Eric's comments (member since Nov 15, 2008)

Eric's comments from the Debate Religion group.

B---God created man in His image. The only other way would be to not create man in his image. Therefore God would not have completed His objective.

My point is that God made Adam with fre will so that he could have a man(mankind) that could choose to obey and worship. To force man to choose a certain thing...is not fre will. Also, with fre will I could argue that it was only a matter of time before mankind sinned...the only thing to block that is force a action....which is not free will at all...it is selected choices.

Are you suggesting that God should have forced the right choice upon man?

Now...back to suffering. God made man (according to the Bible) in His image. This would include the right to choose. Without the freedom of choice, it would not be His image. Therefore you can not have true obedence without temptation. You can't have true love, without scarafice. Suffering was not the goal.

Just in case you missed it. I believe that this answers this question.

And why did God create the scenario where Adam would possibly disobey him, destroying the welfare of every living

Why did Adam disobey God?

I dont know.


Every plant which dies from a tobacco virus variation has sinned.

You must have forgot the part of the conversation that I stated that a King's coices affects everything in his kingdom.

In this thread, I continually ask why, and am only told how (per the Bible).

True unless the bible states why...therefore if the question is why, we should talk about something else because the conversation would be in vain.

God did not create a scenario where Adam would possibly disobey him. He created one where Adam would definitely disobey him. God is omniscient and it is unavoidable to note that he created the situation knowing what Adam would do and yet still created it in that way.

This is interestingly true. The thing to ask yourself though is without temptation how could Adam act with true obedence? Therefore although He knew Adam would sin...how could God fool proof the system AND give Adam fre will? 2. How could God create Man in His image without giving Man freedom of choice and a kingdom (Earth) to rule?

He could have simply forgiven mankind without the drama.

Someone elsed that I know said the same thing. I have thought about this. With much thought...I disagree. God is very legal...someone had to be punished for the treason of mankind.

What actions could Adam have taken to prevent predators from butchering their prey?

You missed the part of the discussion where I stated that animals ate plants only.

What actions could Adam have taken to prevent animals from being tormented by parasites and bacteria and viruses? What do you imagine we could be doing today to put an end to the unimaginable suffering that animals experience every day all over the world, and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with human activity?

Not eat the fruit and nothing can be done to end all suffering before the return of Christ. The Bible states that it will get worse. The Bible also states that it will be a falling away of Christ believers (I am sure that you are happy about that).

Dan,

Thank you for your post. I will be more clear. The Bible states that Sin enterd the world and death through sin,by one man...Adam. Before the fruit eating, there was no death and no sickness. After...there was. The mere fact that cancer is a sickness is the result of the fruit eating.

He called thier name Adam

Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

With this, you can't neccessary say that every place that the Bible says Adam, it is refering to them both. It is a context thing. There are verses in the New Testament that says the first man Adam...this is clearly Adam excluding his wife.

It was Adam that called his wife Eve.

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

I am more bothered by those who take his tithing money claiming they do know the answer, and yet refuse to supply it to worshipers like Eric, taking advantage of his acceptance. Billions in tithing money.

I have been to many churches. Some BIG and some small. I have seen the pastor leave in a Benz. I have also seen a Pastor with no car, carpooling to church. I have seen a Pastor's family go without because of the needs of the church. I have seen full-time Pastor's give their salary back because the church did not have money to pay them. I have seen Pastor's personally pay for things that members needed to help them out. I have seen Pastor's empty out their personal bank account. You have a glamourized view of a pastor if all you see are the ones that leave church in a benz...or you live in a great neighborhood where that is the norm...however...it is not the norm on a national level.

Now...back to suffering. God made man (according to the Bible) in His image. This would include the right to choose. Without the freedom of choice, it would not be His image. Therefore you can not have true obedence without temptation. You can't have true love, without scarafice. Suffering was not the goal.

So Adam would have the choice of suffering.

