It's funny... A vast number of religions (The Maya, Hindu, Ancient China, Native American) all have "serpent gods" that bring "knowledge." Only the Judeo/Christian god deems that "knowledge" is inherently evil. The reasoning is simple: to keep man in darkness.

The one premise that the Judeo/Christian faith seems to miss out is that the god they worship is not a god of good or a god of love, even though it is plainly spelled out in scripture.

Genesis 1:1-3 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved across the waters. And God said let there be light and there was light.

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word. And the word was with God. And God said let there be light and there was light.

The very premise set forth by these verses is that god was in darkness (darkness and light is interchangeable for "good and evil" within the context of the bible. Genesis even goes so far as to say that god swims in darkness. Light (or goodness) actually had to be created, and is therefor, only an illusion associated with god.

The light he actually created was the Morning Star - Lucifer, the most beloved of the angels, the fallen, the devil. What always gets me, is that when translated from Latin, Lucifer literally means "he that brings light."

One could make the argument that the snake, actually released Adam and Eve from the bonds of servitude, by giving them the knowledge that they were indeed slaves in the garden. Which was, of course, deemed as "evil" by he who wished to see his minions held under foot.



Just something to mull over on a Saturday afternoon.

Such is not my belief.

In the original post to this thread, I asked two questions.

One was answered via God being vague. The other, has not.

Regardless, and despite an apple being a fruit. Both irrelevant, and for the sake of argument we just say 'apple'. Truth is, I love pomegranates, so I'd like to think it was one of those.

According to this CHRISTIAN belief, called the SERPENT SEED:

God HATES fornication.
God purposely created the Devil.
God knew man would 'fail' and set him up to do so purposely.
God is a sociopath.

Period.

That's what this version states.

I don't agree with any of that nonsense, because that is literally against what the Bible ITSELF says.

Yet this is apparently why I am 'insignificant'.

"Christian" covers a wide variety of beliefs. So does "Pagan". They are large umbrella terms and encompass many different denominations and belief systems.

Do you consider yourself a Christian?

I consider myself a Christian. Catholic to be exact. Many Catholics would say that I am neither Christian nor Catholic based on many of my beliefs. I don't really worry about how others classify me.

What was the question that was not already answered?

Very true, as I am learning there is now a version that is denoted to bestiality in the Bible..



..former. Drifted from the light, found comfort in the darkness, blah blah.

I do not know what I am, and that was a metaphor. Just fyi.



Awesome for you.

*sighs as he must ask again*

Why did God create the Devil? Why did he 'purposely' set us up to fail?

..by the standards I just received; God created the Devil purposely. However, since I am not 'Christian' this purpose is and shall forever be 'unknown' to me, until I am 'born again'.

If you believe God created the Devil to test man, you must surely realize that we were predestined to fail this test; because we lacked the sense of 'good and evil'; therefore, we had no way to differentiate the difference between any lies the snake would have said from Gods word. Heck, he could have said, "I am God and just decided to be a reptile today."

Furthermore.

According to the Bible: "God is omni-everything."
IE: All-seeing, All-knowing.

This cannot be denied, if you believe the bible; for it says it.

Now, if GOD truly LOVED and CARED about man this is where the major issue arises for me:

1. Why create the Devil, you are all-knowing; you knew we'd fail. You knew it'd contaminate us for the rest of our existences.

2. Why create the tree in the midst of a massive Garden, and place man 'near' it when you know, inevitably (all-seeing) he would be 'tempted'?

3. If you also knew that the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden, would ultimately lead man onto the path in which we reach an event called the 'Great Flood', why persist? That's the direct sign of a sociopath.

Those are my questions, all wrapped about the first one.

Cause which led to the effects.

All-knowing, all-seeing.

lies from the pit of hell...
and shame on them that believe it.
the songs of solomon talks much on the pleasure of sex,
when man eat the forbidding fruit and why God sent them out of the garden, read: Genesis 3:22-24

yes God lied to Adam by Omission

since Adam was of Flesh and Blood he would have eventually died whether he ate from the tree of not

also Adam did not have the knowledge of evil and therefore could not conceive or understand the concept of "die"

to Adam "die" would only be a good thing to do

You sure you want me quoting 3:22-24?

using s little logic it's obvious that Satan was not the serpent in the garden

God punished the race and/or future offsprings of the serpent by condemning them to crawl on their bellies...this did not happen to Satan

therefore Satan was not The serpent

For Sin_and_Sorrow:

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, Adam and Eve INSTANTLY DIED

SPIRITUALLY ...the spiirtual death was RIGHT AWAY....


