Previous 1
Topic: God of the bible is clearly not a God, or at least not a ver
Seamonster's photo
Wed 12/17/08 09:23 AM
In the Garden of Eden story, God warns Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit lest they die that very day. The serpent tells Eve that she won't die that day, but rather her eyes will be open to know good and evil. Read further in the story and it is apparent God was bluffing and the serpent was actually telling the truth. Adam and Eve's eyes were opened to know good and evil, and according to the story, they lived hundreds of years after.

Theologians have invented a bit a of nonsense to salvage this, having to reinterpret parts of the story just so God's warning can be made accurate. One claim is that the day spoken of was a thousand years. This is arbitrary and nothing in Genesis implies that, and there's no way Adam and Eve would have understood it that way. Another claim is that God meant Adam and Eve would become mortal that day. But the scene makes more sense if Adam and Eve were created mortal in the first place, and could only become immortal by eating from the tree of life, also in the garden. Another theory is that God was talking about "spiritual" death. But again, nothing in the text of Genesis supports this. That is a gnostic concept from a much later time than when Genesis was written. But theologians stick to these explanations because they can't bare to admit what the story clearly shows, that God was lying to Adam and Eve.

In reality, the book of Genesis is collection of stories borrowed from even earlier myths, such as the epic of Gilgamesh. Most of these myths originally arose in a polytheistic context, and its possible that in an earlier form of the myth, the serpent was the messenger of a competing god. (Genesis itself even betrays polytheistic roots in several places, including the verse "let US create man in OUR own image....")

Later in Genesis, God has to send a messenger down to earth to verify for him whether what he has heard about the evil in Sodom and Gomorrah is really true. Nowhere in Genesis is God depicted as all-knowing, and in a few places, he clearly isn't.

God also has to stop the building of the tower of Babel. It appears God was afraid of man reaching up to the dome (firmament) of heaven, finding one of the holes where rain falls through it, and climbing through to the other side where God lives.

darkowl1's photo
Wed 12/17/08 09:40 AM
interesting......

Abracadabra's photo
Wed 12/17/08 01:06 PM
Edited by Abracadabra on Wed 12/17/08 01:07 PM
Read further in the story and it is apparent God was bluffing and the serpent was actually telling the truth.


You're right. According to the Bible Satan tells the truth and God lies.

This isn't news to me. The Bible does this sort of thing all the time.

Later in Genesis, God has to send a messenger down to earth to verify for him whether what he has heard about the evil in Sodom and Gomorrah is really true. Nowhere in Genesis is God depicted as all-knowing, and in a few places, he clearly isn't.


Yep. The Bible is clearly inconsistent in its description of its God. There can be no doubt about that.

In reality, the book of Genesis is collection of stories borrowed from even earlier myths, such as the epic of Gilgamesh. Most of these myths originally arose in a polytheistic context, and its possible that in an earlier form of the myth, the serpent was the messenger of a competing god. (Genesis itself even betrays polytheistic roots in several places, including the verse "let US create man in OUR own image....")


This is very true about the Bible containing many concepts of previous mythologies.

The plural reference is clearly problematic. Many Christians try to suggest that this refers to both God and Jesus (whom they believe existed at the time of creation). This is based on the idea that Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I Am".

However, that concept is extremely problematic. This would suggest a myriad of things that would be in conflict with later stories.

For example, the Great Flood. Well, if Jesus existed as "The Savior" before the Great Flood then why didn't God send him to earth at that point in time. Clearly the Great Flood just isn't consistent with a Jesus that had existed since before creation.

In fact, the Great Flood isn't consistent with a supposedly unchanging God.

Clearly the Biblical God has changed the way he deals with humanity over the course of the stories. In the eartly going he flooded them out for misbehavior. But then later he supposedly sends his "only begotten Son" to save the world.

That's an inconsistent God and implies that God is just experimenting with different methods of trying to control his creation. None of which seem to be working.

Christians hold that Jesus' death on the cross represnts a defeat of Satan.

But there's just another inconsistency. If God had to 'defeat' Satan that would imply that Satan was a real threat to God in the first place.

Moreover, if God had to sacrifice his own Son to defeat Satan, then Satan would have certainly succeeded in forcing God to make a sacrifice.

That implies that God was truly at the mercy of Satan.

The whole story is utter nonsense relative to its own ideals of God being all-powerful, all-wise, and all-knowing.

The stories just don't depict the actions of an all-wise, all-powerful, or all-knowing God.

I could go on, and on, and on. The Bible is just riddled with nonsense.

It can't possible be a true story of our creator. That's the only thing that the Bible has made abundantly clear.


Seamonster's photo
Wed 12/17/08 03:31 PM
Edited by Seamonster on Wed 12/17/08 03:31 PM
and of course that is just the tip of the iceburg

JasmineInglewood's photo
Wed 12/17/08 07:36 PM
can someone please explain to me how god created light on the first day and separated it from darkness and called them day and night. but only created light producing objects such as the sun and stars on the third day? where did this light on the first and second days come from?

no photo
Wed 12/17/08 07:39 PM
Edited by smiless on Wed 12/17/08 07:40 PM
You clap your hands three times and say "light please" and puff light appeared on the first day.

You clap your hands a second time and say "turn off" and night appeared on the second day.

You clap your hands a third time and puff the electricity almost went out causing a explosion and you have stars on the third day.

drinker

MirrorMirror's photo
Wed 12/17/08 07:39 PM
happy You are onto something.flowerforyou




flowerforyou There is a false God of the Earthflowerforyou

flowerforyou and a True G-D in Heavenflowerforyou

JasmineInglewood's photo
Wed 12/17/08 07:45 PM

You clap your hands three times and say "light please" and puff light appeared on the first day.

