Welcome to Gaia! ::

Pseudo-Onkelos
Kuroko and the Lamb
Psalms 51:5 address it, David claims he was sinful from the moment his mother conceived him, and sinful at birth. The psalms is about his sin against God and was written right after he committed adultery. I don't see how else we can interpret it other than literally. The entire song is pretty straight forward.


I know why it was written, but that doesn't mean David was literally born with original sin. That's a Catholic concept. Thanks, Augustine. Why take it literally? You wouldn't take v. 2 literally, nor would you take v. 4 literally. David didn't just sin against God only. He sinned against Uriah by committing adultery with his wife, by lying to him, and by having him killed in the battlefield. V. 7 isn't taken literally, either.

Kuroko and the Lamb
Regardless man has been cursed with a sinful nature, that of which we inherited from Adam and Eve. I don't know what babies are doing that's sinful before God, either way they had sinned, for everyone has sinned.


Adam and Eve never existed. The Hebrews and ancient Israel didn't believe in a sinful nature.


Never mind my Christian interpretation then.
Kelevra Black's avatar

Dangerous Genius

I always love when people bring up the Adam and Eve story, because it gives me a chance to copy and paste an essay I had already written on it long ago...
Here you go...

In regards to the Adam and Eve story...
I find that to be more a tale of God's supreme injustice.

"Of every tree in the garden, thou mayest freely eat. But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
- God (to Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden)

I was brought up to believe that the Genesis account in the bible was literally true. But the story of Adam and Eve always had major problems for me. My biggest question was: "How could a God justify his punishment of two people for something they did before they had any knowledge of good and evil?"

Now, parents often tell their children, "Don't take sweets from strangers."
As adults, we're aware that it can easy for strangers to gain the confidence of children by offering them treats. And children, with little or no experience of adult deception aren't well equipped to make reliable judgments about the intentions of strangers. God never warned Adam and Eve not to take fruits from serpents, and at the time that the serpent told Eve that she wouldn't die if she ate the fruit, contrary to what God had told her, Genesis indicated that neither she nor Adam had the insight to even know they were naked. God had clearly not equipped them, in terms of intellect or experience, to handle situations such as this complete contradiction between what he and the serpent had said about the fruit.

How could he hold them responsible for their decision to eat it, and why, of all things would the knowledge of good and evil be something that God kept from them in the first place? I find that one of the most extraordinary ideas in the bible.
If you can't make any distinction between what constitutes goodness, and what constitutes evil, there would be no moral distinction between saving someone's life... and destroying it.

It seems we're all expected to assume the serpent was evil when it tells Eve they won't die. But why?
Since we're told that Adam went on to live another 900 years after the "apple incident", it was actually God who lied when he said Adam would die the day he ate the apple. All the serpent did was expose that lie, and informed Eve, truthfully, that she would know good and evil.

Now if I heard a teacher tell a child, "The day you study evolution, you'll be struck down by lightning." ... I would expose that lie and tell the child that the only thing that happens when you study evolution is that you're better informed to judge the plausibility of different accounts of man's appearance on the planet.

(By the way, I'm talking about the scientific theory of evolution. Not the "brick turns into man" or the "My grandmother was a marmoset" variety of definition that some people trot out when they want to argue against science.)

I've heard some attempts to explain God's deception.
One is that to God, a thousand years is like a day... So when God told Adam that he would die within the day, it was true in a sense.
I suppose it was true in that sense...
i.e. in the sense of it being untrue... Or at best: meaningless.

Again, God was talking to someone who didn't even know he was naked. How was Adam supposed to know that by "One day", God meant "a thousand years".
Language is about communication. If someone wants to make up their own private definitions of words, they're free to do so. But only on the understanding that no one will know what they're talking about unless they explain those private definitions.

Another defense if that Adam and Eve did die that day, but it was a "spiritual death", a loss of innocence, a tearing away from God.
Again, this is a modification of what was stated. Why didn't God use the phrase "Thou shalt die a spiritual death." if that is what he meant?
Remember, Adam wasn't the brightest crayon in the box, and an omniscient being like God would know that he would pretty much have to spell things out for Adam.