This statement is misleading. The suffering is a byproduct of the disobedenice and not the goal. God stated not to eat it and told him the result of eating it. You shall surely die (This is another question entirely that I am sure it is on some peoples mind). Sure an all knowing God knows what will happen, but without the choice...how is there true obedience and true love? Even when you look at God, His love is measured by scrafice. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son. To have the people that you created spit in your face, call you names, beat you, pleace a crown of thorns on your head, nail you to a tree, and have you slowly bleed to your lungs colapse. That takes a lot of love to save people that is doing this to you. I know that you guys do not believe this at all. I am sure the smart comments are soon to come...yet you asked me.

To be clear...animals suffer because Adam had dominion over the animals and he failed to do his job. Even now, being desendants of Adam...we still don't take care of the animals. It is this massive failure that they suffer.

R.C.,

That was pretty good...however I do not agree with your final conclusion. I would like to know what others think though about your post.

Are you acting atheists, or people in general?

Do you mean asking? If so, I am asking everyone however I would love atheist to answer. I was also told on another forum by an atheist that they have a moral compass but it is not biblical based. I know that Atheism as a whole have no required position on either, however I am assuming that all atheist have a position on both.

You atheist are interesting. What you choose to believe and/or not believe is very different then what I believe. For example, your moral system. Mine comes from the Bible, but where does yours come from? My main question though is: What is love? How do you know if someone loves you?

I am confused slightly. Do you guys believe that you know everything there is to know about the Christian Bible and the Christian God? There have been assumptions of what I beleive and what I do not. When questions such as this comes up, there are people that want me in on the discussion then it seems like there is some Christian bashing...I don't understand that. Do you even care about my answer...or are you trying to direct the conversation a certain way because you have a script that you know that you are going to say. Do you guys give each other virtual high-fives for crazy comments toward me or what I believe. I am not upset...not really offended either...however this is funny.

With Eric's help, I think I have solved the problem:

I do not need neither do I want your help.

God gave Adam (Which God refered to both Adam and Eve as Adam) dominion over the Earth.

The choice of the King effects everything in the Kingdom...this is the nature of a monarchy. If Adam had dominion...his choice would effect whatever he is over...and all of his subjects.

Totally different subject, but i must confess that i, for one, would like to see some fossil evidence of these herbivorous lions and tigers. Or is it only appropriate to ask for fossil evidence of a missing link when arguing against evolution?

Good point

5. Why did God give Adam free will?

Where did you come up with your answer?

wow...I am being called out. I have been disconnected for the last week. Anyway, I believe that it is impossible to remove a human agent for the equation simply because the fall of man is the central concept on why there is suffering in the world. God gave Adam (Which God refered to both Adam and Eve as Adam) dominion over the Earth. There for his actions affected everything that he was over. This is not a tough concept. President Bush (soon President Obama) can create policies that directly and indirectly affect animals.

Yes, yes, i know, all animals were vegetarians before Adam ate the apple

This is true and because of this...you can see how animals were affected by the actions of thier Earthly king. Also, fyi...Adam ate the fruit in the midst of the garden...it is not neccessary a apple.

I just wanted to take some time out to clear something up since my last post on this thread.

R.C.

1. When I stated that R.C. has the burden of proof, I meant for the verse that we were discussing. In other words, prove that how I interpreted was incorrect.

2.

The burden of proof is on you Eric. You are the one making the fantastic claim, not R.C.

You are saying the Bible is a book inspired by God, contains no contradictions or false statements and contains all the answers to the important questions of life.

This comment is fair in the larger sense. However, lets be clear. I am not interested in defending Every version of the Bible. This is why I supplied the link to the Hebrew words that were used, which I believe to be fair. When ever you evaluate a historical document, you look at it in the context of the original language.

3.

"30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

It means:
Be afraid of God, people, he is powerful, and cannot be affected anymore than the world(planet) can be moved.

I am glad that you found a version of the Bible that proves your point. The problem is that this does not change the meaning of the Hebrew word that was used. Again http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/vi...

4.

What you are missing is the obvious fact that the Bible is being constantly interpreted and reinterpreted on the spot by every Christian who needs a rational excuse for his theology.

