Topic for debate

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by orgaelin, Putting aside the endless arguments about the bible, the original question was about how to tell what is good from what is bad, or right from wrong, good from evil, etc. I'm going to provide you with the Scientology answer to this question: the primary function of the universe and all the life within it is simply to survive, and to continue to exist in either the present or better forms. Therefore 'good' is anything which contributes to that survival. If I give money to a poor man it is a good act because it increases his chances of survival. If I have 100 chickens but one fox comes and picks one off for dinner every night, it is a good act to kill the fox, in terms of the 'greater good'. The only complication is not in choosing what is good and what is bad, but rather what is good for WHOM and bad for whom; who deserves the good and who the bad? This is where it helps to be spock!

So your scientolgy thinks only humans should survive and not the poor fox?

Guess I will check that religion off my list as a "goodie".

Technosoul.

[LDS]

First, you're scripture if translated by Joseph Smith... or should I say, rewritten. Try reading the King James Version. Instead of the 'softly softly' JS 'translation'.

Joseph Smith as a prophet of god recieved inspiration in his translation, the bible makes much more sense now.

MADNESS I tell you!! WHY, please tell me, did he need to kill his son just to forgive us?!

Because if he had forgiven us, Justice wouldve been left unsatisfied.
22 But there is a law given, and a apunishment affixed, and a brepentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the claw•, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead ringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

Because of Christ both Justice can be satisfied as well as full mercy extended.

The Mediator -Boyd K. Packer May 1977.

The idea of good prevailing over evil is part of a giant fantasy.

Believe what you will, you have your agency.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Apologist, Technosoul. Cite me examples of this Evil God which you claim exists and we will clear it up for you. According to the bible Adam and Eve were real people not just a symbolic interpretation of everyone. Most biblical scholars would agree with me. It clearly branches off Adam and Eve and explains how everyone exists today. You need to read some of J.P. Morelands books. Your view of hell and God are a far from the truth. God gives us free will, it is through this gift that we can either choose to accept him or choose not to accept him. After dying we will get our wish, we can either be in a place with God or choose to withdrawl from him forever. So make sure your arguements are up to date. Moreland can stand firm against any skeptic so I encourage you to at least look into it.

I do not recall making any interpretation about an evil God or a good God. Perhaps you have confused my messages with someone else's input?

I am aware that you will not hear about my enlightened interpretation at your Sunday School or Bible Study Class. I have presented something totally new that no one else has of yet reported this revelation. So the "experts" have not found out about this new data yet and so could not have been teaching it.

If you check into the Hebrew meaning for the word adam you will find that it means (when translated into English) "man' or "mankind". So the name has a generic definination, and as well as it could be that the first man was called a "Man" (which in Hebrew would be "Adam"). So you can see the complication of your interpretations, as indeed a man would be a real man. However what I am suggesting is that the story about man partaking of the knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of everyone (who ever read the Bible or some simular sacred book in another type of religion).

"A" is also our first letter and was likewise a symbol for "1" or "first". If we inspect the oldest known writings of Sumer we find they called the Lord by the name "An" and the word "ANU" would mean heavenly father or lord of the universe. Later on in one of the cities of the kingdom of Sumer (Babylon) they used the word angel in place of the word gods to identify the lords who visited earth with instructions from ANU. The word Adam was thusly linked to those other "A" names.

So go ahead and check it out with your experts and you will find that the title Adam means Man (mankind) and that title everyone has who is male. If Mr. Moreland can be called a man then that is the same as calling him a adam.

All the facts, bibically and physically, support my vision as I discribed it.

Technosoul.









I am rather sure this fellow Moreland will not come here to debate me and so how can he stand up to anything I might say? It is up to him or you to prove that my revelation about the tree of knowedge between good and evil is wrong, not the other way around. How can I debate Moreland's book if he is not in person to defend it? Nonetheless, give me a link to some webpage that has one of his articles posted and I will provide you with my comments about his interpretations and assumptions. Beware, a house built on sand will not withstand. However I do know about the mainstream traditional concepts and hearing them repeated again is of no value to me personally.

[orgaelin]

So your scientolgy thinks only humans should survive and not the poor fox?

No no no... where did you pick that up?!