When I hear a warning like, "The day you eat this apple, you'll die." The simplest interpretation to me is that the apple will cause you to die, by poison or some other means. Now, of course, if what I get from Genesis is that if God was telling Adam that the apple itself would kill him, that would be my interpretation.

But this illustrates that if we start making our own interpretations of what's in the bible, rather than going by the actual words used, we can find support for every point of view, even points of view that flatly contradict each other. If everyone is allowed to interpret the bible to fit their point of view, then the bible ends up supporting no point of view.

According to what's actually written in Genesis in bibles used by modern Christians; It was God, not the serpent, who lied.
And what's the first indication we have that Adam and Eve know good from evil after they eat the apple and it is written that their eyes are opened?
Well, they suddenly know that they're naked, and they sew fig leaves together to cover themselves.
What Genesis appears to be saying here is that there's something intrinsically shameful about nudity, that as soon as we know good from evil, we automatically know that it's wrong to be naked. This idea has absolutely no foundation. There are millions of people today who are perfectly comfortable sunbathing naked, swimming naked, and even playing sports naked. Some people have a problem with nudity, others don't.
There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about it. Disapproval of nudity is a cultural attitude, not a moral absolute.

Well, back to the plot...

God calls to Adam, asking where he is, which is another inconsistent point. If God knows everything, as many claim, he would know where Adam was, along with everything else that had happened. While we're on the subject, he would also have also foreseen the entire interaction with Eve and the serpent before it happened.
Well, let's face it... You wouldn't need to be Columbo to see that one coming a mile off.
But anyway, Adam says he's hiding because he's naked, and God says:
"Who told thee that thou wast naked?"

Adam and Eve admit to eating the apple, and then God carries out his rather extreme punishment against them and all human kind. It seems to me that withholding knowledge of good and evil from two people, then cursing the entire human race when those people exhibit behavior that reflects their inevitable inability to make moral judgments, would be about about as sadistically unfair as refusing to show yourself and then abandoning everyone that therefor doubts your existence to eternal torture in hell.
It would be setting people up to fail, which far from indicating a being of infinite intelligence and moral integrity, would suggest to me a being of a much lower level of wisdom, compassion, and basic psychological insight than the average human being.

I suspect that the reason that the God of Genesis is portrayed as a being who employs brute force rather than transparency and understanding, is that the authors of Genesis conceived of the God they were writing about as a moody parent whose unpredictability would inspire fearful respect. Adam and Eve have to sin and be humbled to demonstrate God's awesome power over human kind. Unfortunately, with the particular plot of Genesis, it's authors succeed only in depicting a God of fantastic injustice and callous aggression, whether it's meant to be taken literally, or as a parable.

I was told that the bible was literally true when I was a child. But the more I was exposed to it, the more I wondered why all the grown-ups around me were going along with it, ignoring its blatant contradictions. The questions I asked them about the conflicting statements in the bible weren't met with open discussion in an attempt to find answers. They were met with disapproval and dismissal, and also anger, which for me was another indicator that something was very wrong.
Why were people so insecure about my honest search for answers?
Why was I being discouraged from thinking, when in every other area of my life, thinking had been not only encouraged, but praised and rewarded?

It was like being in some kind of Twilight Zone, where I was expected to admire the Emperor's new clothes, when not only were the clothes invisible... But so was the Emperor.

I think the Bible is a fascinating collection of writings, full of powerful scenes and imagery. It has some beautiful ideas, it has some repulsive ideas. But far from being the air-tight and definitive work one would expect from an infallible, infinitely wise and loving, perfect being, it portrays a God that withholds crucial knowledge, lies to the first humans, punishes the human race for something they had no responsibility for, deliberately wipes out almost all life on Earth... It's a long list of very unstable behaviors.

The vague and contradictory parables contained in the bible, and the messages of changing and questionable moral values, read to me as a collection of exactly the kind of material that would be compiled by decidedly non-divine, human authors, operating within limited knowledge and understanding, and primitive cultural attitudes.

Despite a fairly strong religious background and no apparent adult Atheists around me, I stopped believing in organized religion before my teenage years, but I stopped believing in what was written in the bible much earlier. And the story of Adam and Eve is one of the reasons why.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

papa was a rolling stone
Kuroko and the Lamb
Pseudo-Onkelos
Kuroko and the Lamb
Nope, babies are not innocent. Romans 3:23. David has even written several psalms with verses about sinning in his mother's womb. No one is innocent.


