1) Why did God create Satan?

2) Why would God let Satan slither up to these dopey idiots in the first place.

3) If God is omnipotent, why did he not see this coming?

4) So if the Canaanites were produced on the 6th day and Tweedledum and Tweedledumber were on day seven,why do we say Adam was the world's first man?

5) Why are giants being allowed to walk the earth, when obviously the Miami Dolphins should be given precedence?

Unless he isnt a God, but a Goa'uld looking like Charlton Heston

or a Prior sent forth by a race of Ascended beings called "The Ori"

..er..it's begging to sound a little like Stargate SG-1

GENISIS CHPT 1 vs - 19-20

19) And out of the ground the LORD GOD formed every beast of the feild and every fowl of the air and brought them to ADAM to see what "he"** would call them. And whatsoever "Adam" called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20) And "Adam gave names" to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the feild.

for funches - not my belief - but to say that A&E were not idiot's according to what's written there - supposedly they had the intelligence to name all the local animals at least - or i should say Adam did anyway.

** (tribo's)

and I'm sure when Adam took a dump that he needed to called it something and therefore sh_t became a word but that doesn't say anything about how intelligence Adam was it only means he use sounds to call different animals names and that doesn't mean he could comprehend anything about the animals beyond the name

here's a short video to explain what I mean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQQbmJsRZ54&feature=related

and gutteral groanings exemplify what?

explitives for the inexplicable?

exploitation of distractions?

excuses for stewarding licentious debate?


Perhaps intervention and intercession are given to circumvent fascist manipulations of thought.

Fascism wasn't even a word two hundred years ago, yet it existed.

Even facetiousness doesn't mean what it did two hundred years ago. It has become a negative and a derogatory ephithet and no longer the affirmation of good humor and laughter.

Charity and love no longer mean compassion and sympathy.


Good is bad and bad is good.

truth mocks arrogance and arrogance mockingly excuses truth.

The knowledge of good and evil breeds confusion.

Life cleanses itself of that.

But even life is defined in temporal terms and not in immortal terms as given.


Even a partition is a bridge when laid on it's side.


But a bridge cannot change itself. it remains an unabridged term.


LIFE

We will never know.

and I'm sure when Adam took a dump that he needed to called it something and therefore sh_t became a word but that doesn't say anything about how intelligence Adam was it only means he use sounds to call different animals names and that doesn't mean he could comprehend anything about the animals beyond the name

here's a short video to explain what I mean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQQbmJsRZ54&feature=related

You move your fingers and type the words, but nothing makes sense with what you put here.
Its all second-hand rhetoric. You pick long words you cannot spell, and soundbites that are tired and for some unfathomable reason you love the word licentious ...

and gutteral groanings exemplify what?

explitives for the inexplicable?

exploitation of distractions?

excuses for stewarding licentious debate?


Perhaps intervention and intercession are given to circumvent fascist manipulations of thought.

Fascism wasn't even a word two hundred years ago, yet it existed.

Even facetiousness doesn't mean what it did two hundred years ago. It has become a negative and a derogatory ephithet and no longer the affirmation of good humor and laughter.

Charity and love no longer mean compassion and sympathy.


Good is bad and bad is good.

truth mocks arrogance and arrogance mockingly excuses truth.

The knowledge of good and evil breeds confusion.

Life cleanses itself of that.

But even life is defined in temporal terms and not in immortal terms as given.


Even a partition is a bridge when laid on it's side.


But a bridge cannot change itself. it remains an unabridged term.


LIFE

Intelligence - MW definition

: the act of understanding : comprehension

ok "tribo" so let's see if you understand that definition of comprehension

in the video linked that I provided the baby named the presidents for it's mother the same way Adam name the animals for God ...the baby merely repeated what it have heard...but that only suggest the baby and adam had good memory not that they could comprehend what they have memorised..

in other words you can teach a parrot to squawk but you can't teach the parrot to comprehend what it just squawked

From my point of view this brings up very serious issues concerning the nature of biblical 'sin'.

