These are the kinds of discussions that, for me personally, are a total waste of time.

My objections with the overall myth is that it makes no sense to me that a supposedly all-wise creator who had a master plan would need to do this thing in the first place.

The whole tale implies a creator who did not intend to create women in the first place. He's doing it here as an afterthought. Apparently because Adam was unhappy, or needed some sort of helpmate.

But what would Adam need a helpmate for in the first place? What was his mission that he needed help with? Just being alive?

Assuming that Adam was a male he could not procreate. This brings into question why God had created MAN in the first place? If not to procreate, then for what purpose?

Had the story been told the other way around at least it would have made a tad bit more sense. Had God created a woman first who could potentially produce offspring without the need to be inseminated by a male, then at least she's have a PURPOSE. To procreate!

Then it makes sense that she might actually need a "helpmate" and potentially one who doesn't himself need to be bothered by having children.

So had the story started out with God created woman and then creating man as a helpmate to her it would have made at least a tad bit more sense.

But even then, it would still imply that God wasn't wise enough to have foreseen this need for a helpmate and just create the pair of them together in the first place.

So the story has serious problems that soar totally beyond any of these trivial interpretations.

And this type of thing pretty plagues all of these biblical tales IMHO.

It's not just the trivial interpretations, but it's the far greater bird's eye view of these stories.

For example, if the whole point of these stories was going to be that Adam and Eve fell from grace from God, why even bother bringing in a serpent to beguile them?

Why not just let them fall from grace on their own merit being their own idea? The very FACT that these stories require a serpent to beguile them brings up the very serious question of whether these people would have ever fallen from grace on their own.

And if they wouldn't have, then why is this God blaming humanity for something that he had to bring in a third party to CORRUPT?

He had to let his demonic fallen angel into the Garden of Eden to corrupt the humans because they wouldn't have fallen from grace on their own had they been left alone?

And I'm supposed to believe in these stories as a matter of pure FAITH?

Why would I want to have faith in such an underhanded creator?

This is a serious question.

Why would I want to have faith in a creator who isn't even willing to judge humanity on their own merit without contaminating them with an evil serpent that he ends up having to curse to crawl on it's belly for the rest of its days?

It just sounds like a totally made up nursery rhyme to me.

"and then the snake crawled away into the bushes and that's why snakes crawl on their bellies, and that's what will happen to you to if you are bad like the serpent. Now finish your glass of milk and I'll tuck you in and read you another bedtime nursery rhyme tomorrow night."

I mean seriously, that's precisely how these biblical stories appear to me. These are just tales that parents made up to tell their children, and when they began to realize that some people would continue to believe these stories clear into adulthood it became a RELIGION.

That is a good explanation Funches, and it's typically the one given by Christian apologists when they are presented with this dilemma.

However, there's another very troubling thing here that I would question and it is this:

If Jesus could see that it would be wrong to condemn these people "for they know not what they do", then how is it that the all-wise Father could not also recognize this to be the case?

Why should Jesus have to point something like this out to the Father?

This suggests that either Jesus was wiser than the Father and trying to point something out to the Father that the Father might not be capable of comprehending on his own. Or that Jesus actually has MORE COMPASSION than the Father!

Either of these things are not good.

So the very idea of Jesus making a request to the Father as if Jesus doesn't TRUST the Father to do the right thing on his own is problematic in any case, IMHO.

As I always say, as fables, there is no problem. We can understand how men would have written such things into their fables.

But as the actual account of the "Word of God"? What sense would it make?

Why should Jesus need to make a plea to the Father to do something different from what the Father would have naturally done?

That can only suggest that Jesus and the Father aren't even close to being on the same wavelength. But that would surely fly in the face of Jesus being "one" with the Father if they would each deal with the same situation differently.

So for me, this is a serious problem that is not easily resolved.

Unless, of course, we accept that these are just man-made superstitious rumors. Then no resolution is required.

And that is indeed my solution to these outrageous contradictions.

That solves these problems completely.

There's nothing to defend Peter.

For one thing, I pretty much address the modern day religious doctrines. Therefore, I'm right on target with what I'm addressing.

If you are suggesting that I should study ancient languages in an effort to try to decipher these ancient writings for myself, you may be surprised to learn that I had actually gone down that path at one point in my life.

What I very quickly discovered is that the very Hebrew language in which these texts were written was itself a very vague language even in the time it was being actively used. Hebrew words themselves could represent a myriad of various different meanings.

Therefore, even if you were alive at the very moment these things were being written down for the very first time and someone handed you the page with the ink still wet, and it was up to you to decide precisely what they meant, you would still be position to offer a wide variety of interpretations.

In short, the Hebrew language simply wasn't all that precise.

