100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil. 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. *************************************** HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. no again your comparing before man disobeyed and knew no evil with later times when man did know evil. You can't resist can you Tribo? 
Here the verse says that man used their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. It says nothing about any forbidden fruit that gave them that power. Now they are discerning good from evil by using their senses. Do you suppose the forbidden fruit had anything to do with increasing the senses? Or did mankind simply learn over time to increase their senses and discern good from evil, and if so, what did they need with any forbidden fruit? JB Ok JB, as well as i can remember this is the christian take on this - 2 points - one - they died in the sense of spirituality, they had lost there spiritual life and became soulish in nature, this is the death reffered to not the death of the body - im sure ill here from spider or some one on this. IF - they had not eaten then they would not have known evil and supposedly WE would not have either and again supposedly we would all have lived along time (both spiritually and physically) and even maybe be allowed to eat of the tree of eternal life. which man put a stop to by sinning. 2) later man already knew evil so what paul is saying is the christians need to "discern" this evil by dilligently immersing themselves in prayer and the word/bible I understand that mostly from reading the Urantia book, but not from reading the Bible. It talks about an actual tree that sustained and lengthened life and if you did not eat of that tree, you would fall to the vibration of the flesh and physical world. So this tree somehow kept them in a higher state of being, while the other tree put them into a lower state. It may have to do with vibrations or even a mind altering substance. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
This one reminds me of a debate that took place a while back. Someone was arguing that God lied to Adam and Eve telling them that they would surely die if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil The argument from the non-believer was that they didn't die. The argument from the believer was that they did die eventually. The argument being that they would have never died had they not eaten the fruit. But that's not what the verse says,... It clearly says,... "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" That means that they would die the same day they ate it. Clearly that didn't happen. This means that God lied when he threatened them that they would die in the day that they ate it. Either that or he changed his mind. Bingo! God either lies or changes his mind. There's no way out of that one. 
abra: The argument from the believer was that they did die eventually. The argument being that they would have never died had they not eaten the fruit. But that's not what the verse says,... It clearly says,... "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" That means that they would die the same day they ate it. tribo: they were wrong or stupid, one of the two or both - the death did take place as i wrote JB - it was a spiritual death that happened as soon as they ate, gods spirit left them, they had turned into soulish creatures only, that is why they felt shame not because they were naked, because they knew that they were always naked, but their soulish nature with out gods spirit allowed them to see or experience there new found lustful soulish nature that we now all posses. Anyone who is christian and argues against this i will debate to death!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo) At least it was a true statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo) 
to bad thats not a quote from the bible - they wont debate that - hahahaha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Not by accident, you may be sure, do the Christian Scriptures make the
father of knowledge a serpent--slimy, sneaking and abominable." -- H. L. Mencken |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
This one reminds me of a debate that took place a while back. Someone was arguing that God lied to Adam and Eve telling them that they would surely die if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil The argument from the non-believer was that they didn't die. The argument from the believer was that they did die eventually. The argument being that they would have never died had they not eaten the fruit. But that's not what the verse says,... It clearly says,... "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" That means that they would die the same day they ate it. Clearly that didn't happen. This means that God lied when he threatened them that they would die in the day that they ate it. Either that or he changed his mind. Bingo! God either lies or changes his mind. There's no way out of that one.