BUT the physical death just took longer.....



BUT when we are BORN AGAIN(thru believing and accepting Jesus

as Saviour) our spirits are made alive once more.

you should have follow the topic and see where it started, bcos i clearly explain it well for those that have a clean mind and willing to know it,

they are all writting in the bible,

God did not punish adam for having sex , but God punishes eve for haveing sex with the serpent , and the serpent did it on only for pleasure sake, while satan has a plan to divert the plan of God for mankind,

so the resault of their sex for pleasure produced cain, and after adam the husband slept with her, and abel take place and bible said they are not twins but she have two babies,

SO WHAT GOD HATES IS NOT THAT ADAM SLEPT WITH HIS WIFE, BUT THAT THE SEX FOR PLEASURE,

LOOK AT EVERY OTHER CREATURE, THEY ONLY HAVE SEX WITHIN THE TIME OF THEIR REPRODUCTION PERIOD, BUT ONLY MAN WILL GO AND SLEEP WITH A FELLOW MAN FOR THE SEARCH OF SEXUAL SATISFACTION,


TODAY AND HAVE SEX WITH A FELLOW MAN , WHILE WOMAN HAVE SEX WITH A FELLOW WOMAN, AND NOT ALONE, WOMEN SLEPT WITH DIFFERENT KIND OF ANIMAL IN SEARCH FOR A SEXUAL DESIRE


ALL THIS THINGS ARE WRITTING IN THE BIBLE,

IT WILL ONLY TAKE YOUR TIME IF YOU STUDY BIBLE

But to disobey, you must know you are doing 'wrong'.

They would not have understood this concept.

WEATHER IT IS YOUR BELIEF OR NOT, DOES NOT CHANGES THE STANDARD OF GOD, AND IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, SO AT THE TIME WHEN YOU WILL BE JUDGE , THIS VERY DISCUASSION WILL STAND AGAINST YOU, BCOS YOU DELIBERATLY HARDEN YOUR HEART NOT TO HEED TO THE WORD OF GOD, IF IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, THAT IS DIFFERENT, BUT IF IT IS IN THE BIBLE, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE

Let me erase all you wrote except ONE thing and SHOW you your own hypocrisy.



IF this is true:

A. Your entire concept is based on a lie. Your pastor stated:

"It is the animal inside of us that causes us to crave sex and to kill, because those are the animal's instincts."

Yet now, you are saying, animals have controlled sex drives.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

CAPS-LOCK stuck?

You aren't even reading the Bible.

Half the stuff you and that pastor are saying you are ADDING to the Bible. A False Prophet is just as guilty if not worse than the one who chooses not to believe.

Such is also IN the Bible.

I do not deliberately do this, I do it because I have reason, logic, and I fear your perception of 'God' is entirely fabricated on the principle 'you want love' and 'want there to be something' after thi existence.

Despite this.

"If it is in the Bible, you have no excuse."

Yes, I do. God never wrote anything outside the Ten Commandments.

Historically, using again common sense and logic; it wouldn't have been until some odd years later that the ability to write and conjure up 'language' would have come into existence. This is solid knowledge.

If there was such a thing as language during Adam Eve and their children, someone would have written something at some point; but there is nothing.

From my knowledge, Mesopotamia was the first 'known' form of writing. and they used a form known as Cuneiform. Curved drawings; like ox, fish, etc.

This is around 3000 BC.

The Earth is, what, 7 Billion years old? So, I'll let you fill in the logic for this; which I know you won't.

Then it was the Egyptians original form of writing, Greek alphabet, 200 BC, 7 letters borrowed from Egyptians concept. Onward and upward, blah, blah.

It is not even fully, nowhere close, to developed yet and you are now literally a few years away from Christ's birth and demise.

Yet still, truthfully, the entire precepts of language as a written form isn't entirely developed.

What's the point?

They remembered everything, despite not being there, in the times before them... perfectly?

Mkay.

Just asking.

Original Sin

Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html

Be ye wise as Serpents......................!
Who was that again who coined that Phrase?

Freudian Slip?

and thus she introduced Adam to sex for pleasure."

this is very lies, and i don't think to continue this very topic, and if you really want to know the truth about what i said, go and read my past post, or you can mail me, so that i will forward you the verse of the bible that prove that the serpent introduce sex for pleasure unto the woman eve, not to the man, bcos the man is her husband,

this will be the last time i will talk about this,
bye

So, ultimately, it seems, as silence now grows.

It is MY fault, that typed words don't reflect a person's actual meaning.

*sigh*

..whatever happened to benefit of the doubt?