by kls 48 Replies latest watchtower bible
Adam / Eve believed the lies of the Devil, thus making God a liar
Thus you have to reason, did they fully understand deception? Did they make a decision
with full knowlege? For the answer look at the tree (Tree of knowledge).... Come to a conclusion?
Also, continue the story and see how stupid it is:
Abel sacrificed animals to God (he was accepted) Cain sacrificed fruits (he was not accepted)
According to many including JW's people did not eat flesh before the flood?
I smell contradiction..! ! ! !
***Why? It is a story void of detail used to quickly form a springboard for the rest of the bible.***
That is a great, summed up synopses of what I was trying to say in my post.
I was also going to add one more thing, but ran out of time. That one thing was the definition of "perfect" in relation to Adam and Eves creation. They knew how to speak and had full mastery of the language they were created with. They knew how to plant, and harvest food. The seemed to have every ability to survive except one thing, the knowledge of good and bad. Since Jesus supposedly was born with the same exact level of perfection, did he also lack the knowledge of good and bad? Did he also need to eat a piece of fruit to gain that (not inherent) knowledge?
If Adam and Eve were created perfect without it, and Jesus was created perfect with it, then was the sacrifice of one perfect being for another equal or fair? Why did Jesus have it in his level of perfection and Adam did not?
As I said, it is not the details of the myth that count, but the ability of the gullible to accept it and believe it as truth.
Dave
I think that the real question would be, Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons???
Lets continue on and see how more stupid it gets:
Cain killed Abel, did God kill him like he did with others? Seems like it was
a known law amongst God's people back them about the eye/eye thingy!
No, he put a mark on Cain, and People who did bad to him were to be punished!
Quest #1: Did not Adam have other children? What purpose would have done to save him?
Quest #2: If Adam/Eve were forefathers to all, then why would cain need a mark? Would not everyone around
be sisters, brothers, children, nephews, nieces, etc? They would all know him, huh?
Nice Ohiocowboy!
who was first chicken/egg?
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (v35) Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (v36) But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. (v37) For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. (v38) For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, (v39) and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. (v40) Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. (v41) "Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. (v42) Therefore be on the alert, for you [disciples] do not know which day your Lord is coming.
Here is a question for those Christians who believe in Jesus but do not believe in the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah and the ark. Why would Jesus refer to the story of Noah in a factual manner if it was a myth? Is a mythical person qualifying a story of another myth or is one person a factual historical parson and the one he is referring to mythical? If one is looked at as mythical, why not both? Neither story has any archeological or historical evidence outside of it's own religious writings. Why do some Christians claim one to be true and one to be mythical when the one thought to be true, refers to the one that is thought to be mythical as a fact?
Besides an anchor to base ones moral and social convictions on, why would anyone see one as fact and one as fiction?
Dave
Dave, what you said about christians who agree the genesis story is a myth yet believe 100% in Jesus story is a good argument and one I have used myself. It took "common sense" to ask that very question without zero amount of research. Much of the bible can be considered using common sense yet few believers apply it.
Now....some other stuff.
Belief is a more powerful word then "fact" when it comes to those who choose to openly accept what is told to them by someone they trust as opposed to doing a little work and gathering facts to find out the real truth about an issue themselves. Trust, belief, faith and blind acceptance are the tools that all religions use to convince the gullible what they preach is indeed based on fact and then accepted as human history.
I wanted to comment about that in bold type.
Those who deeply feel god is working inside them whether from emotion or claimed actuall "experiences", do not feel the need to seek factuall information about their diety. They feel he communicates with them apart from research of his validity.
As for religion....do you really feel it's leaders are solely intrested in controlling their people, or do not many leaders have good intentions with no intrest in controlling others and truely feel they are doing gods will? Go easy on me now....I'm a sensative kinda guy ya know.
Gumby
Damn it Dave...quit making sence
It's amazing to me how any Bible debate in America is utterly polluted with Protestant fundamentalism. Believers and unbelievers alike share the same fundamentalistic interpretation of the text. The former advocate it, the latter fight against it, but nobody (except a few scholars) wonders what the text actually meant in the first place.
In France we live in a very different reality. The Catholic are largely majoritary among the believers, we have some historical Protestants whose churches date back to the Reformation, and a very small minority of Evangelicals which are essentially the product of English and American missions from the 19th century onwards. Here no established Church would ask for teaching creationism in schools. This implies that most Christians fully agree that the Bible doesn't offer an alternative explanation for the origins of the world. They are used to read the Bible differently.
Characteristically, the arguments American unbelievers use against the Bible are exactly the same arguments sectarian Evangelicals use here to promote their fundamentalistic interpretation of the Bible. Such as, "if you believe in Jesus, you have to believe in Creation or the Flood, because Jesus referred to them in the Gospels". In their ultra-minoritarian circles, such a kind of belief is indeed used as a "criterium of gullibility" (as Dave approximately put it). For instance, there is an Evangelical Church in Paris where nobody will be accepted as a member unless he believes literally in the story of Jonah (no kiddin'). But here this is the exception, it is a joke topic even among Evangelicals, and nobody could be fooled into believing this is the only consistent way to read the Bible. Cultural differences...