What I meant was that whatever was of the greater good for the greatest survival... and if anything it was the chickens who were being put before the fox, not the humans!

And I don't speak on behalf of scientology, only about.

[orgaelin]

LDS...

It sounds like you are saying that justice is a higher authority than god - that if justice is not satisfied then god will cease to exist.

But since God is all powerful, he can satisfy justice without having to punish people.

For example, let's say my oldest and most distant ancestor once stole and apple that god told him not to touch. Ignoring for now the fact that I am not responsible for his 'crime', let's consider god's situation...

Adam disobeyed god. God got angry, shortened his life, made his woman give birth in pain, and generally kind of punished him.

Now, according to estimates, about 5000 years later, he somehow has the idea that in fact he didn't punish anyone, and he needs to punish again to satisfy justice. Remember that justice is under god, as nothing is really above him... thus he could just declare it satisfied with ease... but no.

In his bitter need for revenge (which is a human emotional response caused by survivalistically oriented emotions evolved to ensure the survival of each individual's gene pool and thus should not be present in a god) he decides to punish every living human alive, even though not a single one of them ever had anything to do with Adam, most of them doubting he ever even existed, many of them having never heard of the Hebrews or their pentateuch/genesis. And he blames them all for the sins of this one guy...

I'm surprised he didn't murder everyone like he did with the flood. You know that's genocide don't you?

But instead he seems to remember somewhere within himself that it isn't really *everyones'* fault... why not just create one extra dude and punish him for everyone elses' crimes?

So he effectively rapes some virgin, forcing her to have his son. (If she would have been so willing, why didn't he ask her first?)

Then after 30 years he decides, what the hell, it's time to kill my son. Then when I've done that, I will forgive everyone for what Adam and Eve did all those years ago.

HELLO?!

The lord moves in mysterious ways?!?!?!?!?

That's not mysterious, it's just plain CRUEL!

It is not justice to visit the sins of the father on even the first son, let alone the 10th generation. If justice is to be satisfied, and must be satisfied, who will take revenge on God for the *MILLIONS* of murders he has committed throughout biblical history?? And there is NO justification. Life is the most sacred thing there is, and not even god has the right to take it, no matter what sins have been committed.

[orgaelin]

Technosoul... further to what you were saying:

Scholars indeed believe that Adam was based on sumerian precursors. Adapu was the character from the Sumerian genesis, called Atrahasis I think. Anywho, adapu literally means "red earth man", and theories about this range from the extremely wacky to the quite sensible...

Alan F. Alford suggests Adapu was created as the first of a slave race, genetically engineered by ANU and his other godly associates. I think the most sensible scholar on the subject has to be David Rohl.

He has a book called From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible. Originally, in hardback, it was called "The Lost Testament"

Anywho, it's an amazing book, from which I shall now use "fair use" and quote...

Adam was both the ruler and high priest of his community. He was in tune with the voices of nature which spoke to him in vision and trance. Adam knew the power of the plants and the animals. He was also well aware of the harsh realities of life and its inevitable end. The Great Mother Earth regularly took back the bodies of creatures she had created, leaving only bleached bones as witness to their brief existence. Earth to earth, dust to dust - or, more correctly, clay to clay {Genesis 3:19}. Just as the potter produced vessels on his potter's wheel, so the gods (Hebrew elohim, Sumerian igigi) made Man in their likeness from the clay of Mother Earth on a potter's wheel.

He then quote the bible and Atrahasis epic...

The gods (elohim) said, 'Let us make Man in our own images, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish and the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that creep along the ground.' {Genesis 1:26} They (the gods) summoned the goddess, the midwife of the gods, wise Mami ('mummy' = Ninhursag), and asked: 'You are the womb-godess, creator of Mankind! Create a mortal, that he may bear yoke!' ... Enki ('Lord of the Earth') made his voice heard and spoke to the great gods: '...Then one god should be slaughtered. ... Nintu ('Lady of Birth') shall mix clay with his flesh and blood. Then God and Man shall be mixed together in clay'. {Atrahasis Epic 1:4} In the creation mythology of ancient Mesopotamia, Man was made in the likeness of the gods by combining the clay of the earth with the blood of a sacrificed god. So it was that Adam received his traditional name meaning 'red earth' - the red earth or clay taken from the Red Mountain overlooking the garden. Excavations in Eden have revealed that red ochre was used to paint the walls of the houses, decorate clay figurines and cover the bones as 'replacement blood' or as a substitute for the flesh stripped from the bones by carrion.