abra: The argument from the believer was that they did die eventually. The argument being that they would have never died had they not eaten the fruit. But that's not what the verse says,... It clearly says,... "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" That means that they would die the same day they ate it. tribo: they were wrong or stupid, one of the two or both - the death did take place as i wrote JB - it was a spiritual death that happened as soon as they ate, gods spirit left them, they had turned into soulish creatures only, that is why they felt shame not because they were naked, because they knew that they were always naked, but their soulish nature with out gods spirit allowed them to see or experience there new found lustful soulish nature that we now all posses. Anyone who is christian and argues against this i will debate to death!! If it was a spiritual death, they why did the Bible not say that it was a "spiritual" death. Death is death. People did not understand "spiritual death" back then so why call it death when everyone understands that death is when the physical body dies. And secondly, how does the spirit leave the body without physical death occurring? This is the life giver. And what is a soulish nature? What does that mean? I have never heard these terms before and they sound just like some rationalization to explain the inconsistency of why they did not actually die. Death is death of the physical body unless they were living in two dimensions and walking back and forth between them and one of them was suddenly closed to them. That might be some kind of death. But if this is so, why is this not explained? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine (1615, during the trial of Galileo) The church did a job on Galileo. They tortured him and broke both his arms by tieing his hands together behind his back and making him support his weight like that. The church is really good at coming up with all of these torture devices. Do they just have hours to think about it or what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who is christian and argues against this i will debate to death!! Whoooo Hoooooo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it was a spiritual death, they why did the Bible not say that it was a "spiritual" death. Death is death. People did not understand "spiritual death" back then so why call it death when everyone understands that death is when the physical body dies. And secondly, how does the spirit leave the body without physical death occurring? This is the life giver. And what is a soulish nature? What does that mean? I have never heard these terms before and they sound just like some rationalization to explain the inconsistency of why they did not actually die. Death is death of the physical body unless they were living in two dimensions and walking back and forth between them and one of them was suddenly closed to them. That might be some kind of death. But if this is so, why is this not explained? JB Hey if people want to get into arguing that the Bible is nothing met metaphors, I have one for you. Jesus, is the parable of a regular man. Any man who does what's right. The virgin birth is symbolic only. It simply means that all men are born of spirit and no man is born of flesh. The crucifixion is symbolic that every man is wrongly accused by his fellow man. The ressurection is symbolic of the fact that all men are spiritual in their true essence and all men will survive death.
I could argue that to the death, but I'm truly not interested. I'd rather plan next year's broccoli garden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The church did a job on Galileo. They tortured him and broke both his arms by tieing his hands together behind his back and making him support his weight like that. The church is really good at coming up with all of these torture devices. Do they just have hours to think about it or what?
I wasn't aware that they broke his arms. What a bunch of heartless scum bags. There's no need for God to create hell. The Christians have already done that just by being who they are. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would buy that the bible is all about symbolism and metaphors. If people would just leave it at that, I would be less apt to fight them on every little detail. Its when they start talking about ribs becoming people and the earth and stars and galaxy being made in a week and virgin births like its all a historically accurate account of events that I start getting really short tempered.
Ooo the remake of War of the Worlds is on. Think Im gonna watch that. Night all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
This one reminds me of a debate that took place a while back. Someone was arguing that God lied to Adam and Eve telling them that they would surely die if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil The argument from the non-believer was that they didn't die. The argument from the believer was that they did die eventually. The argument being that they would have never died had they not eaten the fruit. But that's not what the verse says,... It clearly says,... "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" That means that they would die the same day they ate it. Clearly that didn't happen. This means that God lied when he threatened them that they would die in the day that they ate it. Either that or he changed his mind. Bingo! God either lies or changes his mind. There's no way out of that one.
abra: The argument from the believer was that they did die eventually. The argument being that they would have never died had they not eaten the fruit. But that's not what the verse says,... It clearly says,... "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" That means that they would die the same day they ate it. tribo: they were wrong or stupid, one of the two or both - the death did take place as i wrote JB - it was a spiritual death that happened as soon as they ate, gods spirit left them, they had turned into soulish creatures only, that is why they felt shame not because they were naked, because they knew that they were always naked, but their soulish nature with out gods spirit allowed them to see or experience there new found lustful soulish nature that we now all posses. Anyone who is christian and argues against this i will debate to death!! If it was a spiritual death, they why did the Bible not say that it was a "spiritual" death. Death is death. People did not understand "spiritual death" back then so why call it death when everyone understands that death is when the physical body dies. And secondly, how does the spirit leave the body without physical death occurring? This is the life giver. And what is a soulish nature? What does that mean? I have never heard these terms before and they sound just like some rationalization to explain the inconsistency of why they did not actually die. Death is death of the physical body unless they were living in two dimensions and walking back and forth between them and one of them was suddenly closed to them. That might be some kind of death. But if this is so, why is this not explained? JB the spirit i speak of is gods holy spirit not theirs - not the "breath of spiritual life" god breathed into them. is that a little clearer? That is why we supposedly "need" to get the holy spirit again - because since adam we have been born without it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it was a spiritual death, they why did the Bible not say that it was a "spiritual" death. Death is death. People did not understand "spiritual death" back then so why call it death when everyone understands that death is when the physical body dies. And secondly, how does the spirit leave the body without physical death occurring? This is the life giver. And what is a soulish nature? What does that mean? I have never heard these terms before and they sound just like some rationalization to explain the inconsistency of why they did not actually die. Death is death of the physical body unless they were living in two dimensions and walking back and forth between them and one of them was suddenly closed to them. That might be some kind of death. But if this is so, why is this not explained? JB Hey if people want to get into arguing that the Bible is nothing met metaphors, I have one for you. Jesus, is the parable of a regular man. Any man who does what's right. The virgin birth is symbolic only. It simply means that all men are born of spirit and no man is born of flesh. The crucifixion is symbolic that every man is wrongly accused by his fellow man. The ressurection is symbolic of the fact that all men are spiritual in their true essence and all men will survive death.
