Genesis Chapter 3 verse 22
Offline 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Now, back to my earlier question for Theists, specifically Xtians.
1. What created God?
2. Who was "Lord God" talking to when he mentioned "us"? This implies that there are other Gods, just like it said in the Ten Commandments that states "thall shalt have no other Gods before me".........
Sooooo, since you arent allowed to believe in any other Gods, that makes you an Atheist right? Does your God believe in all the other Gods, or is he and atheist too?
3. God being all knowing, and all powerfull, it seems an easy task to keep a pitiful human from getting to the tree of life. Much less being ignorant to the serpent that tempted Eve.....What is God so afraid of if Adam and Eve get to the tree of life???? So, he just throws them out and curses them.......as if he didn't allready know in advance that this would happen. Not very "all knowing" and "all powerful" , he can't control his own creations, or what sneaks in to tempt said creations....
So, what we have here, is a God, that knows other Gods. Who is Jealous, Spiteful, Fearful, Greedy, Ignorant, and Vengeful.
Kind of sounds like a child to me..
If God knew all of this in advance, then why would he feel the need to punish his creations. What about forgiveness and benevolence.
That is like me pushing you off a cliff, and then asking your corpse, "how'd you get down there??"
People really believe this shit...amazingly.
mr. O
"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."
Friedrich Nietzsche
- Login to post comments
Judaism was originally polytheistic, that's why it says "us".
1. We define God as not having to be created. Just like unicorns are defined as being necessarily existent.
2. Ciarin, meanie! That's what I was going to say
Judaism was polytheistic, and the traces remain in the Bible even now. Only they translated Gods with idols in the historical books, so it looks like there was a war between those who believed Idols and those who believed God, whereas they actually were becoming monotheistic...
3. He CAN control us, but he gave us free will, and couldn't predict what Adam and (especially) Eve were going to do, despite mere mortal psychiatrists doing a pretty good job at predicting people's behaviours...
You can explain everything with religious logic!
Hi OP
These questions are very easy and you ought to have learned these in Sunday School.
The US specifically in Genesis 1:26 was referring to the other persons of the Trinity. The Targums actually has Memra for the one walking in the Garden after Adam sinned. Memra means Word which is interesting in reference to John 1:1.
This is NOT Judaism in Genesis. The Jewish nation is not seen until Jacob has 12 sons and their sons are the making of Israel.
But before Judaism, it was ALWAYS monotheistic. The book of Job is the oldest book in the world. It was written before the law (Judaism) and demonstrates that God's people were monotheist consistently speaking.
I think your other question was why would God make man if they would just fall or sin. He did this so that He can demonstrate His justice along with Him mercy for the human race.
These questions are very very easy.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Damn shame for Christianity that trinitarianism is a pagan concept. it's polytheism lite.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
I like you. I think you ask these questions via absurdity because you're trying. Who knows, maybe you are of the elect.
The Trinity as understood in Christianity is completely unique. No "religion" has ever had such a view. Now I know about the Brahman, Shiva thing, and the Egyptian thing, and even the babylonian thing. but that is not historically speaking the same as the Christianity Trinity.
Their view was that it was one God via difference faces of that God. That is NOT the Trinity.
Zeitgiest was wrong!
Do you know what the Trinity means? If the Trinity is false, and Christianity is a man made religion, then why on earth would they make such a difficult concept that causes so much confusion (for the un trained). Why wouldn't they just do what Hinduism did?
The reason why is because it's not made up. It's the truth of God's Being.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
JCG's new Friend.
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
So you've admitted that Paul of Tarsus is your God (he created Christianity - Calvin just made some tweaks)? I will grant you that the concept of trinitarianism is unique - it is for people who want to worship Paul's construct of Christ, the Holy Spirit and Yahweh equally but don't want to own up to being polytheists.
Seems rather a dishonest concept to me.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The bait.
The switch.
The ad hominem.
The bait.
The switch.
The argument from incredulity.
' Abracadabra. You must be wrong, because I said so, and I'm the only one left, who I say is right, which makes me right, because I said so!'
Fucking genius, Sherlock Copperfield.
Pure fucking genius...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hi JCG,
Thank you for finally being honest. Yes, the Trinity is 100% unique from all other "religions."
Jesus revealed these things to Paul. So it's not Paul's, it's Christ's.