The rest is not directed at you Techno...

Anyone who truly wishes to know god should be willing to read everything there is available on the sbuject. Not just the bible OT, which is basically a collection of Jewish texts. But of course the bible forbids this, because god demands faith, and that we should not question him.

But I say this: faith is not something to be given, least of all to anyone who would demand it of you. Faith is too often used in place of the word trust, as a means of escaping the fact that trust has to be built up within those you would have apply it to you.

If you want faith, place it in yourself. If you want god, find him in yourself. That is where he exists and the only place you will ever know him. You will never find a scrap of truth about god in that infernal book; the work of powerful men who have always sought to dominate the weak and needy through their thirst for a higher being to believe in. That higher being is YOU, is me, is all of us. Look no further than the end of your nose. Look into your heart, and ponder the curiosity of your existence, for simply that you can is the greatest miracle there is.

[LDS]

Believe what you will Orgaelin. Know that God is just and merciful. He would rather that hearken and put our trust in him in order to avoid misery, yet he wont force us to.

I could take the time of looking up scriptures to tell you otherwise, but it would be no use. You dont read them anywho. If you want the truth heres where to find it.

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...;fn=default.htm

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by orgaelin, No no no... where did you pick that up?! What I meant was that whatever was of the greater good for the greatest survival... and if anything it was the chickens who were being put before the fox, not the humans! And I don't speak on behalf of scientology, only about.

technosoul answers.

Needless to say I picked that up when you said "If you had 100 chickens and a fox ate one everynight you would kill the fox for the greater good". What do you think a fox should eat, grass? I do not think killing the fox just because the farmer cannot build a safe henhouse is right. Anyhow, I know some people who eat chicken every night, what about them? Should I get out my shotgun and pay a visit to Kentucky Fired Chicken?

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by orgaelin, Technosoul... further to what you were saying: Scholars indeed believe that Adam was based on sumerian precursors. Adapu was the character from the Sumerian genesis, called Atrahasis I think. Anywho, adapu literally means "red earth man", and theories about this range from the extremely wacky to the quite sensible... Alan F. Alford suggests Adapu was created as the first of a slave race, genetically engineered by ANU and his other godly associates. I think the most sensible scholar on the subject has to be David Rohl. He has a book called From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible. Originally, in hardback, it was called "The Lost Testament" Anywho, it's an amazing book, from which I shall now use "fair use" and quote... Adam was both the ruler and high priest of his community. He was in tune with the voices of nature which spoke to him in vision and trance. Adam knew the power of the plants and the animals. He was also well aware of the harsh realities of life and its inevitable end. The Great Mother Earth regularly took back the bodies of creatures she had created, leaving only bleached bones as witness to their brief existence. Earth to earth, dust to dust - or, more correctly, clay to clay {Genesis 3:19}. Just as the potter produced vessels on his potter's wheel, so the gods (Hebrew elohim, Sumerian igigi) made Man in their likeness from the clay of Mother Earth on a potter's wheel. He then quote the bible and Atrahasis epic... The gods (elohim) said, 'Let us make Man in our own images, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish and the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that creep along the ground.' {Genesis 1:26} They (the gods) summoned the goddess, the midwife of the gods, wise Mami ('mummy' = Ninhursag), and asked: 'You are the womb-godess, creator of Mankind! Create a mortal, that he may bear yoke!' ... Enki ('Lord of the Earth') made his voice heard and spoke to the great gods: '...Then one god should be slaughtered. ... Nintu ('Lady of Birth') shall mix clay with his flesh and blood. Then God and Man shall be mixed together in clay'. {Atrahasis Epic 1:4} In the creation mythology of ancient Mesopotamia, Man was made in the likeness of the gods by combining the clay of the earth with the blood of a sacrificed god. So it was that Adam received his traditional name meaning 'red earth' - the red earth or clay taken from the Red Mountain overlooking the garden. Excavations in Eden have revealed that red ochre was used to paint the walls of the houses, decorate clay figurines and cover the bones as 'replacement blood' or as a substitute for the flesh stripped from the bones by carrion. The rest is not directed at you Techno... Anyone who truly wishes to know god should be willing to read everything there is available on the sbuject. Not just the bible OT, which is basically a collection of Jewish texts. But of course the bible forbids this, because god demands faith, and that we should not question him. But I say this: faith is not something to be given, least of all to anyone who would demand it of you. Faith is too often used in place of the word trust, as a means of escaping the fact that trust has to be built up within those you would have apply it to you. If you want faith, place it in yourself. If you want god, find him in yourself. That is where he exists and the only place you will ever know him. You will never find a scrap of truth about god in that infernal book; the work of powerful men who have always sought to dominate the weak and needy through their thirst for a higher being to believe in. That higher being is YOU, is me, is all of us. Look no further than the end of your nose. Look into your heart, and ponder the curiosity of your existence, for simply that you can is the greatest miracle there is.