So any dream of getting at any sort of precise exact verbatim account of these scriptures is lost forever. That will never happen.

All we have are these vague highly questionable and grossly overly-translated doctrines to work with.

That's just the fact of reality.

I argue with the "currently popular texts" because that's what is currently being held-up by religious fanatics and fundamentalists as the "Word of God".

In terms actual "spirituality", I have no need for scriptures of any kind. I'm happy with my spiritual views and beliefs just as they are.

My involvement in all of this is truly not from a 'spiritual' point of view, but rather from a position of taking a stance against people (like Cowboy) who have actually deluded themselves into thinking that they, not only have the precisely verbatim "Word of God" in their hands, but they also feel like as if they are being a "servant of God" by preaching their own personal interpretations of it as though their personal interpretations are indeed the "Verbatim TRUTH of God's Word".



That's where I'm coming from Peter.

And like MorningSong so wisely recognizes. I'm not claiming to put words in "God's Mouth". On the contrary, I'm quite adamant about stating that it is my believe that all of these scriptures are fables. (even if the cause of them becoming fables was due to poor translations)

I personally don't believe that there ever was divine truth in any of these writings, but even if there may have been at one time, it's been totally lost by now for sure, IMHO.

Well, I'm in agreement that the Biblical scriptures are indeed contradictory when it comes to this issues. There are actually many contradictions associated with this.

Here's another one:

At one point the scriptures say that the all judgment has been given to the son and the father no longer judges anyone. Yet, after that had supposedly been well-established, when on the cross, Jesus supposedly yells out "Father forgive them for they know not what they do?"

Well duh?

What is Jesus asking the Father to forgive people for if all judgment has been given over to him?

Blatant inconsistencies in these stories.

There can be no denial about it.

Sure, we can make feeble "apologetic excuses" for theses things. But those feeble apologetic excuses are NOT part of the story.

The stories are in blatant contradiction as they stand.

My errors?

Excuse me?

I'm sorry to inform you but the words, "eternal", "hell", "virgin", "jealously", etc., are the words that are actually used in the biblical TEXT.

If you have issues with those words and their meanings, take it up with the people who have translated the Bible. Not with me!

If you want to make an case that the biblical TEXT can no longer be "TRUSTED" because of gross errors during translations and transcriptions, I'll be the very FIRST to agree with you!

At that point, we may as well flush the TEXT down the toilet and move on to bigger and better things.

And I'd be more than happy to do that!

WOW!

The depth of your understanding and wisdom is phenomenal MorningSong.

You truly understand!

I wish more people could.

No, I'm pointing out a blatant contradiction in these fables.

Not a personal interpretation.

A personal interpretation will be required however, for Cowboy to worm his way out of it though.

But there's nothing new there. That's been his strategy forever.

This is a gross misunderstanding on your part.

I have no "interpretations" for those fables. It's my stance that none are required because they are clearly as false as Greek Mythology.

However, in a religion where the Pope of the Catholic Church is the overseer of the "Body of Christ" which is the Catholic Church, I feel that these interpretations should be granted more authority than the sniveling rebellious objections of a bunch of protesting Protestants.



I'm I'm going to become a "Protestant" and protest against these interpretations, then I'll go all the way to renouncing the Old Testament altogether as nothing more than fictitious fables. Then I see no reason to view Jesus as anything other than a mortal albeit spiritual man. Most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. And then I dismiss the New Testament as being obvious outrageous superstitious rumors about this man named Jesus.

It works for me.

Untrue. I've shown you tons of times where you were wrong, and I've also shown you tons of times where there are other scriptures that even contradict the scriptures you point to.

In every case you've been in flat out denial of what has been shown to you and have very seldom realized the error of your ways.

In fact, here's a contradiction for you right now: You have just claims that Jesus and the Father are not one.

John.10:30 I and my Father are one.

There you go. They are one in the same.

You've created a polytheistic Christianity all on your own.

You're lying to yourself Cowboy.

You're aren't just 'relaying" what he has said. What you do is argue to the hilt with other people who have also read these scriptures that your interpretations are the VOICE OF JESUS and everyone else is WRONG!

In this way, you are taking OWNERSHIP of Jesus.

You are basically proclaiming that you OWN his tongue!

And you do this by shoving your interpretations in the face of everyone else and vehemently arguing against any other possible interpretations.

In this way you are proclaiming OWNERSHIP of Jesus.

You are proclaiming that Cowboyianty is the only TRUE "Christianity".

And this is precisely the DANGER of this religion. It is far too easy for people to fall into this kind of dogmatic trap.

And you continue with your imaginary Jesus marionette doll on your lap, twisting his tongue to support Cowboyianity.

You don't FOLLOW Jesus, Cowboy, you act like you OWN HIM!