How can one have sinned if one has never acted sinfully? Why take these literally when they're found in the psalms? And David speaks only of himself, but why take him literally?


Psalms 51:5 address it, David claims he was sinful from the moment his mother conceived him, and sinful at birth. The psalms is about his sin against God and was written right after he committed adultery. I don't see how else we can interpret it other than literally. The entire song is pretty straight forward.

Regardless man has been cursed with a sinful nature, that of which we inherited from Adam and Eve. I don't know what babies are doing that's sinful before God, either way they had sinned, for everyone has sinned.

Why didn't God just exterminate the entire human race? If everyone has a sinful nature and are to be held accountable before they even do anything wrong, why spare anybody? Why keep us around?

One word. Grace. And that's where the gospel steps in.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Kelevra Black
I always love when people bring up the Adam and Eve story, because it gives me a chance to copy and paste an essay I had already written on it long ago...
Here you go...

In regards to the Adam and Eve story...
I find that to be more a tale of God's supreme injustice.

"Of every tree in the garden, thou mayest freely eat. But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
- God (to Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden)

I was brought up to believe that the Genesis account in the bible was literally true. But the story of Adam and Eve always had major problems for me. My biggest question was: "How could a God justify his punishment of two people for something they did before they had any knowledge of good and evil?"

Now, parents often tell their children, "Don't take sweets from strangers."
As adults, we're aware that it can easy for strangers to gain the confidence of children by offering them treats. And children, with little or no experience of adult deception aren't well equipped to make reliable judgments about the intentions of strangers. God never warned Adam and Eve not to take fruits from serpents, and at the time that the serpent told Eve that she wouldn't die if she ate the fruit, contrary to what God had told her, Genesis indicated that neither she nor Adam had the insight to even know they were naked. God had clearly not equipped them, in terms of intellect or experience, to handle situations such as this complete contradiction between what he and the serpent had said about the fruit.

How could he hold them responsible for their decision to eat it, and why, of all things would the knowledge of good and evil be something that God kept from them in the first place? I find that one of the most extraordinary ideas in the bible.
If you can't make any distinction between what constitutes goodness, and what constitutes evil, there would be no moral distinction between saving someone's life... and destroying it.

It seems we're all expected to assume the serpent was evil when it tells Eve they won't die. But why?
Since we're told that Adam went on to live another 900 years after the "apple incident", it was actually God who lied when he said Adam would die the day he ate the apple. All the serpent did was expose that lie, and informed Eve, truthfully, that she would know good and evil.

Now if I heard a teacher tell a child, "The day you study evolution, you'll be struck down by lightning." ... I would expose that lie and tell the child that the only thing that happens when you study evolution is that you're better informed to judge the plausibility of different accounts of man's appearance on the planet.

(By the way, I'm talking about the scientific theory of evolution. Not the "brick turns into man" or the "My grandmother was a marmoset" variety of definition that some people trot out when they want to argue against science.)

I've heard some attempts to explain God's deception.
One is that to God, a thousand years is like a day... So when God told Adam that he would die within the day, it was true in a sense.
I suppose it was true in that sense...
i.e. in the sense of it being untrue... Or at best: meaningless.

Again, God was talking to someone who didn't even know he was naked. How was Adam supposed to know that by "One day", God meant "a thousand years".
Language is about communication. If someone wants to make up their own private definitions of words, they're free to do so. But only on the understanding that no one will know what they're talking about unless they explain those private definitions.

Another defense if that Adam and Eve did die that day, but it was a "spiritual death", a loss of innocence, a tearing away from God.
Again, this is a modification of what was stated. Why didn't God use the phrase "Thou shalt die a spiritual death." if that is what he meant?
Remember, Adam wasn't the brightest crayon in the box, and an omniscient being like God would know that he would pretty much have to spell things out for Adam.

When I hear a warning like, "The day you eat this apple, you'll die." The simplest interpretation to me is that the apple will cause you to die, by poison or some other means. Now, of course, if what I get from Genesis is that if God was telling Adam that the apple itself would kill him, that would be my interpretation.

