why would god create us to put us in hell?

[QUOTE="Salvy41"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

Why would god have emotions?

Blood-Scribe

Why wouldn't He?

By definition, he is meant to be an omniscient and perfect being without flaw. Emotions are based upon your environment and how you perceive it. Obviously because of the fact that such a being would essentially know everything there is to know, it would mean that all factors are taken into account when something happens, thus meaning that the environment and conditions by which the emotions are derived from are comprehensive to the highest extent. So you could say that there wouldn't be a need to feel angered or saddened by something that happened, because you would know why, how, when, and what. If you knew what was going to happen, then you would know how to deal with it. If you're perfect, then you wouldn't have any need to deal with it, because it wouldn't affect you, as perfection also implies that nothing can inherently affect you in any way, hence such a being transcends all forms of emotion and being. So if God knew what was going to happen, why, when, where, and how, why would there be an inherent need to feel affected by something if you're perfect enough to not have the need to feel? Where is the need to feel emotions derived from? If you're perfect, you don't have any needs.

Very well said.

You're probably one of the few people who hasn't called me crazy for thinking like this.

No i agree too,emotions wouldnt of existed in eden either,as there was no good or evil,besides satan later turning up off course.If neither good or evil exsist then that also eliminates any emotions that we know to love and hate today.Happiness can only exist along with sadness,or else it isn't happiness,because you have nothing to contrast it with.Good has to exist along with evil,or else it isn't good,if you eradicate both of them then you have paradise...Eden...heaven.

No i agree too,emotions wouldnt of existed in eden either,as there was no good or evil,besides satan later turning up off course.If neither good or evil exsist then that also eliminates any emotions that we know to love and hate today.Happiness can only exist along with sadness,or else it isn't happiness,because you have nothing to contrast it with.Good has to exist along with evil,or else it isn't good,if you eradicate both of them then you have paradise...Eden...heaven.

blacktorn

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="Salvy41"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

Why would god have emotions?

blacktorn

Why wouldn't He?

By definition, he is meant to be an omniscient and perfect being without flaw. Emotions are based upon your environment and how you perceive it. Obviously because of the fact that such a being would essentially know everything there is to know, it would mean that all factors are taken into account when something happens, thus meaning that the environment and conditions by which the emotions are derived from are comprehensive to the highest extent. So you could say that there wouldn't be a need to feel angered or saddened by something that happened, because you would know why, how, when, and what. If you knew what was going to happen, then you would know how to deal with it. If you're perfect, then you wouldn't have any need to deal with it, because it wouldn't affect you, as perfection also implies that nothing can inherently affect you in any way, hence such a being transcends all forms of emotion and being. So if God knew what was going to happen, why, when, where, and how, why would there be an inherent need to feel affected by something if you're perfect enough to not have the need to feel? Where is the need to feel emotions derived from? If you're perfect, you don't have any needs.

Very well said.

You're probably one of the few people who hasn't called me crazy for thinking like this.

No i agree too,emotions wouldnt of existed in eden either,as there was no good or evil,besides satan later turning up off course.If neither good or evil exsist then that also eliminates any emotions that we know to love and hate today.Happiness can only exist along with sadness,or else it isn't happiness,because you have nothing to contrast it with.Good has to exist along with evil,or else it isn't good,if you eradicate both of them then you have paradise...Eden...heaven.

In which case one would have to wonder what it is that defines actions as inherently good or evil. That would also tie back into the original idea of a perfect being, in that it means that God allowed good and evil to exist of his own volition, otherwise it wouldn't have come into being. That would mean that the rebellion lead by Lucifer would have been foreseen, as well as Eve getting tempted by the serpent, yet Adam and Eve were made in God's image, so they should have been perfect as well. There's really a myriad of paradoxes that I have been dwelling upon concerning the implications of reality, including those that have been defined by religion, Christianity or otherwise.

Um, well some of them yes, but you obviously don't know what a Gospel is if you are saying the infancy Gospel of Thomas was about Thomas. A christian Gospel is about Jesus, period, so while the name may have one other than Jesus (The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) the stories are still about him. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is about Jesus as a child. Further, while you are right, the Gospel of Mary does imply that Jesus and Mary had a deeper relationship, but to imply that it was sexual, seems to also imply that the Gospel is trying to say that Jesus was gay as it also contains this passage spoken by Peter, "He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?" Go on here to read it. But if that Gospel is really saying Jesus and Mary danced the horizontal mambo, then what is it implying about Jesus and his apostles?