I could argue that to the death, but I'm truly not interested. I'd rather plan next year's broccoli garden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who is christian and argues against this i will debate to death!! Whoooo Hoooooo!
a figure of speech only hahaha i cant imagine debating anything till i die - hahaha 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Fri 08/08/08 06:20 PM
|
|
Eating of the forbidden fruit was a metaphor for a shift into self-consciousness...
If that were true, then how or why would a God forbid someone from "shifting their consciousness" and how can the act of shifting into self-consciousness be a danger that would bring on death that would require a warning or law from God? JB Perhaps the shifting of their consciousness was not against any law, but rather a choice given to "man" as an invitation to enter into the human condition, thus completing a being's whole experience. Perhaps the human condition fulfilled a greater "education"... Within that physical experience, a perception of good and evil being two separate forces would temporarily blind one to all being perfect... a conclusion once again drawn at the end of each incarnation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eating of the forbidden fruit was a metaphor for a shift into self-consciousness...
If that were true, then how or why would a God forbid someone from "shifting their consciousness" and how can the act of shifting into self-consciousness be a danger that would bring on death that would require a warning or law from God? JB Perhaps the shifting of their consciousness was not against any law, but rather a choice given to "man" as an invitation to enter into the human condition, thus completing a being's whole experience. Perhaps the human condition fulfilled a greater "education"... Within that physical experience, a perception of good and evil being two separate forces would temporarily blind one to all being perfect... a conclusion once again drawn at the end of each incarnation. Quite a stretch to be applied to a Biblical story of an innocent and ignorant couple, but incarnating into the human earth experience definitely fulfills a greater education. I have my own ideas about incarnation and Adam and Eve story, but I was attempting to stay within the parameters of the more literal Biblical account. Interesting input though. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is good stuff.