But this illustrates that if we start making our own interpretations of what's in the bible, rather than going by the actual words used, we can find support for every point of view, even points of view that flatly contradict each other. If everyone is allowed to interpret the bible to fit their point of view, then the bible ends up supporting no point of view.

According to what's actually written in Genesis in bibles used by modern Christians; It was God, not the serpent, who lied.
And what's the first indication we have that Adam and Eve know good from evil after they eat the apple and it is written that their eyes are opened?
Well, they suddenly know that they're naked, and they sew fig leaves together to cover themselves.
What Genesis appears to be saying here is that there's something intrinsically shameful about nudity, that as soon as we know good from evil, we automatically know that it's wrong to be naked. This idea has absolutely no foundation. There are millions of people today who are perfectly comfortable sunbathing naked, swimming naked, and even playing sports naked. Some people have a problem with nudity, others don't.
There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about it. Disapproval of nudity is a cultural attitude, not a moral absolute.

Well, back to the plot...

God calls to Adam, asking where he is, which is another inconsistent point. If God knows everything, as many claim, he would know where Adam was, along with everything else that had happened. While we're on the subject, he would also have also foreseen the entire interaction with Eve and the serpent before it happened.
Well, let's face it... You wouldn't need to be Columbo to see that one coming a mile off.
But anyway, Adam says he's hiding because he's naked, and God says:
"Who told thee that thou wast naked?"

Adam and Eve admit to eating the apple, and then God carries out his rather extreme punishment against them and all human kind. It seems to me that withholding knowledge of good and evil from two people, then cursing the entire human race when those people exhibit behavior that reflects their inevitable inability to make moral judgments, would be about about as sadistically unfair as refusing to show yourself and then abandoning everyone that therefor doubts your existence to eternal torture in hell.
It would be setting people up to fail, which far from indicating a being of infinite intelligence and moral integrity, would suggest to me a being of a much lower level of wisdom, compassion, and basic psychological insight than the average human being.

I suspect that the reason that the God of Genesis is portrayed as a being who employs brute force rather than transparency and understanding, is that the authors of Genesis conceived of the God they were writing about as a moody parent whose unpredictability would inspire fearful respect. Adam and Eve have to sin and be humbled to demonstrate God's awesome power over human kind. Unfortunately, with the particular plot of Genesis, it's authors succeed only in depicting a God of fantastic injustice and callous aggression, whether it's meant to be taken literally, or as a parable.

I was told that the bible was literally true when I was a child. But the more I was exposed to it, the more I wondered why all the grown-ups around me were going along with it, ignoring its blatant contradictions. The questions I asked them about the conflicting statements in the bible weren't met with open discussion in an attempt to find answers. They were met with disapproval and dismissal, and also anger, which for me was another indicator that something was very wrong.
Why were people so insecure about my honest search for answers?
Why was I being discouraged from thinking, when in every other area of my life, thinking had been not only encouraged, but praised and rewarded?

It was like being in some kind of Twilight Zone, where I was expected to admire the Emperor's new clothes, when not only were the clothes invisible... But so was the Emperor.

I think the Bible is a fascinating collection of writings, full of powerful scenes and imagery. It has some beautiful ideas, it has some repulsive ideas. But far from being the air-tight and definitive work one would expect from an infallible, infinitely wise and loving, perfect being, it portrays a God that withholds crucial knowledge, lies to the first humans, punishes the human race for something they had no responsibility for, deliberately wipes out almost all life on Earth... It's a long list of very unstable behaviors.

The vague and contradictory parables contained in the bible, and the messages of changing and questionable moral values, read to me as a collection of exactly the kind of material that would be compiled by decidedly non-divine, human authors, operating within limited knowledge and understanding, and primitive cultural attitudes.

Despite a fairly strong religious background and no apparent adult Atheists around me, I stopped believing in organized religion before my teenage years, but I stopped believing in what was written in the bible much earlier. And the story of Adam and Eve is one of the reasons why.

God said do not eat of the tree of life, Eve even said it. Btw, its an author who wrote Genesis, not authors.
Kuroko and the Lamb
Nope, babies are not innocent. Romans 3:23. David has even written several psalms with verses about sinning in his mother's womb. No one is innocent.


Original sin might serve as justification to punish someone for their own sin, but it's clear in the examples that God punishes some people for the sins of others.

