The devil made him do it.

you mean the Devil (Gods Creation sent to earth by God) made Totag speak the truth?

Nope.
God's creation sent the Devil back to God to whine about Totage and whimper in defeat that the truth is known.


NOT THE END OF RABBIT

Are you now calling me the devil? If your saying I whine by saying that totage speks the truth. That is odd way to whine

There are things us humans can not comprehend, there are deepere purposes than our human mind can imagine.

If you are unwilling to accept Christ, you will never know or understand God, The Holy Bible, or anything pertaining to such.

As the prophecy of Isaiah goes:

"...You will hear my words,
but you will not understand;
you will see what I do,
but you will not perceive its meaning.
For the hearts of these people are hardeneded,
and their ears cannot hear,
and they have closed their eyes -
so their eyes cannot see,
and their hearts cannot understand,
and they cannot turn to me
and let me heal them."

NLT Matthew 13:14-15

I think Evil is a man made thing,like God,Lucifer cant come into your heart unless you invite him.You alone are ultimately responsible for your own path in life.Not to be funny but Dr Sues wrot a book "oh the wonders you will see" which is all about choices and temptation and where to lay the blame.
when God made the angels I'm sure he didnt think Lucifer would turn out to be so bad.Lucifer did all that himself.god just gave him the consequences for his choices.
if i have stopped making sense its cause i'm tired sorry.

NOPE!!!!Not you Rabbit! The devil is the whiner.

You are the observer. The voyuer so to speak.

I beleive that Satan was initially created for good, but his pride took over and he became evil, it was not a mistake that it happened and it was no surprise that things would turn out as they did. It happened for a reason, a reason maybe we can't understand, or maybe we're not supposed to understand why it happened. Maybe that's th point of having faith in Christ, is that despite the eveil, we can still turn to him for salvation. Maybe evil has been allowed so that we can know and apperciate good. I don't know myself, but I still have faith, which I beleive is the whole point of it all, to have faith despite what we don't know and understand.

Man creates the illusions that builds the walls of limition.

Any thought that limits the possibilites of humanity is done so by illusion only.

Evil is illusion, perfection is subjective, creativity allows them both to exist.

Somewhere inbetween evil and perfection is a limitless space where creativity has beauty and innocence and endless possibilities.

Some are comfortable with limitiations, some are more creative.

Very well said Red.

evil is no illusion, it is ill will seeking a victim.

perfection is not subjugation but rather the surrender of subjugation.

therefore the gap between illusion and evil cannot be creativity.

creativity occurs not from tension but love.

If that’s the definition of evil then I can honestly say that I have never been evil in my life.

Since all sin is evil then I must be sinless.

This definition of evil requires ill will.

I would agree with this definition by the way.

However if this definition is correct then all men are not sinners, because all men do not have ill will.

Many people have argued against this notion trying to claim that actions are sins regardless of will or intent.

I contend otherwise; that only ill will is sin. If actions along were ‘sin’ then natural disasters would be sin because they are mere acts without intent. There is no ill will associated with a tsunami or an earthquake for example. They cannot be considered to be sinful by intent. But if actions are all that defines sin then natural disasters would be sin.

This is an unresolved issue that is certainly subjective. I can point to biblical events that imply that sin is not the act but the intent.

The very first case is with Adam and Eve. They were naked in the garden of Eden before they ate the forbidden fruit. Evidently this act was perfectly acceptable and was not considered to be a sin. But after they ate the forbidden fruit they were ashamed of their nakedness and hid themselves. Now, all of a sudden, being naked is evil. Was it evil before they ate the forbidden fruit?

These stories are so full of inconsistencies that it’s anyone’s guess. And guess is all we can do. Anyone who claims to know the answer to these questions is indeed committing blasphemy, because there are no answers to these question anywhere in the book. Thus to claim to have the answer is to claim to be God.

Religion must forever be personal subjective opinions. It can never be anything more than this.

sin and evil are two entirely different concepts.