I am a christian too. yup! who knew? LOL I know good and evil. I also know the grace of God. the two are pit against one another. I don't care why. I don't even have any reason to blame anyone or any culture or any institution for it. It is common to man to explore good and evil. I don't even have a pproblem with scritpural writings. They led me to seek out the Lord for myself. That's between me and God. Granted, that Hebrewes says what it says, and granted, Genesis depicts what it depicts, and granted that there are contradictory stipulationms made in comparison. That is what is so sweetly sublime about everything spiritual and everything trod before. Not a question being posed can deter any from hav9ing just cause in judgement from accepting anything on the surface verbatim, let alone as others would characterize it. With that being said, I defy no one to seek God for themselves. SO, here's the challenge. Seek him until it costs you everything and then tell me that God does not answer. Do it. Just do it. This fountain is not going to deliver water, and no fountain circularly and apologetically demonstrated will. eXCUSES ABOUND AND WHININGS ABOUND AND ALL OF IT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT? THAT gOD WILL NOT ANSWER ACCORDING TO OUR TERMS? OK, then God does npot exist in the heart that protects itself from ruination and deprication as described by the willfully judgemental attitudes of all professing absolution from erroneous constructs having any upper hand over one's own life. So what? It is entirerly judgemental to differentiate between good and evil. It is entirely judgemental to assume that God is judgemental on the basis of any such congruity to good and evil being prohibitive of eternal life. If angels were sent, as Moses says, to guard that tree of life that man not eat of it, then how is it that man eats of the othjer and calls it this and that and everything in between. THe whole world is bi polar, then. LOL And common sense only belongs to the middle ground. Jesus called that lukewarm and spewable from the mouth of God. The whole of it is filled with snares and pitsand excuses. Pick one. Or reason with God and deal quietly with that endeavor. Man will never adhere to personal judgements made about the efficacy of anything. Nor will man ever concur in consensus regarding anything substantive. Man is prone to excusung and judging everything and the predlections of man are bi polar indeed. who says inclusion describes oneness? who says that harmony and peace are necessarily man's strength? Who can prove that man is not a bumbling idiot bent on self destruction and chaos and survival according to the power of personal prowess? The rich man dies like the poor man and the baggage is left behind. So what is one to be bereft of? And what is one to be full of? That good and evil and life are inescapably at odds? There is no common sense in wisdom, or everyone would possess wisdom. Perhaps we all do. Perhaps we don't. The argument is never about man being wiser than his fellow when God and God's descriptions enter the fray. God is silent. God listens. In the end, that is more than can be said for man. I agree with Solomon. "even a fool is counted wise when he is silent". keep at it , though. it's better than nothing, isn't it? or we wouldn't bother. LOL  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eating of the forbidden fruit was a metaphor for a shift into self-consciousness...
If that were true, then how or why would a God forbid someone from "shifting their consciousness" and how can the act of shifting into self-consciousness be a danger that would bring on death that would require a warning or law from God? JB Perhaps the shifting of their consciousness was not against any law, but rather a choice given to "man" as an invitation to enter into the human condition, thus completing a being's whole experience. Perhaps the human condition fulfilled a greater "education"... Within that physical experience, a perception of good and evil being two separate forces would temporarily blind one to all being perfect... a conclusion once again drawn at the end of each incarnation. Quite a stretch to be applied to a Biblical story of an innocent and ignorant couple, but incarnating into the human earth experience definitely fulfills a greater education. I have my own ideas about incarnation and Adam and Eve story, but I was attempting to stay within the parameters of the more literal Biblical account. Interesting input though. JB Exactly... As humans, we began as completely innocent and ignorant (perhaps by divine design). I believe the Bible was created to be timeless... So, as humans have spiritually evolved, each interpretation could be made in the context of that marker in time. Are there actual parameters? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only mean spiritedness are those who rebell against God. You can point fingers all you want but I think your 'attempts" at "God" are hysterical. God said He would choose the foolish things to confound the wisdom of the wise. There is a BIG difference between people who want to gain knowledge & understanding & those who want to impose their twisted views of truth on people. Thank God that there are many here who will only let your dillusions go so far before they blast your nonsensical views right out of the water with truth. WWJD? He would let you know what a brood of vipers you are. He'd send you running right out of the room. His compassion wasn't wasted on people who were too proud to believe His good works or rebelled against His will & His words. Well those that dont just buy into all this or allow blind faith to talk for them are still waiting for this alleged "blasting out of the water to occur"....snore. Any day now folks. That is, if you can manage to lay off the hostile insults and attacks on people's faiths. Some of which you dont even know what they are. Take it down a notch or 10 already.....Does your god teach you to be so mean, jealous and paranoid/delusional? Well seeing as the scripture seems to indicate that, do you just follow that lead automatically because its "writen" by human men? Blind faith is what you believe...I have a living manual...it's called the Bible. I'm not blind. LOL Here we go... AGAIN! ..with your tirades about people you disagree with. Let's see... self proclaimed debater (haven't heard anything solid yet)... mother...er moderator? OOPS! Don't look now but your biases are showing!... and mind reader too? LOL You're hysterical too. I enjoy watching you try to lord it over people you disagree with but I haven't heard one bit of crediblity from you yet. Come back when you REALLY have something to say lil girl. |
|
|
|
|
