OWIEE,

Your post at 4:28 pm says, " u speak to me like i am not a christian..."


What planet are you on?


I will, and I mean, WILL, pray for you.

less bickering and more attempts at disproving would be nice....

Acknowledged and agreed, Rambil.

Only addressing the poster.

Further dialogue with him is over.

still waiting for an inconsistancy.... so far my point is being made by the detractors. They would rather heckle us believers than give us thier evidence, which i say doesent exist. People have tried unsucessfully to discredit the bible since it appeared on the scene.... so bring it on.

I will admit that I googled them. But here are some. I am not debating them merely pointing out that some have been noted.



GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

taken in thier context, they are in harmony. dont have time to go thru it all now, mabe when i get back from work i can write a book about it for yall.

I don't think it matters what you say rambill. Any person in the world would look at the directly opposite statments above and see that they are inconsistent. If your God will not let you speak the truth when it stares you in the face, then that is also clear to everyone when you respond to something as obvious as this.

Of course they are - as they are presented. However, anyone who has bothered to read the first few chapters of Genesis would also see that these inconsisancies are the result of reading the text and searching for support of such. By examining the text in order to draw conclusions as to what is is saying - it can be easily determined that there is one account of creation from Gen 1.1 to Gen 2:3. Gen 2:4 is merely a re-examiniation of the count from the perspective of man.



But that's the point. People seek their own truth. Not the absolute truth as you are attempting to allude to.

The power of the soundbyte to titillate and soothe the soul of unenquiring minds determined to remain in a constant state of delusion is not an observation of human intellect, but one of the contemplation of the need for a healer.

Jesus Christ is that healer and so much more.

Although this may come across harshly...

consider it...

if you would...

it has remained questionable within me...



God who hates that which He knowingly created without mistake?????

Creativesoul,

The ambiguity of your question has made me to wonder whether or not you have a precise direction to it that would constrain any response from being equally ambiguous.

I have reserved addressing it so that I might glean a direction from the subsequent interactions and better understand your intentions in general.

I see that by re-iterating it, you are still quite focused on an answer.

So, I will be frank.

Do you mean man or Satan ( by any one of many names, including the title of God ) or something entirely different that by my asking puts doubt in your mind of my sincerity and respect for you, which I assure you is untainted.

I am a very cautious man.

So then you are saying the second part are the words of a man not God? And that is why it counterdicts the previous information put down by God.

I speak in general terms because it is a general matter of principle...

To dilute this notion with the added confusion of any particulars could lose sight of the principle... Although it very well may be in order...

All the particulars would get in the way...

I would love for someone to be able to clarify this notion for my better understanding using a general scope...

I am not here to "pick apart" the text...

I want to understand the general principle...

Can that statement be logical or truthful...

I am purposefully placing myself under this "sink of expressions" in order to see how well my beliefs hold water...

While the faucet runs...

I am only 18 and I know the meaning of that. Adam would have lived forever, but because of his partaking of the fruit he gained a worldly body and died, yes it was a long time after but had he never partaken of the fruit he would have lived forever and we *everyone* would never be where we are today. It was in gods plan for adam to take the fruit to gain a body to be able to create babbies.

Sad part is im only 18 and I can probably answer and "Conspiracies" that anyone lays down better than the guy that started this topic.

Wow!!!!!

Creativesoul,

There are a couple of distractions between our posts that beg insincere attention and deserve a spanking, but I must refrain.
It would serve no good purpose, but might help others to understand the need for your question that I'm intent upon entertaining.


specifically, " God who hates that which He knowingly created without mistake?????"

First, I'm keenly focused on the capitalization that occurs mid-query.

Second, an assumption exists in my mind that finds the question unsustainable.

This idea of 'hate' existing in the content and character of my interpretation of God is incompatible with other content and character of God that I hold as immutable.

In any case, I am of the opinion that God does not hate His creation, but rather that 'iniquity' found place in members of that creation that He either did not intend or did not consider in the process of His work.

Were the presence of iniquity not intended, then there may exist a fault in the character of His creating that was engendered by the exercise of free will (iniquity as such being absent in the mind of the Creator). Which is a reasonable conclusion to draw about ' iniquity's ' presence in creation.

Were the presence of 'iniquity' not considered in the process of creation, then the concept of an omniscient Creator can be concluded as moot.

I hold that neither intent nor consideration can be incumbent upon God, but rather that 'iniquity' and its ill effects were anticipated and that the remedy for the sustainable integrity of free will was pre-ordaineed to be remedied and experienced by creation itself so as to be a self policing constraint incumbent upon the intended exercise of free will as being a valid and necessary component of creations relevance.

Unless all is vanity, for which no excuse may justify.

Hope that helps, but surely bigger and more disturbing considerations may have just become incumbent upon the discussion itself.




CS, this response was done on the fly and I learned a new way to express something buried in my heart that I had not considered when I polarized my response as being addressed to intent and consideration. That was unthoughtful on my part to have not completed my own thoughts beforehand, neverthe less, inexusably I have been helped through my spirit to clarify my own content while on the fly. I see the flaw in my response all to well. Edits are now complete at 12:36 pm

using your brand of logic and applying it as if it were Gods is a fools game. as for the question at hand, eljay answered it for me.

rambill79:

May I ask who you were addressing?

Perhaps you are correct in your understanding of God.

Perhaps not, if you have not considered all that you may in your understanding of God.





Yes, Rambil. Please. for I think now that you may have been addressing rabbit. I'm perplexed, as well.

wouldee:

As you have expressed...

First, I'm keenly focused on the capitalization that occurs mid-query.

<<<<<<< The capitalization signifies my respect for God, I call God such because that is the easiest way to describe the source of all creation, as I believe it to be >>>>>>>




As you have expressed...

Second, an assumption exists in my mind that finds the question unsustainable.

<<<<<<< My previous teachings also supported this notion >>>>>>>




As you have expressed...

This idea of 'hate' existing in the content and character of my interpretation of God is incompatible with other content and character of God that I hold as immutable.

<<<<<<< Again, I will say that I shared that very view, based on my "old" acceptances of that which I had been taught. >>>>>>>




As you have expressed...

In any case, I am of the opinion that God does not hate His creation, but rather that 'iniquity' found place in members of that creation that He either did not intend or did not consider in the process of His work.

Were the presence of iniquity not intended, then there may exist a fault in the character of His creating that was engendered by the exercise of free will (iniquity as such being absent in the mind of the Creator). Which is a reasonable conclusion to draw about ' iniquity's ' presence in creation.

Were the presence of 'iniquity' not considered in the process of creation, then the concept of an omniscient Creator can be concluded as moot.

I hold that neither intent nor consideration can be incumbent upon God, but rather that 'iniquity' and its ill effects were anticipated and that the remedy for the sustainable integrity of free will was pre-ordaineed to be remedied and experienced by creation itself so as to be a self policing constraint incumbent upon the intended exercise of free will as being a valid and necessary component of creations relevance.


<<<<<<< It has been thoughts quite similar to those that have led me to believe that there was much more to learn about the truth of our existence, for what I had learned that rested so well within directly conflicted with that simple sentence that I stated earlier, now which is on it's way to making perfect sense to me>>>>>>>


Thank you for your sincerity on this matter... and know that it is shared...