Like you say, before they ate the fruit it was perfectly ok to be naked. But after eating of the fruit all-of-sudden it's shameful to be naked?

So the question is,... was it always wrong to be naked? Were they always being sinful by being naked and just didn't know it?

This begs the question of intent, as well as knowledge. And what exactly is a 'sin'?

Clearly the act of being naked in and of itself could not be a wrongful act since they had been naked all along and never felt (or knew) that their was anything wrong with being naked. But then after eating the fruit that know that being naked is wrong (or at least shameful in some way). Well it must be wrong if it's shameful right?

So the problem with the whole story is that if being naked is wrongful or shameful, then it must have been so before they ate the fruit and they just didn't know it!

But that would imply that they had been sinning all along and by eating the fruit they merely became aware
of it.

Dear abra - as an x believer - this is the point being made in genisis. Adam and eve were made/created in perfect goodness,at first neither of them knew any evil - as far as what evil there was. They knew nothing of "lust" or other thing's of that nature, The tree of which fruit they partook was that of a tree god gave the name - the tree of knowledge of "good & EVIL" before they partook of the tree's yummy fruit ( i doubt it was an apple) they knew no evil. when the fruit was eaten an awareness came over them that was probably like this - they looked at each other in a lustful way.it was not the nakedness - it was the comprehension of a new desire and new feelings that rushed upon them that made them feel "ashamed", to not know lust and feelings of that nature and then have them thrust upon you would and did produce such a response. In there shame - over what had just happened, they covered themselves, why? to stop those feelings and thought's from continuing, in other word's they were uncomfortable with these thing's that had just taken place. Nakedness was never the issue, if it had been as you say then it would have been god's fault for not making them clothes to begin with.

Also, if 'sin' is basically defined as disobedience to God (which it must be because the only way we can know that we are being sinful is by comparing our actions to the laws set down by God), then the only way to know when we are doing something wrong would be to know that is it against God's wishes.

This implies that Adam and Eve always knew that being naked was against God wishes, and just we're disobeying him prior to eating the fruit because they didn't know that disobeying God was wrong. (but if that's the case then they couldn't have known that eating the fruit would be wrong either!). So that can't be right.

your correct that's not right.

So Adam and Eve couldn't have known that God disapproved of them being naked. Thus when they ate the fruit they still wouldn't have known that being naked was against God's wishes. Or if they instantly realized that then they still would have been sinning the whole time because God is unchanging. Therefore if he doesn't want them to be naked after they ate the fruit then he couldn't have wanted them to be naked before they ate the fruit. But he failed to tell them so.

No matter how you cut it, the story makes no sense.

It's the most nonsensical story on the face of the planet.




I believe in God. But I definitely don't believe in this biblical picture. It's simply riddled with far too many logical inconsistencies all designed to try to make people feel guilty. Also, why should you or I feel guilty for what Adam and Eve did anyway. The idea that God is going to hold a grudge against all of humanity for what Adam and Eve did flies in the face of the idea that God is reasonable, and just.

The idea of humanity falling from the grace of God via Adam and Eve in a religion that is supposed to be about personal salvation is an oxymoron in itself.

I agree with the concept of poeple parroting what they have heard - salesmen are a good example of that taking place ce - but it does not say that god brought the animal life before Adam and "told" adam what the names of the animal's were to be - it states he brought the animals before Adam to see or find out "what Adam" would call them or name them - he - adam - was not said to have merely repeated the names after god had said them first.

As to the other point- comprehending god's command to not eat of the fruit of the tree - for him to have obeyed that for whatever time he did - show's comprehension (intelligence) do you agree??

Oh Im real consistant!!
I have only seen them play once and that was at Wembley in London.

So, I am a long distance fan.



All that my co-workers want to do is dive, eat, have sex and play ... not that that is a bad set of objectives, but it does make me jealous that I can only manage two out of those four at anyone time!!!

All that my co-workers want to do is dive, eat, have sex and play ... not that that is a bad set of objectives, but it does make me jealous that I can only manage two out of those four at anyone time!!!

Are these called truths or theories or parrots words ....?
.