Technosoul answers: (I start this way so people will know I am following up on your message, so a reader knows who is whom).

You might be interested in looking at some of the books by Zecharia Sitchin on the topic of Sumer, as he devoted a life long study to that and he also goes into the genetic ideas.

What some (I think) might get confused with is that some of the gods noted in scripture and not the most high "Spirit" that is without pyshical form and that we can become aware of within our higher consciousness. Logically those gods and/or angels were advanced and highly intelligent visitors from another heavenly planet who had a close resemblance to early human primates. But the Spirit God is of a different nature (a Mind) then those aliens and that Spirit also was their Spirit God. Which a a whole "otherly" topic.

Interesting that the animals were made after their own kind, but the Adam was not made after his own kind, but in a likeness of those gods. And why did they not make Eve after their likeness as they had done Adam? Instead of doing the "rib" thing? (the rib being used in place of the word "DNA").

Then later after they got the knowledge of good and evil we read "now they have become like us" (note the use of the word "us" instead of "me, the only god"). So in this we see that Adam became in the likeness of the gods by attaining that knowledge, and so is that how Adam was created in the likeness of the gods? By partaking of of symbolic apple? For if he was created already in the likeness of God then how could he become like God by consuming that knowledge? "And now they have become like us". Just like the serpent said they would - so that would void any deception from the Serpent.

So we have all those contradictions and riddles, why? So that we are forced to look within our self for any real answers, right? And to gather faith in our own inner resources, the indwelling Supervisor Self. Now the only thing that might prevent that inner faith in the Self is the concept that the truth is outside of us, in a book, in another person's teaching? Because if we spend time looking to the Bible for answers we are distracted from looking within for those answers. If we fall for that temptation to find truth from a worldly source such as the Bible instead of the indwelling spirit of truth then that would be the "sin" that Adam and Eve likewise experienced.

For example: A fox by the law of his own nature will eat chickens if they are easy to catch. The fox has no doubts about it, no confusion, no moral choices to make about it. But somehow humans have lost contact with the law of their own nature, and have become confused to the point they doubt their Self, and so having lost contact with the Law of our own nature we have created external laws as a subsitute, or as Moses put it "the law was given because of the hardness of our hearts". Meaning that we have somehow built this wall between our thinking and the Law of our own nature which is our Spirit.

So the trick is to find anew the internal knowing (law of our own nature) that was symbolically lost in the Garden of Eden. Finding again the lost testiment within our self that is of the spirit of the Self.

And so that was the purpose of my original message about the "warning" not to consume the Bible for those laws and moral standards because that would pull us away for the discovery of them within ourself by "being still, and listening and then knowing". (Meditation).

Technosoul.

[orgaelin]

Technosoul, sometimes you and I argue over small points, but on the whole I think we share a lot of ideas in common... like this one:

So the trick is to find anew the internal knowing (law of our own nature) that was symbolically lost in the Garden of Eden. Finding again the lost testiment within our self that is of the spirit of the Self. And so that was the purpose of my original message about the "warning" not to consume the Bible for those laws and moral standards because that would pull us away for the discovery of them within ourself by "being still, and listening and then knowing". (Meditation).

Well put!

