the tree for the growth of our moral sense that we collectively judge.

Have you ever seen the old version of the Time machine.
For a view of what we would be without a moral sense, just recall the scene when Ayla is drowning and those around her, who could save her, did not because of lack of moral sense.

We may have started as bright as cows but archetypal Eve saves the day. A fall up, not down.

Thank God for evolution or we might have remained that way.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're the one who posted claims about those subjects on a skeptics forum and invited comment. Why are you suddenly shocked that someone is being skeptical about your claims, especially when you state that your source document is faulty?

I'm more than willing to discussion your concept of thinking "properly about religion and God", but I want some baseline information first. If you're unable or unwilling to provide it, then that's hardly an open invitation to dialogue and discussion, now is it?

So, at the risk of repeating myself again, I'll ask once again:

1 - How do I know that, in cherry-picking from your faulty source, you aren't including faulty information, and thus your thinking is not proper either?

2 - What is the filter you're using to determine which parts of the Bible are true and proper, and which ones are wrong?

3 - Why is this filter superior to anyone elses?

If you can't answer these satisfactorily, then I see no reason to believe that your claims are anything but another Christian agenda.

1 I did not say that the Bible was faulty. In fact I said that it worked quite well. Just not for religious purposes.
What is right will make sense, what is wrong will not. Always to my own standards. As it should be for all.

2 see 1

3 It is superior, un-provable statement perhaps, because my way of thinking was confirmed by the Godhead the one time I gained communication with it.
I am not a Christian. I am more of a Gnostic Christian. We are ancient rivals.

Regards
DL

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

1 I did not say that the Bible was faulty. In fact I said that it worked quite well. Just not for religious purposes.

Then you should not quote it when you're trying to get people to "think properly about religion and God". Based on this statement alone, your argument fails, as it lacks any other form of "proof".

In fact, there is no reason for you to be a Christian at all, since the Bible is the only relatively contemporary source for belief in Jesus as a historical personage let alone the Christ.

Quote:

What is right will make sense, what is wrong will not. Always to my own standards. As it should be for all.

2 see 1

If your statements can only be weighed through your own standards, then you're not here for a dialogue, but to preach.

There are plenty of people who makes this same claim, and I would wager 99.44% of them would be at odds with your personal standards and interpretations.

Quote:

3 It is superior, un-provable statement perhaps, because my way of thinking was confirmed by the Godhead the one time I gained communication with it.

Unfortunate. Since you wish for your statements to be believed, but cannot provide a filter by which they can be sifted, then your conclusions cannot be followed or reached logically by anyone but yourself. To that end, there is no reason for me to believe what you have to say over anyone else who has had a similar claimed religious experience.

Quote:

I am not a Christian. I am more of a Gnostic Christian. We are ancient rivals.

Not quite. Rivals requires that there is some level of equality existing between two (or more) groups. That's not the case with Gnostic Christianity versus mainstream Christianity. At best, you are considered just a minor flavor of Christianity, at worst a heretical sect.