You clap your hands a second time and say "turn off" and night appeared on the second day.

You clap your hands a third time and puff the electricity almost went out causing a explosion and you have stars on the third day.

drinker



rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl


JasmineInglewood's photo
Wed 12/17/08 07:46 PM

happy You are onto something.flowerforyou




flowerforyou There is a false God of the Earthflowerforyou

flowerforyou and a True G-D in Heavenflowerforyou


ah, but of course, why didn't i see that drinker

Abracadabra's photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:00 PM
Edited by Abracadabra on Wed 12/17/08 08:01 PM

can someone please explain to me how god created light on the first day and separated it from darkness and called them day and night. but only created light producing objects such as the sun and stars on the third day? where did this light on the first and second days come from?


A while back there was a gentleman here named Tribo who ran a whole thread on that very topic.

There are many conflict in the literal description of creation.

Of course, there were Christians who offer their standard responses like, "Well, with God all things are possible".

Fine, if that's the case then why even bother writing down a sequence for creation. It would be totally irrelavent.

Moreover, if that's the case that bring up the whole question of why it took God 6 days to make creation?

If with God all thigns are possible when didn't he just wave his magic wand and create the whole shebang in one day?

The very idea that it required God 6 days to make creation implies that even God is restricted in how much he can do.

But that flies in the face of the idea that with God all things are possible.

Unless, of course, he was just goofing off for 6 days because he likes to putter around with things. bigsmile


Seamonster's photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:01 PM

You clap your hands three times and say "light please" and puff light appeared on the first day.

You clap your hands a second time and say "turn off" and night appeared on the second day.

You clap your hands a third time and puff the electricity almost went out causing a explosion and you have stars on the third day.

drinker


so god has a clapper?

OOO does he have a flobie also?

And a beadazzler?

no photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:04 PM
God was goofing off and bored. He created life and Earth for entertainment purposes. He likes to see us emotional with all kinds of ups and downs in life. I actually heard planet Earth is on channel 1291 on his big 1000 feet flat screen tv. He rarely goes to that channel however, for he finds the XENU's a much more interesting race to observe. He gets more laughs out of it.

Okay enough said, clap on and clap off the night has arrived:smile:

no photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:07 PM


You clap your hands three times and say "light please" and puff light appeared on the first day.

You clap your hands a second time and say "turn off" and night appeared on the second day.

You clap your hands a third time and puff the electricity almost went out causing a explosion and you have stars on the third day.

drinker


so god has a clapper?

OOO does he have a flobie also?

And a beadazzler?


shhhhhhh that is a great big secrettongue2

JasmineInglewood's photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:11 PM
Edited by JasmineInglewood on Wed 12/17/08 08:12 PM


can someone please explain to me how god created light on the first day and separated it from darkness and called them day and night. but only created light producing objects such as the sun and stars on the third day? where did this light on the first and second days come from?


A while back there was a gentleman here named Tribo who ran a whole thread on that very topic.

There are many conflict in the literal description of creation.

Of course, there were Christians who offer their standard responses like, "Well, with God all things are possible".

Fine, if that's the case then why even bother writing down a sequence for creation. It would be totally irrelavent.

Moreover, if that's the case that bring up the whole question of why it took God 6 days to make creation?

If with God all thigns are possible when didn't he just wave his magic wand and create the whole shebang in one day?

The very idea that it required God 6 days to make creation implies that even God is restricted in how much he can do.

But that flies in the face of the idea that with God all things are possible.

Unless, of course, he was just goofing off for 6 days because he likes to putter around with things. bigsmile




awww mann i would've loved to meet this Tribo dude bigsmile

can anyone enlighten me on why he left?

no photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:13 PM
He left to keep his sanity for Mingle2 creates after a year nutcases like melaugh

JasmineInglewood's photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:17 PM
Edited by JasmineInglewood on Wed 12/17/08 08:18 PM
woah.... i guess i should be worried then...?shocked

but then again... i like your brand of nutcasedness, i think it might be fun bigsmile

no photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:20 PM
There are rare cases of some members who can keep their sanity up to two years, but after that there is no hopelaugh

Just joking around. I hope you find all the answers you seek when you ask questions here.

Good luck:smile:

JasmineInglewood's photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:27 PM
Edited by JasmineInglewood on Wed 12/17/08 08:28 PM
meh... that seems unlikely (answers that is).

i've found that folk generally aren't interested in logic. i am. i usually end up feeling like i'm gonna do major damage to the wall with my head when when i try to discuss religion, so i've stopped. plus i'm told that i am offensive. best way to not cause offense is to hold my tongue when idiocy is spoken and not respond with the impulsive question of "what the hell have you been smoking??"

i just come here to post interesting stuff i find online bigsmile drinker

no photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:30 PM
Edited by smiless on Wed 12/17/08 08:30 PM

meh... that seems unlikely (answers that is).

i've found that folk generally aren't interested in logic. i am. i usually end up feeling like i'm gonna do major damage to the wall with my head when when i try to debate religion, so i've stopped. plus i'm told that i am offensive. best way to not cause offense is to hold my tongue when idiocy is spoken and not respond with the impulsive question of "what the hell have you been smoking??"

i just come here to post interesting stuff i find online bigsmile drinker


I think whatever gives you the most laughs and joy is the right path to go.

Logic is different for everyone that is very true. You do have some people who have alot of logic. You would be surprised, but again everyone has a different idealogy of what logic is for them.

I am the sites jester, so no logic over here, but I enjoy the different personalities and belief systems at its best.

JasmineInglewood's photo
Wed 12/17/08 08:31 PM
and we love you doing it drinker

Previous 1