I think was happened in the garden of eden was a gain rather than a loss though. That is, we gained the capacity to know... we lost the bliss of ignorance.

I think for a great many people, ignorance really was/is bliss, and while you and I have embraced the gift of our intelectual capacity, some people really yearn for the original simplicity and innocence of Eden. And if I could do something for them to put them back there I assure you I would!

These people are the spiritual 'babes' referred to in the bible.

I also liked what you said about finding the truth inside yourself. To what extent do you think truth is personal? In fact, I'm going to expand that question and start it as a new topic... so don't answer that here!

[Apologist]

Technosoul,
If you wish to debate with the Christian Scholars of today it will be your task to do so. I can give you names of books you can read. You will not be able to ask questions to these people, but some authors like Lee Strobel, a respected journalist, does just that. He interviews the Top Dogs in both religion and aethism, it is then up to you on which side you take. I've done my research and you theory is definetly not new, it is also not split down the middle. Most scholars would agree that Genesis was refering to real people when it mentions Adam and Eve. How else do you explain Cain and Abel. Genesis 4 speaks of Eve having two sons. In verse 17 it speaks of Eve having another son Enoch. They had a total of 7 children, are you saying that these names are refering to all men and women? Make sure you do not try to make scripture too difficult. It was not meant for just the philosophical thinkers, it is meant for everyone. And those incapable of understanding will not be held accountable. If you read Genesis all the way through you should be able to distinguish the metaphors from historical record. I found no trouble in telling the difference, but I do understand how people can. It usually is because they have a distorded perception of what they want to read. Which is hard to extinguish, I was there I know.

The truth is that most people look to others for advice on the bible, either to attack it or defend it. Reading the bible, the whole bible, is the only way to understand. Don't take other peoples word for something as pertinent as this, I know I wouldn't.

orgaelin,
You mentioned Lots wife becoming a pillar of salt. Knowing the surrounding scripture it is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Angels who were destroying the city warned Lot his wife and two daughters. They were warned to "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away." Lot asked to go to another location instead of the mountains and it was allowed. They fled the city and were warned not to look back, but Lot's wife did and she became a pillar of salt. Some find this hard to understand, but I don't see how. She was plainly warned not to look back and to flee. Other examples of this same type of elimination is found around the Ark of the Covenent. I will try to answer more quickly but classes are consuming time.

God Bless

[Apologist]

orgaelin,
It seems your views on God are a little far from the truth. He gives us free will so we could choose him. But to not give us the option of choosing evil would be limiting our capabilities. We are not eternally damned if we use free will! I use free will for good things every day. I'm sure you do to. Biblical moral codes are in place to ease our lives, not complicate them. After reading some of your words it seems like you are close minded towards this type of topic. You call God maniacle? I think you should reconsider looking at this issue that way. Your comment about "how I can say that most scholars...... about Adam and Eve...." Its because I've read work, gone to classes, and listened to preachers who disagree with the trend of your thoughts. It seems like your attacking God just to attack him, not to learn or investigate. If you research more, READ THE BIBLE and not your critic's opnions I promise your view towards God will change.