Opinion and has nothing to do with the definition of the Hebrew word.

Rick
5.

It's also not clear what point you're trying to make in asking the original question. Are you perhaps trying to convince us that any evidence at all, in the face of a vast anti-Jesus conspiracy, is miraculous?

The question was an honest one and the reasons why I asked it is two-fold. First, because of the persecutions of Christians by the Romans (Rome being a super-power at the time) in the first century and the limited technology of the time. It is logical that a lot of evidence would be missing or destroyed. Even in 2008 there are missionaries that have to tape portions of the Bible on their body to hide them from foreign governments that do not want Christianity preached. So on a larger scale, knowing that Rome was a super power...(rephrasing my question for you guys) if the events of the Bible were true, how much evidence would you expect to have knowing about the persecutions (suppression of the Christian message) of Christians from a super power such as Rome?

This question is important to me simply because the answer of that question determines if I should even be in this group and discussing what I believe. If you want more then I can supply, my time is more suitable somewhere else.

6.
inherited genes

I am not saying that there is a sin gene. I was displaying a point about the Spiritual by giving an example of the Natural.

7. (Biblical number of Completion btw)

No, Eric, the burden of proof is on you to prove that a God who inspired infallible scripture exists. I am not asking you to concede anything, anymore than I would ask a 4 year old to concede Santa Claus in not real.

We talked about why Atheist were rude on another thread. I understand that you may not like my views and I feel that you can say whatever you would like to say about me. Laugh, call your friends and crack jokes...does not matter to me. You can't however continue to speak to me like this and expect to still be speaking to me. With that I say good day, and you might as well throw this thread in the archives.

R.C.,

I fail to see the value of your post. In it, you proved nothing. The burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. Please provide evidence that I am wrong or concede this point. However do not waste my time with futile verbal bullying. I joined the group with good intentions to give everyone here a greater understanding of my position, and more knowledge of what they do not believe. Your last post says that, no matter what I say, you don't care. It is saying that you can be wrong about something so small, but still act as though you are right. If that is the feeling of this group...I will happily leave.

R.C.,

I have read both the Chapter and reference over many times now. I do not see where the reference that I supplied state that "Tebel" is literal. I does however state that when the Bible is talking about the creation of the world, the word is literal. I agree with this. Let's examine the Chapter. I think the confusion is really verse 26. The overall context for the Chapter is to give thanks to God. During the chapter, it list facts (according to the Bible of course) about God. Note verses 16-26. Verse 26 references the creation of the world stating a Biblical fact about God creating the heavens. This fact is in the chapter as a reason to praise God, but it is not the context of the chapter as a whole. starting at verse 27 it goes back to praising and worshiping God. This would mean that verse 30 is about giving thanks, worship and praise of a God that is worthy. Therefore based on the reference that I supplied about the word "Tebel", it means the inhabitable world.

An 2008 American English example of this would be the following.

"I don't trust Chris, so I have my eye on him.

Me not trusting Chris is a fact and should be taken literally. The latter part of the sentence is a figurative expression that should not be taken literally. I don't actually have my physical eye on Chris, I am just watching him closely. 4000 years from now, that expression may not make any since in 4008 English, or any other language that is popular. For people in 4008 to understand my expression, they would have to know about the way that we communicate in 2008. The same goes with the Bible and that is why debates on interpretation exist. Similarly to science where a scientific breakthrough could happen that changes a theory. There can be new information about the culture and language of the ancient text, that could alter how a verse is interpreted.

If god were writing a book, as you think he did, wouldn't he make it all leteral? that would make the most sense. Having to make your followers determine what is metaphorical and what is literal seems like a huge waste of time and energy. it also seems to cloud god's message.

In short, no...God would not. Jesus kindof answered this question indirectly.

Matthew13:9Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

There are metaphoric verses so that the people of that time could understand. In public speaking, it does not matter how advanced the message is, if you can not communicated it in a way that the audience understands.

R.C.,

please let me know if there was something in my reference that I missed.

I am on my way to Church. Any Prayer request?