And, back then, while some manuscripts may have been obviously written too late or too early, considering the final version of the New Testament wasn't decided on until the second century, how were the church fathers supposed to know the difference between a Gospel written in AD 60 and one written in AD 110. Now, we know the difference by studying writing $TYL3 (GS won't let me write the word), syntax, terminology, as well as looking at how old the oldest copies we have are, but they didn't have these techniques 1800 years ago, so in all liklihood they made their decision based on what they agreed with rather than when they thought a document was written.

I do not have enough time to cover all of this, so I will give my responces in links to one of the best web siteson this kind of material.

On the process of deciding what goes into the Bible

On the Gospel of Thomas

Also, a Gospel focuses on the adult life and teachings of Christ, therefore, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does not qualify as a Gospel.

So are you saying that the Gnostics didn't consider their Gospels holy texts? Are you saying that the people that wrote and read these writings, such as the revelation of Peter, which was widely read throughout christianity until the 4th century, did it for a good time. They wrote and spoke BS about about Jesus, knowing its BSness? You may be able to say this about the original authors, but what we have are copies of copies, so someone, other than the author gave these writings enough importance to copy them in order to preserve them long after the original authors were dead. Being as they are religious documents, I seriously doubt they pursued such a creation without their belief and faith on their minds

No, they thought they were right (for some reason) but were not. They lived far away from Jesus (never met Him, never saw His works) and wrote things about Him and creation (such as that the world was created by two gods: A good God and an evil God).

The Revelation of Peter is not a Gnostic gospel.:|

I don't understand your last comment. Read what about a discussion of Hell? Hell is the 'weeping and nashing of teeth' hell is eternal damnation, hell is eternal torment. I haven't read anything different. If you want my personal opinion about what hell is, it is being absence from God's love. But again, that doesn't counter anything I said in my last paragraph you quoted. If you would like to clarify that last statement, I will read whatever you suggest will help me understand your opinion.

Hell is what atheists want. Seperation from God, as yo said. An ironic blessing.

Insane00

Rev 12:3-4,

3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.

The dragon is Satan, the stars in heaven are angels, the Child is Jesus, and the woman. . .well, I don't know who the woman is, but she was probably the Church.

Dracargen

That's waht I thought you were referencing.

But how do we know that this is Satan, yea it's a dragon, but he has seven heads, and 10 hors, which considering that the horn is a symbol for strength, means that at least 3 different things are being symbolized in the dragon passage: One thing for the dragon, or body, one thing or group of things for the 7 heads (seven representing completion, so it is a complete group of something) and something symbolized by the 10 horns. Then we find out his tail (whatever that is symbolizing) knocks down 1/3 of the stars in the sky, which may or may not be a symbol for angels, being as they have a number of different references in the bible (Sons of man, Sons of God, Cheribim, Sepharim, large spinning disks that are intertwined and covered with fire, largee 4 headed, many eyed creatures, etc.). Oh, I forgot the diadems, what do those represent, I have no idea.

My point is tha, yea, here's a nice passage that seems to say what you think it does, but why doesn't it mean this: A giant beas tormented the sky, which is referencing an asteroid. This beast reigns fire and doom in the form of power (aka: horns) on the earth, and as it does so it appears that the very stars themselves are falling from the sky (which are of course smaller asteroids). The woman references mankind which god saves by giving heere a hiding place in the desert (away from the disaster striking the rest of the world) and then using the sea (which rises due to the asteriod strike) to protect the remaining people from the fire that is being reigned down trying to devour the woman and here child (sorry I used the next part of the passage as well where the woman runs into the desert, fleeing the dragon.)

See what I did there, I used another point of reference for the symbology and made the story fit. Now I'm not saying this passage does or doesn't say what you think it does, I'm mearly pointing out that the only way it says what you think it does is if you interpret it your way. Being as there is no master list in the bible for what symbols mean what and 99% of the history of heaven as christianity views it is written in symbolism and allegory we just guess and interpret, we don't really know.

Oh, and I have hear the woman as Mary, Humanity, and the elect during the times of trials at the end of days.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

99.9% of the texts we have now are the exact same as what was originally written, making the Bible the single most accurately copied text on Earth.

quiglythegreat

Then you need to get your nose checked.

New languages that say the exact same as the old languages.

The Bible is the most accurately copied text on Earth. It has the greatest manuscript authority, it was very carefully copied down through the centuries. Even if it is copied routinely, that does not mean it is inaccurate; You are begging the question.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

About three years.

unholymight

You are feeling impenetrable.