God Bless

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Apologist, Technosoul, If you wish to debate with the Christian Scholars of today it will be your task to do so. I can give you names of books you can read. You will not be able to ask questions to these people, but some authors like Lee Strobel, a respected journalist, does just that. He interviews the Top Dogs in both religion and aethism, it is then up to you on which side you take. I've done my research and you theory is definetly not new, it is also not split down the middle. Most scholars would agree that Genesis was refering to real people when it mentions Adam and Eve. I was presenting a new revelation about the tree of knowledge between good and evil and opening up that for peer review form Christian Scholoars or anyone who might have another religion or wanted to make comments that are secular in nature. It was not my intention to debate their versions of the same story. I am not in the dark about their interpretations of the story. It is still up to others to prove my version is in error, point by point. As far as I can tell no one posting here has really devilved proof that the version I present is in error. You say you have done your research and that my idea that the Bible is the tree of knowledge between good and evil is not a new one, but you did not state the name of anyone who put forth that same idea or in what book or artical (webpage) you have read about it. Just saying that the majority of people were trained to think you way is not proof of anything. At one time in history the majority were trained to think the earth was flat. How else do you explain Cain and Abel. Genesis 4 speaks of Eve having two sons. In verse 17 it speaks of Eve having another son Enoch. They had a total of 7 children, are you saying that these names are refering to all men and women? No I did not say anything about Cain and Abel (both male names) and as I recall the Bible did not report the name of the woman that Cain married. The story (as I recall) did not mention that Cain married the twin sister of Abel (so the Biblical version left out a few details). I do not know that the Hebrew meaning is for the name or the word "Cain". None the less, the story about Cain killing his brother Abel and why he did it, and so forth, is likewise a story that is applicable to many families today and through-out history, and is a theme repeated over and over in the scriptures under different circumstances and about people with different names. It speaks about the basic conformist and rebel attitudes and about the basic conflicts happening in anykind of structured social order. Even Jesus spoke about a simular story of a wayward son who had a brother who stayed at home with dad and was the conformist. In the parable Jesus used he was not talking about one historical person (persons), but using it as a anology or symbol for everyone. Make sure you do not try to make scripture too difficult. It was not meant for just the philosophical thinkers, it is meant for everyone. And those incapable of understanding will not be held accountable. If you read Genesis all the way through you should be able to distinguish the metaphors from historical record. I found no trouble in telling the difference, but I do understand how people can. It usually is because they have a distorded perception of what they want to read. Which is hard to extinguish, I was there I know. The scripture is not difficult if you see it my way. You have assumed that you understand and I do not understand, that I have a distorted perception and you do not, and yet such a claim is useless because the shoe could be on the other foot as well, perhaps it could be you (and those so-called experts) who are the ones that twisted the meanings intended? The true interpretation is not so because a group of people voted that truism into being, or because someone took a poll to find out what interpretation is most popular. If you believe Adam is real and was a fact then what was (or is) the real "tree of knowledge between good and evil"? Show me the fruit of a tree that can teach people right from wrong! Everyone was cracking up laughing about my other post "Tree Talk". Should I chuckle about Adam learning moral knowledge from a real tree? The truth is that most people look to others for advice on the bible, either to attack it or defend it. Reading the bible, the whole bible, is the only way to understand. Don't take other peoples word for something as pertinent as this, I know I wouldn't. You just mentioned all those Christian Experts like Lee Strobal and that I should read their books and now you say I should not depend upon them, now you say I should read it and make up my own mind. I think I am noting some confusion on your part and perhaps even a contradiction? technosoul. orgaelin, You mentioned Lots wife becoming a pillar of salt. Knowing the surrounding scripture it is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Angels who were destroying the city warned Lot his wife and two daughters. They were warned to "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away." Lot asked to go to another location instead of the mountains and it was allowed. They fled the city and were warned not to look back, but Lot's wife did and she became a pillar of salt. Some find this hard to understand, but I don't see how. She was plainly warned not to look back and to flee. Other examples of this same type of elimination is found around the Ark of the Covenent. I will try to answer more quickly but classes are consuming time. God Bless

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by Apologist, You mentioned Lots wife becoming a pillar of salt ...... Some find this hard to understand, but I don't see how. She was plainly warned not to look back and to flee.

To have an idea of my reason for objecttion to this, you might want to read a book on parenting. Disciplining children without doing more harm than good is a huge task.

Now if I tell my children, 'do not look behind you, just run away from what I am doing and hide, or else' then they might well run and hide and not look back. But if they did I would not kill them. OK, I don't carry the authority of a god in order to give me the right to kill them, but even so. I don't think I would kill them if I did.

Going back to Sara (is that her name? I don't have my bible handy), the city of S&G was being destroyed behind her. She knew that thousands of people were being killed, even innocent babies and children. She could see the greatness of god's wrath and was fleeing with all her strength...

in short, she was terrified. Her instincts naturally told her to check out behind her, to make sure she wasn't about to get caught in the devastation. Or maybe she was just curious. Maybe there was some morbid curiosity to see what it looked like when god blew up a city.

She did NOTHING wrong. OK, she disobeyed god. SO WHAT?! Isn't THAT what free will is for?!?!? And do you see what I am saying: as soon as someone excercises their god 'given' free will, he murders them!

