Spirituality
28 Jun 05
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderHow did God kill them?
BS. God eventually kills them for their disobedience; what does it matter if he gave them life initially? If you want, make the three year old my son instead of grandson; I "gave" him life then - can I justly kill him for his disobedience? God does take an action; you continually refuse to address that point.
In reality. we know what ...[text shortened]... . And that is above any petty concerns of human morality, ain't it, KellyJay; so anything goes?
Kelly
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeFight...fight...come and watch ivanhoe dishing out some girly slaps
Have you read the whole thread, including my posts ?
The post which suggests to replace the cookies with deadly poison is the most important one to make the analogy work.
If someone considers the story to be allegorical, this does not imply that the story does not communicate any truth at all. On the contrary !
The story of Adam & Eve is turned ...[text shortened]... d you please consider the insults and foul language Mr. Insult is hurling at me .... damnit !
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat an arrogant fool you are then. Would you really prefer to rehearse your arguments to and audience that will only agree with you.
Sometimes I wish it was. It would considerably reduce the amount of nonsense I have to plow through to keep up with things.
You arrogant god botherers need to be challenged. You are intent on imposing your beliefs and morallity on the rst of us without stoping to consider our sensitivities.. TWUNT
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder#1, I would be interested in your writing the parable over in a way that represents the way you think God should be interacting. This is a serious request and I am not baiting you.
Personally, the only flaw I can see in the analogy is that the mother doesn't eventually kill the kids like God does. I don't think the argument is just for literalists; it is equally apt for those who think it is an allegorical tale that supposedly shows a just God. I believe what the person who wrote the Modern Parable was saying is that the ...[text shortened]... able is a poor one on which to base a loving, just God as his actions are unjust and irrational.
One of the things that we may not take into consideration in the Genesis story is that all this is new to God. How is he supposed to know how to act? It's not like there is a wealth of collective knowledge about how to deal with these creations.
28 Jun 05
4 edits
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeMerriam Webster Online
What is this word plow. Do you mean PLOUGH?
4 entries found for plow.
To select an entry, click on it.
plow[1,noun]plow[2,verb]plow backplow under
Main Entry: 2plow
Variant(s): or plough
Function: verb
transitive senses
1 a : to turn, break up, or work with a plow b : to make (as a furrow) with a plow
2 : to cut into, open, or make furrows or ridges in with or as if with a plow
3 : to cleave the surface of or move through (water) <whales plowing the ocean>
4 : to clear away snow from with a snowplow <plow the street>
intransitive senses
1 a : to use a plow b : to bear or admit of plowing
2 a : to move in a way resembling that of a plow <the car plowed into a fence> b : to proceed steadily and laboriously <had to plow through a stack of letters>
- plow·able /-&-b&l/ adjective
- plow·er /'plau[-&]r/ noun
Get to know the English language, genius ...... calling me an arrogant fool .........
.... and please check out your spelling of "morallity", moron.
2 entries found for morality.
To select an entry, click on it.
moralitymorality play
Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by kirksey957Which parable? The Genesis one, the Modern one or my "kid with the electrical cord" one? Either way it'll have to wait; time for some chow and a couple of cold ones.
#1, I would be interested in your writing the parable over in a way that represents the way you think God should be interacting. This is a serious request and I am not baiting you.
One of the things that we may not take into consideration in the Genesis story is that all this is new to God. How is he supposed to know how to act? It's not like there is a wealth of collective knowledge about how to deal with these creations.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayuhm...did God not create that danger? God made the game, he made the rules and he made the consequences. God, Adam and Eve are the ONLY players.
Oh I see, so the danger that God warned them about did the Killing.
Kelly
I think you are arguing this incorrectly (bold of me isn't it?...sorry). What you should be saying in my opinion is that God, in order to give man free will, had to leave Adam and Eve with something that they could DO to challenge their creator. If they could not challenge their creator (which they could not have done without the tree, I think) then they could not have free will.
There is no point in trying to claim that God did not kill them, because he clearly did. The best way to argue is to say that in order to bequeath free will to his creations he had to give them options and the options they choose forced him to kill them. It is still a pretty screwed up thing to do...but then again Genesis is a pretty screwed up book. 😉
TheSkipper
28 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderLet us stick to the subject you started, which is God killed them
The "danger" was God as he is the one who condemned them and all their descendents to die.
or the danger that God warned them about did? God gave them
life, He as you pointed out didn't need a reason to kill them if
He wanted to; He didn't need a reason to condemn them, He
could just create a condemned race if He wanted to. There was
no need for the play you are screaming about, the only need
for this to play out the way the scripture talks about is that
God gave them life, God warned them about a danger, they
rejected God's word to all of our lives. With your stories, in
one the mother lied and rejected her kids, the other you were
the danger, you not the danger within the wires were the threat
to kill.
Kelly
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Moldy CrowAs I understand it when you raise children you do not give them 'free will' but some form of 'conditioned will'. ie "You can go outside and play but do not go in the street." God was trying to give his creations FREE will without conditions. He warned them of the dangers but in order to keep free will in tact he could not simply remove the danger (like place the cookies out of reach) because it would be infringing on the rights (free will) he promised Adam and Eve.
This is ridiculous ! As a father of three , I never left all of the poisonous cleaning products under the sink , I put them out of reach . Are you saying good parenting would have been for me to leave them there , tell the kids not to play there ? Better yet , to hell with the cupboard , I'll put the bleach , lye , and bug spray in the middle of the roo ...[text shortened]... set up . And in light of the claim that he's all knowing , this is pretty twisted behaivior .
I do not like the Genesis story one bit and I consider it allagorical (sp?). I do not like the idea that a perfect God created something imperfect which led directly to the fall of man etc etc I'm mearly pointing out the problem I have with No1's particular story.
TheSkipper