It may be just to put someone in jail, but how is it just to put them in jail because of the crime of another?
Kelevra Black's avatar

Dangerous Genius

IVovacane
Kelevra Black

God said do not eat of the tree of life, Eve even said it. Btw, its an author who wrote Genesis, not authors.


None of that changes the fact that God lied, tried to withhold knowledge, and then punished the entire human race for something that Adam and Eve did before they had any knowledge of Good and Evil. They did not know they were sinning...
If God did not want him to eat of the tree, he should not have placed it there.

God set them up to fail by placing it there and not giving them the intellectual or moral foundation to make moral judgments based on what he had said, and the contradictory statement the serpent had said.

When they did fail, God should have taught them that what they did was wrong.
But that imposes the question, "Why was it wrong?"
At the end of the day, God lied, not the serpent.
God cursed the entire human race for something two people did, and he didn't get his way.
He threw a temper tantrum...

The serpent exposed his lie and told Eve the truth.

And God is supposed to be the good one?
If you believe that, you're brainwashed.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Kelevra Black
IVovacane
Kelevra Black

God said do not eat of the tree of life, Eve even said it. Btw, its an author who wrote Genesis, not authors.


None of that changes the fact that God lied, tried to withhold knowledge, and then punished the entire human race for something that Adam and Eve did before they had any knowledge of Good and Evil. They did not know they were sinning...
If God did not want him to eat of the tree, he should not have placed it there.

God set them up to fail by placing it there and not giving them the intellectual or moral foundation to make moral judgments based on what he had said, and the contradictory statement the serpent had said.

When they did fail, God should have taught them that what they did was wrong.
But that imposes the question, "Why was it wrong?"
At the end of the day, God lied, not the serpent.
God cursed the entire human race for something two people did, and he didn't get his way.
He threw a temper tantrum...

The serpent exposed his lie and told Eve the truth.

And God is supposed to be the good one?
If you believe that, you're brainwashed.

Lied about what? That they would die?
The payment of sin is death But Adam and Eve didn't die straightaway because of His Mercy. (He delayed the payment by killing a lamb as a symbol of what he would do later on) Then Jesus died on the cross to fulfill the payment. Also... http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/257/Did-God-Lie-Adam-Eve-Genesis-217.htm

He set them up huh? I can't tell you how many times I Used this illustration but here it goes...

Little johnny's father sets a cookie in the cookie jar. The father tells little johnny NOT to eat the cookie or else he would get a beating. The father knows little johnny loves cookies. Little johnny nods. Little johnny waits for his dad to leave the kitchen. When it looked clear, little johnny took the cookie and ate it. When the father came back, he saw guilt on little johnny's face. Also, he noticed the cookie was missing...

Now, who was at fault? The father or little johnny? And why? And what do you think the consequence was?

Also, this will basically sum it up...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110812130607AAqIF8T
Although I. Don't agree about the part about christ's sacrafice not covering the sins of adam and eve.

Nope, I'm not brainwashed. Lol :l
JediDillon's avatar

Interesting Seeker

papa was a rolling stone
why did god kill the child instead of punishing david or bathsheba? why did he make the child suffer for days instead of mercifully ending his life? when pharaoh refused to let the hebrews go, why did god push innocent people and kill the first born children instead of directly punishing pharaoh himself? multiple times in the bible, god kills and tortures innocent people just to make a point. how is punishing innocent people just? how is he a just god? i'd prefer if theists answered this question because of course atheists will say "well of course he isn't just".


The reason that God killed the child was becasue that was David's punishment. Besides it is generally agreed across Christianity that children automaticly get into Heaven becasue they are below the age of accountability since they are afterall children. David knew the laws and morals of God, but David disobeyed and ended up having the husband of Bathsheba killed on the battlefield. God did this to not only show David what he did, but to teach him from a moral standpoint how our actions affect other people. Think of it this way David chose to do something evil, and being a just God God justly punished David for his decision.