It seems your views on God are a little far from the truth. He gives us free will so we could choose him. But to not give us the option of choosing evil would be limiting our capabilities.

Very few people actually want to choose evil. Disobeying god, looking back as your city is destroyed, being homosexual, masturbating, sex before marriage, etc. are not evil acts. None of these people intend to harm anyone, least of all God. But without their repentence, he will punnish them as surely as he will punnish Sadam Hussein.

We are not eternally damned if we use free will! I use free will for good things every day. I'm sure you do to.

Yes, but what if I use my free will to do as I please, but outside the laws set out in the bible? What if I work on a Sunday? What if I have sex before marriage? What if I kill someone in self defense? Sure I can repent, but the precise words are "truly repent", and to do that I would have to be truly sorry. I am not sorry for these things, and cannot be, thus your god would have me damned.

Biblical moral codes are in place to ease our lives, not complicate them.

But morality is defined by the culture and the age. What once was sin is now commonplace, what once was commonplace is now sin. Egyptian pharaoh's married their sisters, yet we now look on this with disgust. That does not mean we are right. We simply hold a different view.

Free will should allow us to choose our path *without* fear of god's wrath. If I choose a world and life of sin, it is I who will suffer in my own conscience. It is I who will suffer as my loved ones become forgotten ones, and I am left to walk the world alone.

If god says I can do something but he'll kill me for it, then I don't really have a choice at all do I? If he says I can do whatever sin I want, but he will damn me to all eternity, what choice do I really have? This is not free will. It is like standing someone at a cliff and saying, I permit you to jump if you want to. It's your choice.

Again, it's just cruel.

After reading some of your words it seems like you are close minded towards this type of topic.

I believe I have been in and through this subject enough for my life. I was christened church of england, went to church half of my life. I know my subject. I've read my bible on my own, I've read commentaries, I've read opinions both for and against christianity, I've read the objective work of non-christian modern scholars committed to truth. I've read about 2000 years of the most bitterly corrupt institution the earth has ever known. Evil pope after evil pope. Tortue of innocents, persecution of those who dare to question, and so on and on and on.

I'm not closed minded to your views through ignorance. I am closed to them through learning and experience.

You call God maniacle?

ANY person on earth who had his character attributes would be branded a mad man.

Your comment about "how I can say that most scholars...... about Adam and Eve...." Its because I've read work, gone to classes, and listened to preachers who disagree with the trend of your thoughts.

EXACTLY!! You've listened to the Christian Orthodoxy telling you how they see it. Read some anti-christian material. Challenge your faith!

I've been the devoted christian. I know what it's like when you read the bible and you come across something strange you didn't expect, a contradiction or something that just doesn't seem to sit right morally. You gloos over it. Then you find something else. On occasion you pluck up the courage to ask your priest. He explains it all away for you... but you still don't feel right about it. That question is still nagging at you, 'why does it say that then?'

There are books that can explain away these anomolies and leave your need for truth satisfied. They don't tell you what you want to hear, they do tell you what you should know.

It seems like your attacking God just to attack him, not to learn or investigate.

Nonsense. I'm not attacking him. I don't believe the guy in the bible is anything to do with god. My god is certainly not so ruthless. I have learned and investigated PROPERLY. Have you? Really??

If you research more, READ THE BIBLE and not your critic's opnions I promise your view towards God will change.

Wrong! Tried that. That's where I started. I'm now a recovering Christian!

[kellbing]

In my opinion, the stories such as Lot's wife in the bible were written by church elders and the like as a way to strike fear into people and convince them to obey without question whatever "god" supposedly tells them to do. Of course, god's instruction will be given to you by the church elders. Kind of like the way people try to bribe their kids into being good by promising presents from Santa Claus or threatening them with coal if they are bad. Of course coal isn't nearly as harsh as god's punishment. I think I'll stick with Santa. They are equally real, but Santa's a heck of a lot nicer.