Exactly!

BRAVO MorningSong!



Now there's a women who KNOWS Jesus!

Look who's talking!

The very man who goes around preaching to other people his own versions of what is required to be 'saved' by Jesus in this religion.

That's all MorningSong just did to you Cowboy. She's just preaching to you what she believes is required to have a true relationship with Jesus.

You take that as being a JUDGMENT on you, yet you can't understand why other people see your preaching to them as a judgment on them.

She's not doing anything DIFFERENT from what you're doing Cowboy. And you do it to EVERYONE CONSTANTLY.

With no end in sight!

That's not a positive outcome of such punishment.

And besides what about the women who never had any children? Do they get off the hook?

They won't be grateful that there is no pain in heaven?

And how men? They too won't be grateful that there is no pain in heaven?

Your excuses for these things are extremely feeble.



Who's talking about anyone living or dying? I was addressing cruel and unusual forms of unproductive punishments that can never lead to anything productive.

Cursing a serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days clearly has no positive benefits for anyone.

I do understand how you can support such hateful things. It is precisely because of these stories. You have been convinced that these fables are true and therefore you are convinced that this is indeed how this God behavior, therefore they MUST BE RIGHTEOUS!

And that is precisely why I see these fables as being dangerous. You read these kinds of stories and think, "Well if it's good enough for God who am I to question that, it MUST BE GOOD!"

No, it's not good and that's precisely why these fables necessarily have to be false.

Because these stories support bad and hateful behavior and immoral beliefs.



So? I agree, some people do need to be saved from "themselves". What does that have to do with being saved from a hateful demonic God?



That's already been done to the hilt. Even the Catholic Popes have that one sewn up tight. It clearly part and parcel of this religion. Only some of the protesting protestant are arrogant enough to be in denial that these things are clearly implied by these tales.


[quote
So, according to you, since I see the good morals taught by the Bible, then I must be highly moral...


I don't see where you see any good morals taught by the Bible. As far as I can tell you simply support the hateful immoralities as being "Divine Behavior".

Just because you call that "good" does not make it so.

You could justify kicking your dog with that feeble excuse.

Sorry, Cowboy, but "consequences to actions" does not excuse a God who solves his problems using utterly futile methods of punishments that could never possibly result in any positive outcome.

You can't excuse a demonic hateful God by merely saying, "consequences to actions".

That's no excuse for evil negative and violent behavior that could never possibly lead to anything positive or even remotely have a positive outcome.

You could beat your child to death and claim, 'Hey, it was just consequences to their actions!"

Bull Chit!

No, it would just be parental abuse plain and simple.

If you have asked Jesus the Almighty Christ, to come into your life and you have accepted him as your LORD and SAVIOR. Then did he not come into your life?

If so, then how could you still be weak?

Is the POWER of Jesus that weak?

Is your obedience to him as your LORD flawed?

Do you sometimes decide to refuse to obey even after you have accepted him as your LORD?

You better go talk to MorningSong Cowboy. If you don't have the strength to fight the temptations of Satan, then how can you claim to have Jesus in your heart?

Jesus casts out demons. He doesn't co-reside with them.

If you have this Jesus in your heart there can be no room for Satan and sins of the flesh.

That flies in the face of the POWER that Jesus is supposed to have.

You better go talk to MorningSong about this Cowboy.

It's not about good or bad. It's about whether or not a creator is a threat to his creation.

You're still in denial over that fact that this created has clearly done very hateful things. He curses a serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days. That's a hateful thing to do someone whether they deserve it or not. Moreover, the question of whether or not the punishment fit the crime is clearly open to controversy. Even humans have ethical standards against "cruel and unusual punishments".

And then there the question of rehabilitation. Did God give up on that. Is this God powerless to rehabilitate his faulty creations?

Shouldn't he have sent the serpent to a rehab center for medical and psychiatric treatment?

Only a loser God who is totally powerless to deal with these kinds of problem would cruse someone to crawl on their belly and eat dust. What exactly would a creator hope to achieve by doing that?

Even humans of mediocre intelligence know that kicking a dog is not a good means of training it.

So right off the bat, at square one we are being asked to have faith that our creator has absolutely no power or wisdom to solve problems in a positive manner. All he knows how to do is kick his dog.



I mean, these are quite serious questions if people are going to suggest to me that these ancient myths should be taken "seriously".

I see no reason to place my faith in a God who solves his problems using methods equivalent to kicking his dog.

And then he turns to Eve and curses her with greatly multiplied sorrow in conception and childbirth.

Just kicking his pets yet again.

A dog-kicking God basically. That's his divine example of how to solve problems.

And you actually claim to see "good" in that?

Where?