Same thing thing with the plauges. God wanted to free the Israeli people from the captivity of Egypt becasue they were going to be the people that would introduce the true God to the world and also be the nation that would host the redeemer of the world Jesus Christ. God also gave Pharaoh plenty of oppurtunities to release the Israelites but he refused. So God had to act accordingly based on the decisions Pharaoh made. God does not kill or torture innocent people just to prove a point he punishes evil people to prove that what they do to others and themselves is wrong. God does not like doing these things in fact he even says that he does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. In fact when the Red Sea collapsed on the Egytian army in the Bible the Angels sang and God rebuked them saying "My children are drowning and you would sing?" showing that he has great compassion and love for everyone even those who hate him and are evil. That is why God is indeed a just and good God.
JediDillon's avatar

Interesting Seeker

papa was a rolling stone
Pseudo-Onkelos
Kuroko and the Lamb
Psalms 51:5 address it, David claims he was sinful from the moment his mother conceived him, and sinful at birth. The psalms is about his sin against God and was written right after he committed adultery. I don't see how else we can interpret it other than literally. The entire song is pretty straight forward.


I know why it was written, but that doesn't mean David was literally born with original sin. That's a Catholic concept. Thanks, Augustine. Why take it literally? You wouldn't take v. 2 literally, nor would you take v. 4 literally. David didn't just sin against God only. He sinned against Uriah by committing adultery with his wife, by lying to him, and by having him killed in the battlefield. V. 7 isn't taken literally, either.

Kuroko and the Lamb
Regardless man has been cursed with a sinful nature, that of which we inherited from Adam and Eve. I don't know what babies are doing that's sinful before God, either way they had sinned, for everyone has sinned.


Adam and Eve never existed. The Hebrews and ancient Israel didn't believe in a sinful nature.

I have also just learned in a class of mine that the Jews didn't believe the serpent was Satan, but they just believed serpents were the most cunning animals. The Christians pretty much invented the character Santan as we know him.


But they do believe that the Angel Lucifer who is known in Christianity as Satan rebelled against God. It's in both the Old Testament and the Tanakah.
Nityananda-rama dasa's avatar

Devout Fairy

JediDillon


But they do believe that the Angel Lucifer who is known in Christianity as Satan rebelled against God.


Verse please with supporting commentary....

JediDillon

It's in both the Old Testament and the Tanakah


stare

Those are the same thing....
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

IVovacane
Lied about what? That they would die?
The payment of sin is death But Adam and Eve didn't die straightaway because of His Mercy.


It wasn't because of God's mercy that they didn't die immediately. In 1 Kings 2:36 - 38, King Solomon said to Shimei that he was to build a house and dwell in Jerusalem and that if he left, he would die. Well, Shimei eventually left Jerusalem and went to Gath. It wasn't literally on that day that Shimei died. He was sent to Solomon, who had him killed. "On that day" isn't a literal day, it just means "when".

IVovacane
He set them up huh? I can't tell you how many times I Used this illustration but here it goes...


Your illustration doesn't work. Little Johnny knows what morals are. His father isn't omniscient so as to know ahead of time that his son will definitely take the cookie from the cookie jar. Little Johnny's offspring will also not suffer the consequences of this act. Nice to know father will beat his son, though.
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

JediDillon
papa was a rolling stone
why did god kill the child instead of punishing david or bathsheba? why did he make the child suffer for days instead of mercifully ending his life? when pharaoh refused to let the hebrews go, why did god push innocent people and kill the first born children instead of directly punishing pharaoh himself? multiple times in the bible, god kills and tortures innocent people just to make a point. how is punishing innocent people just? how is he a just god? i'd prefer if theists answered this question because of course atheists will say "well of course he isn't just".


The reason that God killed the child was becasue that was David's punishment.


Why? David wasn't punished, the infant was.

JediDillon
Besides it is generally agreed across Christianity that children automaticly get into Heaven becasue they are below the age of accountability since they are afterall children.


So that makes it all right?

JediDillon
God did this to not only show David what he did, but to teach him from a moral standpoint how our actions affect other people.


And what did the infant learn for suffering for seven days before he died?

JediDillon
Think of it this way David chose to do something evil, and being a just God God justly punished David for his decision.


No, God did not do anything just. God isn't just.

