To me, that’s not the big question. Whether or not man would sin is unimportant. What should be done about it is the real question.

If God is just growing humans like a garden of souls and only harvesting the ones that he feels are worthy for his heaven, then why bother threatening to send the rest to an eternal hell?

That’s the part that makes no sense!

If God’s only interest is in harvesting good humans then why bother with the concept of a devil and a hell at all? For me, this is part that has been fabricated by men.

In fact there are Christians who don’t believe in hell. But if that’s the case then why doesn’t the Bible make this more clear? Why not just say that people, will either make it to heaven or they will just die when they die, why all the hoopla about eternal damnation or facing the wrath of God, or the need for a demonic devil???

It’s the fire & brimstone aspect of Christianity that seems to be the farce to me. In what way would God benefit from creating and sustaining a place of eternal damnation?

For me, this is the part of Christianity that flies in the face of an all perfect God.

It’s not that I just don’t like the concept. It’s that I can’t see any justification for it. How would God benefit from sustaining a place of eternal damnation and if he isn’t benefiting from it then why bother with it at all????

The answers to these question aren’t given in the Bible. It just says that that’s the way things are. Perhaps that’s true, but if so then this brings into question God ultimate power and ethics. He either can’t stop it (i.e. he’s not all-powerful) or he’s not perfect (i.e. no perfect being would create a place of eternal damnation if he didn’t have to). And if he has to then he’s not all powerful.

Can’t have the cake and eat it too here. That’s the problem.

Can’t say that with God all things are possible in one breath, and then in the next breath say, “Well God had no choice but to do this!” Those ideals are incompatible.

But why accept this fairytale where there are many other fairytales to consider?

That’s the point.

Also, for some people, "just accepting" anything is neither a reasonable nor desirable approach to life. Seeking out the truth through rational inquiry, and following the evidence wherever it leads is the most intellectually honest approach to us. Thanks.

What you see as a test I see as a choice. If he didn't give a way to disobey then there would be no free will to serve. He wanted man to have a choice.

There is a theory that some have that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the new Testament are 2 different Gods.



The God of the old testament and the messiah of the new testament certainly seem VERY different to me. As a child I was taught basically that the old testament was how you used to have to live to "get into heaven" but that after "Jesus died on the cross" people no longer had to follow a long and stringent set of rules to get into heaven, the merely had to "accept Jesus into their hearts". "he that believeth in me shall not perish..." etc. etc.

This was called the "new covenant" with God. So in this set of beliefs the two books were about the same God but he changed the rule book for the second half of the game...

but then later I was told by other sects of christians that this was not the case...

really the two books don't seem to be talking about the same God to me. The new testament God seems so much more forgiving and well, *nicer* than the old testament one.

Peace.

Hmmm... the first part of the last post was a quote... seems I *still* don't have the hang of posting a quote within a quote?!?!

Your point is well made, but also consider that the probable reason that "God"'s personality appears to be so OC and bi-polar even within the OT, is because the original texts' named references to many different gods were condensed into one. Isn't monotheism wonderful? The "make it fit" doctrine always triumphs when the people are ignorant.

Yes there's a difference. Moral discernment is a right or wrong issue, not good and evil. So unless your equating right and wrong with good and evil - there's a difference.

The difference here is that you are interpreting the eating of the fruit as "evil", and I'm seeing it as "wrong".

Therefore your premise isn't doing it for me to explasin the logic of your original post. It's "rabbit logic".

TO Eljay:

We might have a different definition of "good and evil" but I didn't interpret his posts in that way. I saw his argument like this:

The DECISION to do what is "evil" unto God, i.e. to disobey him which is the "wrong" choice in this instance, presumes that, in order to base a moral decision, one has the necessary knowledge in which to first distinguish good from evil. Adam and Eve did not possess this faculty since they had not eaten from the tree yet. The paradox continues.

I'll let Abra defend his position, but I thought I'd give you my take.

I believe the answer is in why did Yahweh create man? When you answer that then the original sin is clear...Blessings...Miles