It's like saying Judaism was Mose's gospel. No, it was the 2nd person of the Trinity that revealed these things to Moses.
You made the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I know, liberals hate Paul. Mainly via the feminists regarding women. If only more women would be quiet and didn't vote, our country would be better off.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Jesus revealed nothing to Paul. They never met. Paul wanted to be a rabbi but didn't have the intellectual chops (like you). so he decided to create a religion where he was the sole source of insight.
Judaism didn't belong to Moses. It belonged to its creators. Neither of us have proof that Moses was among them. There was no Trinity involved, remember? You're just making stuff up.
I don't hate Paul. I acknowledge his creation of your religion. I also know that if Jesus knew Paul was going to make a God out of him he would have been offended. Indeed, James and the apostles who traveled with Jesus were.
This is where you pull out Acts (which was written by the Pauline convert Luke).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
1) Sure they met. Paul didn't meet Jesus (well we don't know, the record is silent) while Jesus was on this earth. But they met because Jesus revealed Himself to Paul.
The first time this happen was on the road to Damascus via Paul's blindness/conversion. Ezra also never met Jesus when on Earth, but was revealed via God in heaven. (I Peter 1:20-22).
2) There was a Trinity since Eternity. Before moses in Genesis 19:24. We see that there are TWO Yahveh's. One in heaven, and one on earth.
The one from heaven sent fire to the one on earth, and the one on earth blew up Sodom. So that stick what would Jesus Bomb. Now you know.
The 2nd Person of the Trinity is seen in Genesis 18 also leading up to Genesis 19:24. In theology this is called a theophany.
There are other examples, numerous, in the Old Testament.
3) LOL. Luke was very intellectual. Luke was inspired by God along with Paul and all the other authors. The apostle John acknowledges that Paul's writings, though difficult, ought to be followed.
Would you like me to tell you where or did you know that/ can you find it? LOL.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
How do you know that, 4 sure?
You don't.
That's not very logical for someone who claims to be 'trained in logic'.
You can only follow and regurgitate written instructions.
You'd stand there till you died, at the end of a street that had a sign there that says "Dead End"...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hi Red,
It says so in the book of Acts (LOL).
see this is why you lost so badly in both those debates. Your mouth is ahead of your brain and they're playing duck duck goose but nobody is getting up.
If you would like to no where via a Bible study, email me and I will have one with you.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
[email protected]
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Do you really want me to take the word of Paul's converts that Paul was correct and of God?
Meeting in a story that Paul wrote about a vision he created is not the same thing.
Your trinity stuff about Sodom and Gomorrah I'm pretty sure you're just pulling from your glutes so I'm not going to take it seriously.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
Of course not.
I am serious. Never saw that before heh? I've studied the theophanies of the TaNaK and there's more. There are 2 Yahveh's in that text.
You know I got you by the jugglar. LOL.
But that is what we would expect to find. If God is triune (see Genesis 1:26 - US), then we would see that throughout the whole canon.
JCG, turn to Jesus. Only He can give you true inner peace.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Thanks for the offer but:
1. According to your theology it's likely a waste of time.
2. Christianity led to my suicide attempts. Not sure if I want to go through that again.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
Why did Christianity lead to your suicide attempts. What's that about?
By the way, this is exhibit C
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Exhibit for what? That Christianity sucks? You must be exhibit B then. Fonzie/meph is exhibit A (at least here).
As for why, it's what happens when you try to follow a religion with a God that simultaneously claims that he loves you and wants you to be with him and you're worthless.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
You and I can disagree, but you are not representing Christianity. Look, even as an atheist, you are the image of God. Even though that image is distorted.
Thus He knew of you before the foundations of the world and He knows every hair on your head. Not sure why you say God thinks your worthless.
Only God's children though recognize their purpose. The death burial and resurrection is the gospel. For the trust that Christ overcame death so that we don't have to (the 2nd death).
Whatever happen, you did you understand the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
I pray that you do and if you are God's elect, I pray you trust in Christ so you can have that inner peace that is true peace resting in Christ.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Not representing Christianity? Maybe but I am representing what is in the Bible. As you claim to be also, doesn't that just show that the Bible is self-contradictory?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Thank all of you for your posts.
Like most of my questions, they do not have answers that confirm religious legitamacy.