Hales,

I really do not know much about Wicca. I know a guy that I worked with had a girlfriend that is Wiccan. She called herself a witch and she performed spells. Are spells the norm, or is it different depending on personal beliefs? What kind of spells? Is it like praying?

R.C.,

Of course I disagree with you recent post...I bet you did not see that coming. This is the KJV of the verse.

30Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

For all of the earth to fear him is really talking about the inhabitants of the Earth and not personifying the Earth itself. And the word "world" is Tebel, the word in question.

My research shows that when Christians need the Bible to metaphor to rationalize their beliefs, it is metaphor. When they need it to be literal to rationalize their beliefs, it is literal.

This is partly true. There are some Christians that quote out of context. Some on purpose, some on accident. I have already conceded this. This is the reason why there are differences in views among Christians, because it is all based on what God said. Again, we should not put an ancient document in terms of 2008 American English. In the link provided, the word means what the word means. Why are you saying that I am changing the meaning?

Also, there are verses that are metaphorical, i.e. Psalms. Revelations is metaphorical. My issue is that because there are some people that quote verses out of context, Christians as a whole gets labeled for changing the meaning of scripture. Earlier in this thread, when we were discussion Horus, you stated this...

You are really getting off track here. Some writers (bad historians with ingrained biases) have tried to draw explicit connections between the Horus myth and the Jesus myth that are not there.

There has been some Christians that have misquoted and changed meanings of versus. Don't blame all of us. There has also been some terrible things done in the name of my Lord. Don't blame all of us. There are some good questions that Atheist have, however...this particular passage is not an example of one of them.

In short...the word Tebel still means what it means.

Nathan,

In my post I have stated that I did not research this throughly. Do you know the context of that verse. Was this a metaphorical statement or literial statement? What does your research show?

Sorry about not responding to every post. Sometimes it gets overwhelming because there is one Christian on the board and many of you. I want to touch base on the scriptures that Dan posted.

1. Chronicles 16:30

A lot of times, people quote one verse from a passage and attach meaning to it (Both Christian's and Non-Christians). I feel that this is an example of that. When quoting a verse you have to be careful quote it in context. I added a couple more verses so that we may understand the context.

23 Sing to the LORD, all the earth;
proclaim his salvation day after day.

24 Declare his glory among the nations,
his marvelous deeds among all peoples.

25 For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise;
he is to be feared above all gods.

26 For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but the LORD made the heavens.

27 Splendor and majesty are before him;
strength and joy in his dwelling place.

28 Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations,
ascribe to the LORD glory and strength,

29 ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name.
Bring an offering and come before him;
worship the LORD in the splendor of his [d:] holiness.

30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

31 Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;
let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!"

In reading the other verses with verse 30, we see that the chapter is about the people of the world worshiping God, and not being moved from their position of unbelief. This is similar to the famous John 3:16 verse. Jesus did not die for the "world", he died for the population of the world.

Also, I would like to point out that the Bible is an ancient document. We should be slow to say that things do not make since using 2008 American English vernacular. To gain a deeper understanding we need to look at the actual word that was used in the native language of the document using word studying. Briefly looking up the word, it is תבל (Tebel) http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi... which means the habitable part of the Earth, which again seems like it is referring to the people and not the Globe.

I hope this clears up some confusion about this verse.

2. Judges 5:31

I honestly do not understand how "be like the sun", means that the sun does not move. This line seems like a metaphor. Please explain your position.

Joshua

I have read this, however I did not have time to do a word study. First, Joshua was in prayer asking the Sun to stand still and then the Bible says that it did. This seems to be referring to the fact that the sun was in the same (or seemed to be) position in the sky, making it a really long day...but again...did not have time to do a word study on this.

I normally like to quote the King James version of the Bible. I just noticed that I did not, this is the New International Version. Please forgive me.

I plan to respond to everyone however I have limited time now. I will make another post when I am able. I would like to see the verse that states the Earth revolves around the Sun. Please provide that for me. I have heard it referred to me, but no one has provided the location of this verse as of yet.

Hales,

Please explain more if you are up to it.