Biblical sin that you are describing is a Hebrew word meanig 'error' or 'mistake'.

It is not the same as evil which is 'adversity'.

Sin is a personal matter and evil is a public matter.

One may be corected within.

The other corrected in vengeance.

That is as far as I read of your post.

The rest of it is disengenuously argumentative in light of that misconception.

Perhaps you would do well to be certain that the words that I use are as they appear before contending that a misunderstanding is present between us.

Looking further now, and seeing where you are going, I see the debate from earlier days. One in which I was not engrossed in. I do recall those divisions as being severe.

My understanding of biblical sin, as addressed in the Bible are focused on the teaching that the attitude of the heart of man is fallen from its intended original state.

The error being evident in shame and present in Adam

Some call this "Jewish guilt". I abhor that finding.

The error is repaired by "law". was that not its intention?

The law could not be satisfied as such.

The consequence had to be abrogated from the 'law'.

In short, the sinless life of Jesus satisfied that requirement of 'lawful judgement'. No sin, no foul.

He then is regarded as the new 'adam' or the last 'adam'.

Sin was dealt with at the cross in Himself. Done.

That is the correct teaching, biblically, in condensed and over-simplified form regarding sin.

Evil is another story. and quite frankly, Abra, I can find nothing about you that is evil.

Or anyone else that I know for that matter.








added:12:10am 12/1 Abra, the Bible does explain fully thatwhich I have said and I am no god Perhaps my notes for you will be finished on Sunday. Tomorrow is race car swap meet fun day for me..neener neeener neeeeener

sin and evil are two entirely different concepts.

This is news to me because I thought all sin was evil. I was actually thinking about starting a thread called “Sin and Evil – Are they the same?”

If they aren’t the same we’d be looking to see some interesting personal interpretations and definitions.



You’re starting to sound the fundies here. Anyone who doesn’t hold your interpretations and ideals has a ‘misconception’.

Like I say, it’s my belief that religion is entirely subjective. For you to suggest that I have misconceptions would be no differnet from me suggesting that you have misconceptions.

The idea that there is only one truth, and only one person holds it, is the only real misconception that a person can delude themselves with. If the Bible were that clear there wouldn’t be as many different religions based on that doctrine. The obvious spit is between Catholicism and Protestantism. They both can’t be right. But even Judaism and Islam are based on the same original tales, and look how different their views are.

Moreover Protestantism is divided into so many differnet camps that it’s meaningless to even refer to them as a single group. Clearly no one knows what they are talking about and everyone thinks that their subjective opinions are the only correct ones.

You reply to my post as though you are an authoritarian correcting my ‘misconceptions’ on biblical interpretations. I appreciate your sincerity in this matter, but you’ll have to excuse me whilst I have a good belly laugh.

The only real truth concerning the Bible is that it is nothing more than ambiguous food for thought open to a myriad of personal interpretations. No one seems to be able to agree with what the book intended to say. Even the theologians, scholars, and sages disagree on its meaning. It’s clearly an ambiguous source of information.

Thus the only reasonable conclusion is that the religion can be nothing more than personal subjective interpretations. No one holds any interpretations that are superior to anyone else. The religion is entirely subjective and based on personal interpretations. Which is how a religion should be.

I think this was the jest of Red's post, which I am in complete agreement with.

all i want to know is who invented the menstral cycle..i'll take care of the rest..

Abra,

My bad. Your agreement with Redy does precede understanding my words.

That would explain your miffticisms.

Who said or presupposed for you that the whole of historical doctrine of the correct and truthful comprehension of scripture
that culminates from Christ's teachings is correctly being understood, let alone being taught correctly?

Catholicism and protestantism are a horn locking of control of men.

Judaism and Islam hold no comparison to Christ's teachings in that they both agree to disallow the chief cornerstone of the foundations of godliness for men.

If one reads The Holy Bible and just comprehends what is said,
the truth is visible.

The only key needed is Jesus' own words.

Apply those and all that should make sense does make sense.