I was under the impression that the "trinity" did not exist until the new testament. Jesus, and the Holy spirit are NOT other Gods, they are different versions of the same metaphysical being. So, who was he talking to remains unanswered. As well as what created God.
God's omnipotency is still not legitamate by giving human beings free will. If I leave a hershey bar with 2 children and leave the room after telling them to not eat it.....what will happen. I cannot agree with being some kind of free will experiment, simply to be damned for all eternity. No love there.
I did dive into paganism as well as Judaism with some of the comments made speculating times and location or origin. I am intrigued that I can find no other source of reference to document such beliefs from that time period other than the scriptures in the koran, bible, talmud and a few other not so notables. Nothing with any true connection to study or thought.
thanks for the input everyone.
mr. O
"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."
Friedrich Nietzsche
with 2 children who had not eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of some bullcrap and thus they had no knowledge of right and wrong? Adam and eve apparently had no idea of wrongness till they hooked into that granny smith in the garden. Their first terrible crime? Being starkers. What a bunch of crap.
Yeah - I agree with the OP. Thou shalt have no gods but me. What gods? There's already the bit about idols. That's all else there should be.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
No thanks.
I'd rather go to hell.
So, Sherlock Copperfield, why haven't you kept up with our 1 on 1 debates?
Getting sick of building strawmen?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
BULLSHIT. the Ugartic Text and the Canaanites came long before the Hebrews. The god YHWH was a polytheistic undergod child of the head god El in polytheism as part of a divine family.
All religions are spin offs of prior religions. Religion is man made. Yours and every in human history.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi Brian,
Yahveh before the establishment of the law was polytheistic?
"Prove it."
And don't do the Elohim thing. That's old. Make new arguments that havn't been refuted.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Yahweh, no. The religion of the Bible, yep.
Genesis 14
Melchizedek blesses Abram in the name of El Elyon (El, God Most High)
Abram blesses Melchisedek in the name of Yahweh Elyon (Yahweh, God Most High)
Christians get around this by saying that El and Yahweh are names for the same God. The texts disagree. There can't be two "Gods Most High" can there?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
Now JCG, didn't I just ask not to do the Elohim thing. It's been refuted so many times, your butt has to hurt. And yet, you went ahead and did it anyway. Come on. These are 19th century arguments, very old arguments, and nobody argue this way anymore.
LOL.
Is Elohim plural, Yes, But is it plural via the sense of the term, No. The form of the word (im) is plural, but not in the sense.
In Hebrew (language in general) have a form and a sense of the word. Thus confusing this as one is making a categorical fallacy of lingustics. Thus Elohim is a collective noun.
The English word "create" is also plural in form, but is singular in its sense.
And finally, since Jews, Christians and Muslims believe Elohim is singular, then your absurdity is noted. Especially the Jews who study Hebrew day in and day out.
More could be said about your categorical fallacy, but this ought to suffice.
Now, do you have any other arguments, other then old 19th century arguments that have ALL been addressed?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
I just did, do you need a coloring book and crayons?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I didn't do the "Elohim thing". The fact that followers of the Abrahamic religions believe that a word is singular doesn't change the structure of the language.
I addressed that Abram and Melchizedek mentioned two gods (El and Yahweh).
They both claimed their gods were "the Most High". Melchizedek and Abram (Abraham) are important to both Judaism and Christianity.
So which God should we worship if these shining examples couldn't agree?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
The book of Hebrews addresses Abraham's encounter, and his encounter was not with a god. Some have thought of it as the 2nd person of the Trinity, but they'd be mistaken.
Deut 6:4
Here O Israel, The Lord Our God Is One!
Lord Yahveh, God Elohim
End of story, I win, you lose.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
What does that have to do with Abram and Melchizedek worshiping in the Ugaritic pantheon?
Looks like the creators of Judaism had to make things up to make their plagiarized religion look unique.
Then Paul had to come around and add paganism to his mysticism to replace Judaism and make himself the leader.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You did not win Jean.
1st. You spelled "here" wrong. The verse was a declaration, what you meant was "hear", as in listen.
So, hear this.
The God being of reference in this case is the one that the bible calls "Jehovah". It was not meant for you to make up facts as if that statement applies to Elohim. Elohim is plural. Nothing you can say or do will ever change that.