JediDillon
Same thing thing with the plauges. God wanted to free the Israeli people from the captivity of Egypt becasue they were going to be the people that would introduce the true God to the world and also be the nation that would host the redeemer of the world Jesus Christ. God also gave Pharaoh plenty of oppurtunities to release the Israelites but he refused. So God had to act accordingly based on the decisions Pharaoh made. God does not kill or torture innocent people just to prove a point he punishes evil people to prove that what they do to others and themselves is wrong. God does not like doing these things in fact he even says that he does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. In fact when the Red Sea collapsed on the Egytian army in the Bible the Angels sang and God rebuked them saying "My children are drowning and you would sing?" showing that he has great compassion and love for everyone even those who hate him and are evil. That is why God is indeed a just and good God.


The same god who put the ancient Israelites in Egypt, the same god who hardened Pharaoh's heart. God does kill the innocent. God isn't just, God is just mighty. Might makes right, that is the god of Israel. Showing remorse does not make God just and good. God just had crocodile tears.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Lied about what? That they would die?
The payment of sin is death But Adam and Eve didn't die straightaway because of His Mercy.


It wasn't because of God's mercy that they didn't die immediately. In 1 Kings 2:36 - 38, King Solomon said to Shimei that he was to build a house and dwell in Jerusalem and that if he left, he would die. Well, Shimei eventually left Jerusalem and went to Gath. It wasn't literally on that day that Shimei died. He was sent to Solomon, who had him killed. "On that day" isn't a literal day, it just means "when".

IVovacane
He set them up huh? I can't tell you how many times I Used this illustration but here it goes...


Your illustration doesn't work. Little Johnny knows what morals are. His father isn't omniscient so as to know ahead of time that his son will definitely take the cookie from the cookie jar. Little Johnny's offspring will also not suffer the consequences of this act. Nice to know father will beat his son, though.

Did you review my whole post or just certain parts?
Then what was it? http://www.3amthoughts.com/article/bible-study/lamb-slain-adam-and-eve
Also, I like your sig xD
Pseudo-Onkelos's avatar

Adored Admirer

IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Lied about what? That they would die?
The payment of sin is death But Adam and Eve didn't die straightaway because of His Mercy.


It wasn't because of God's mercy that they didn't die immediately. In 1 Kings 2:36 - 38, King Solomon said to Shimei that he was to build a house and dwell in Jerusalem and that if he left, he would die. Well, Shimei eventually left Jerusalem and went to Gath. It wasn't literally on that day that Shimei died. He was sent to Solomon, who had him killed. "On that day" isn't a literal day, it just means "when".

IVovacane
He set them up huh? I can't tell you how many times I Used this illustration but here it goes...


Your illustration doesn't work. Little Johnny knows what morals are. His father isn't omniscient so as to know ahead of time that his son will definitely take the cookie from the cookie jar. Little Johnny's offspring will also not suffer the consequences of this act. Nice to know father will beat his son, though.

Did you review my whole post or just certain parts?
Then what was it? http://www.3amthoughts.com/article/bible-study/lamb-slain-adam-and-eve
Also, I like your sig xD


I don't read links. I don't take Christian interpretation into consideration when reading the Tanakh objectively. My best bet is with ancient Near Eastern motifs.

Thank you.
Masrur Fanalis's avatar

Distinct Seeker

Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Pseudo-Onkelos
IVovacane
Lied about what? That they would die?
The payment of sin is death But Adam and Eve didn't die straightaway because of His Mercy.


It wasn't because of God's mercy that they didn't die immediately. In 1 Kings 2:36 - 38, King Solomon said to Shimei that he was to build a house and dwell in Jerusalem and that if he left, he would die. Well, Shimei eventually left Jerusalem and went to Gath. It wasn't literally on that day that Shimei died. He was sent to Solomon, who had him killed. "On that day" isn't a literal day, it just means "when".

IVovacane
He set them up huh? I can't tell you how many times I Used this illustration but here it goes...


Your illustration doesn't work. Little Johnny knows what morals are. His father isn't omniscient so as to know ahead of time that his son will definitely take the cookie from the cookie jar. Little Johnny's offspring will also not suffer the consequences of this act. Nice to know father will beat his son, though.

Did you review my whole post or just certain parts?
Then what was it? http://www.3amthoughts.com/article/bible-study/lamb-slain-adam-and-eve
Also, I like your sig xD


I don't read links. I don't take Christian interpretation into consideration when reading the Tanakh objectively. My best bet is with ancient Near Eastern motifs.

Thank you.

So you refuse to answer the question? surprised

Your welcome.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games