[Apologist]

So much to answer to. I would much rather like to have a one on one debate. Some of the things I have said you may not agree with, probably most. What I guess you don't understand is that I was once in your shoes trying to seek answers that seemed almost nonexistent. Alot of my Christian friends ask me why I debate on this site. I really don't know, I know I'm not the caliber person for heated debates and I'm a little impatient for answering all your comments. But I do read them and still stand firm on my views. The situation in Genesis where lots wife was turned to a pillar of salt is a little hard for me to comprehend as well. It seems too harsh a punishment for just looking. I personally believe that the angels told here not to look back for her own protection. She might have merely glanced back but I doubt it was quick glance. Still were are not as wise as those in the supernatural existence so alot of there motivations have and always will be totally elusive to us. Do I carry burning questions around about God and Jesus Christ? Of course, but it pushes me to investigate more and strive for the answer. To me, the universe is much to perfect to believe otherwise. Reading the gospels gives me a personnel relationship with Christ, almost as though I was there watching him and listening to what he had to say. I have taken a step to the other side, aethism, don't make it sound like I was born into Christianity. I made the choice, not my parents or preacher or friends. Josh McDowell and his book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict helped me graduate to the a higher level of believing. If you like Facts then that is the book for you. I am still young and open minded. Hence I don't know everything and I do make plenty of mistakes. There is no sin to horrible that Jesus can't abolish, except totally ignoring him and God. Choosing to live without believing in that is the only way you go to hell. John 3:16 is very clear. I believe you can send me a private message but I don't think I'll do too much more debating on this topic. One on One I don't mind, but there is too much I have to answer to and I don't have the time. I'm sure you all went through the College times yourself. Keeping good grades demands alot of time spent reading and studying for the vexatious tests. I'll try and keep up to what you have to say, but it seems improbable at this point. I have also called a few people that are far beyond my intellect and knowledge on these types of issues. I have just recently taken an interest in philosophy and debating. But of few of my friends have had years of practice debating top level aetheist. I'll try my best to get them on here and will notify you as soon as it happens. They have concured with me on the irritance of debating online. So maybe a chatroom location could be advised? Hmm, well see. Anyway sorry I hardly answered your questions and comments, but I'll see what I can do about future posts.

God Bless

[Technosoul]

I would like to tell the story differently just to see if it rings any bells. Mine is a science fiction story but it might have been what really took place, you get to determine that.

Let us say that some highly advanced aliens came to this planet and they gave humans some instructions about how to build a city and how to establish laws to govern that city, which would be set up so that the aliens (aka angels) could have a work force and a nice place to stay at when they come here to mine for gold or whatever.

It had been pre-determined by the alien angels that they should not allow their race (gaints - meaning in Hebrew - those decending from a higher place - the sky) and so they wanted a city where their angels would not be tempted to take human girls for their wives, etc.

This one city had totally strayed from those insturctions and they did not want such a city to become an example for other cities to copy-cat. So it had to be destroyed.

Being a very advanced race the aliens had something like a nuclear bomb they could use to destroy the city. When this nuclear bomb went off to destroy the city it would make a blinding light that no one should look at directly. So as Lot and the selected people were allowed to escape over the mountain they were told not to look back at the bright light of that great explosion. This nuclear type of bomb could even cause one to become forzen in their tracks because of the shock it could have on the brain. Apparently his wife was lagging behind and had not made it over the hill to safty and in hearing the explosion she impulsively looked back and was instantly killed by the shock wave and looked liked a statue frozen in her tracks. I doubt if Lot or the rest of them stuck around much longer buy ran as fast as they could to get further away.

Later the story was retold many times and generations later ended up as part of the biblical text.

In this theory about those events we see that those angels (aka aliens) were not sent by the Great Spirit (aka God) but by a physical race of aliens that people looked up too as gaints of intelligence of because they had super powers that humans at that time were far from discovering.

My "alternative story" of that incident can shed new light on some of the biblical stories where humans in error misstook an alien race of visitors as being "of God" when in fact they were not here to serve any purpose of the real God (Spirit).

What do you think of that possiblity?

Technosoul.

[LDS]

So much to debate, so little time.




Yes we have the ability to choose. We dont have the ability to choose the consequences of our actions.

ANY person on earth who had his character attributes would be branded a mad man

False. There was a man who carried many of his attributes, there are men who carry is attributes. They arent branded as mad, they are branded as wise, loving, gentle, and merciful. Want an example look to Christs life, he instill so many of gods attributes, men dont revile against him(unless they are wicked). But love him and seek to be like him.