This passage of the bible, is directly related to the fact that Idol worship was popular at that time. This verse, in no way, shape or form proves, or disproves the existence of other Gods. This verse is a declaration, a command, to let the people of Israel know that the God being preached about is the correct God. This implies, that there are other God's that can be worshipped, but, of course, they are the wrong Gods. It also, does not take the names you referenced and mash them together in any way......
the verse reads like this.....
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." Deut. 6: 4
It is not a lump sum of plurals......it is a command, stating, The Lord is the only God. No specific names mentioned.... It is propaganda for the next verse, so that it can take effect.....Here is the "right" God...now (next verse)
"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Deut. 6 : 5
While God may have many names, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc......Different names for different people, believing in the same thing, in different ways.
Your effort to take something plural, and turn it singular has failed.
All the Gods just decided to team up and form a supergod right???? I smell bullshit. A theist must be close.
mr. O
"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Gods are concepts sold like soda. Change the can color and flavor and have rival companies sell soda, it still wouldn't change that liquid went into making the soda, or that there were other companies before the one that merely was the first to successfully market "soda"
Soda was originally invented, more as an elixir, a snake oil cure all, and merely ended up being the mere drink it is today.
Carbonated water came before soda and sweetness and even drugs were added in the early days.
Religions get started the same way and die out the same way, marketing and competition.
People falsely focus on details and names and successful marketing, when the motifs and ideas were around in a different form prior to the newer rival picking up on the older stuff.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The early monotheistic hebrews were a mere splinter sect of the older polytheism, which is why we see the word "EL" in both myths and YHVH in both myths.
The way they are viewed ARE different in each, but shows that the newer version is simply a re vamped version of the older version.
Just like Coke was not the first beverage because it can is red. Soda can't exist without water.
Ideas never form in a vacuum.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Not so fucking fast, you dufus.
I just fucking schooled your ass in that other thread, with the TRUTH.
Read 'em and weep, motherfucker.
Cite you peer reviewed source to back you claim. You will NOT find 1.
You are not trained in 'geometry', Professor of Lolgic.
I am.
So STFU, and listen to me, dufus.
A little bit of geometry 101, and a little bit of 'common understanding' (empiricism), that is 'mathematically' sound, and 'physically' sound.
Shapes and curves are what 'we' (humans) define as geometry. The set of shapes (surfaces, fields, fabrics) and curves (single, poly) that exist, are 'narratively' identified by humans as 'geometry'.
Shapes and curves occur naturally, by no intelligent 'means' necessary.
We (humans) 'narratively' identify natural occurrences as 'things', or 'incidents', or 'accidents', or 'events'.
A single 'curve' is geometry. A 'line' is a curve, be it straight, or not. A curve can be 'open' (open ended, and 'seemingly' endless), or 'closed' (no end, no beginning).
2 curves that are 'joined' by a single end of the 2 curves, is a 'polycurve'. A polycurve can be 'open' (open ended, and can be 'seemingly' endless), or 'closed' (no end, no beginning).
Similar or dissimilar curves occur on top of each other naturally. What 'we' (humans) narratively identify as 'surfaces', or 'fields', or 'fabric'.
A single surface can be 'open' (open ended, and can be 'endless'), or 'closed' (no end, no beginning).
What 'we' (humans) narratively identify as a 'sphere' (perfect or imperfect) is a single 'surface' (or field or fabric).
What 'we' (humans) narratively identify as a 'torus' (perfect or imperfect) is a single 'surface' (or field or fabric).
That's by nature alone.
No 'intelligence' necessary.
Period.
End.
Stop.
Add another natural (no intelligence necessary) occurrence, incident, accident, event, what 'we' (humans) narratively identify as 'chemistry', and you get natural 'monomers', and 'polymers', which are the building blocks of life (biology).
There is NO debate, that these occur naturally.
Just 'argumentation'.
It has NEVER been falsified that these 'occurences', 'incidents', 'accidents', 'events' are not natural.
Period.
End.
Stop.
That concludes todays, lesson.
So, what the fuck do you 'know' that's FACT, Professor of Lolgic?
N O T T O O F U C K I N G M U C H
Respectfully, redneF
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
@ Ciarin Now that is interesting. What do you mean by polytheistic. Trinity or otherwise.