As far as everything in between goes ; that is the light for the illumination of the arduous and convoluted missteps alongg the way by the characters and their relevance.

Jesus said not one jot or tittle would be passed from the law, til all be fulfilled. Matthew 5 : 18 .

He also said through Paul, follow and live and die by the law or follow and walk by faith in grace : there are not two ways to walk. Either one or the other.

If by law, then debt. If by faith, then free.

My authority in these matters is apparent. What is not apparent is your knowledge of me.(edit...this is most subjective and sarcasm at the height of stupidity. )

What if pre-law accounts of biblical foundations are based on disengenuous written accounts?

The Old Testament prophets of the LORD were depicted reverently but as quite the thorn in the side if Judaic thought.

They are the foundation of which came to be personified by Jesus of Nazareth.

In that regard only, as sufficient enough unto itself, I agree with you that the Bible is quite the subjective masterpiece of personal interpretation.

But not one of private interpretation. That is the rub.

If that were true we could just toss the Old Testament out. But obviously this isn’t the case. Without the Old Testament Jesus would be nothing.

Also, Judaism and Islam cannot be dismissed so lightly. Since they base their understanding of God on the Old Testament (or the Quran which contains many of the same stories), and they reject Jesus as not having been of God, then their interpretations of the Old Testament must also be taken into account.

People have said that we should pray to God for guidance in understanding his word. Well it would be pretty naïve to believe that Jews don’t do this very thing, yet we seldom see a Jew screaming eureka and turning to the new testament. Therefore praying to God for guidance and understanding obvioulsy either doesn’t work, or clearly Jesus wasn’t God.



Well this is a bit contradictive. If it’s not one of private interpretation then who’s interpretation should we go by? We may as well just toss our hands up in the air and just proclaim to God that it’s all too confusing. There are simply too many interpretations out there to know which one is the correct one to choose.

I figure that if God is omnipresent and could talk to Moses, then there’s no reason why he can’t talk to me. There’s even a bush right outside my door that he can use anytime he feels like chatting.

He does talk to you Abra.

Your compassion and thoughtfulness of Judaic and Islamic thought displays that you are cognizant of truth and pursue its embrace.

Nature teaches that the human body thrives on a diverse diet.

Religious philosophies all are a spiritual fruit salad.

God is the judge? The judge is God ? The Judge is god ?

You exercise good judgement. It exercises you.

Is any of it elusive or evasive?

The pursuit is for congruence of the heart and soul.

One that is alive ceases to die, my friend.

May you live forever.

The idea that this life is a test for getting into some higher spiritual life seems quite fabricated to me. If that’s the best we can come up with for giving meaning to this life, then what will be the meaning to the higher plane of existence? Will that be yet another test to get into an even height state of being?

Some have suggested that it will be. Some suggest that there are 7 levels of heaven and the goal of the game is to reach the Seventh Heaven. Not unlike a lot of computer games.

Many even suggest that there are multiple levels of hell as well. I’m not sure what the purpose would be in that. I mean which way would a person be working toward there? Does that suggest that a person can work their way back out of hell into an earthly existence again to try to work up the ladder to Seventh Heaven again? Maybe God’s really name is Bill Gates and life is just a Microsoft game?

And what’s with this Seventh Heaven? Why only 7? Is this God’s favorite number? If so then why are their 10 commandments? Someone wasn’t thinking clearly when they made this story up.

I’m sorry Wouldee, I don’t mean to belittle the religion, but I feel compelled to give my honest impressions of it. I very sincerely view it as being completely on par with Greek Mythology and I give it precisely the same consideration. It sounds like an absurdly silly story to me. Angels with wings? Dungeons and dragons? And yes, there are dragons in the story. This folklore was born in the Mediterranean region and contains all of the mythology of many parallel stories. It doesn’t really offer anything unique at all. It is completely compatible and clearly designed after very similar stories. Why it was chosen as a serious religion while all the others are dismissed as silly myths is totally beyond me.

How can people not see these historical parallels?