How's that?

[QUOTE="Insane00"]

Um, well some of them yes, but you obviously don't know what a Gospel is if you are saying the infancy Gospel of Thomas was about Thomas. A christian Gospel is about Jesus, period, so while the name may have one other than Jesus (The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) the stories are still about him. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is about Jesus as a child. Further, while you are right, the Gospel of Mary does imply that Jesus and Mary had a deeper relationship, but to imply that it was sexual, seems to also imply that the Gospel is trying to say that Jesus was gay as it also contains this passage spoken by Peter, "He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?" Go on here to read it. But if that Gospel is really saying Jesus and Mary danced the horizontal mambo, then what is it implying about Jesus and his apostles?

And, back then, while some manuscripts may have been obviously written too late or too early, considering the final version of the New Testament wasn't decided on until the second century, how were the church fathers supposed to know the difference between a Gospel written in AD 60 and one written in AD 110. Now, we know the difference by studying writing $TYL3 (GS won't let me write the word), syntax, terminology, as well as looking at how old the oldest copies we have are, but they didn't have these techniques 1800 years ago, so in all liklihood they made their decision based on what they agreed with rather than when they thought a document was written.

I do not have enough time to cover all of this, so I will give my responces in links to one of the best web siteson this kind of material.

On the process of deciding what goes into the Bible

On the Gospel of Thomas

Also, a Gospel focuses on the adult life and teachings of Christ, therefore, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does not qualify as a Gospel.

So are you saying that the Gnostics didn't consider their Gospels holy texts? Are you saying that the people that wrote and read these writings, such as the revelation of Peter, which was widely read throughout christianity until the 4th century, did it for a good time. They wrote and spoke BS about about Jesus, knowing its BSness? You may be able to say this about the original authors, but what we have are copies of copies, so someone, other than the author gave these writings enough importance to copy them in order to preserve them long after the original authors were dead. Being as they are religious documents, I seriously doubt they pursued such a creation without their belief and faith on their minds

No, they thought they were right (for some reason) but were not. They lived far away from Jesus (never met Him, never saw His works) and wrote things about Him and creation (such as that the world was created by two gods: A good God and an evil God).

The Revelation of Peter is not a Gnostic gospel.:|

I don't understand your last comment. Read what about a discussion of Hell? Hell is the 'weeping and nashing of teeth' hell is eternal damnation, hell is eternal torment. I haven't read anything different. If you want my personal opinion about what hell is, it is being absence from God's love. But again, that doesn't counter anything I said in my last paragraph you quoted. If you would like to clarify that last statement, I will read whatever you suggest will help me understand your opinion.

Hell is what atheists want. Seperation from God, as yo said. An ironic blessing.

Dracargen

I'm not sure if you also meant that towards agnostics, but no that's not what I want I just don't feel any belief in God. If when I die, God shows up and says "I told ya so" I won't be slow to apologize.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

99.9% of the texts we have now are the exact same as what was originally written, making the Bible the single most accurately copied text on Earth.

Dracargen

Then you need to get your nose checked.

New languages that say the exact same as the old languages.

The Bible is the most accurately copied text on Earth. It has the greatest manuscript authority, it was very carefully copied down through the centuries. Even if it is copied routinely, that does not mean it is inaccurate; You are begging the question.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

99.9% of the texts we have now are the exact same as what was originally written, making the Bible the single most accurately copied text on Earth.

quiglythegreat

Then you need to get your nose checked.

New languages that say the exact same as the old languages.

The Bible is the most accurately copied text on Earth. It has the greatest manuscript authority, it was very carefully copied down through the centuries. Even if it is copied routinely, that does not mean it is inaccurate; You are begging the question.

Okay; what other texts are more well-documented? How many of those texts have over 1,000 original manuscripts?

We KNOW exactly what the Bible originally said because we HAVE what the Bible originally said. And you know something else? You are the second person who has said that my saying the Bible is the most accurately copied text on Earth somehow undermines my arguments, yet niether you or the other person have yet to provide a single example of when/where/how I am wrong. . .simply "The Bible is old, therefore it is false!" which is begging the question.

[QUOTE="Insane00"]

Um, well some of them yes, but you obviously don't know what a Gospel is if you are saying the infancy Gospel of Thomas was about Thomas. A christian Gospel is about Jesus, period, so while the name may have one other than Jesus (The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) the stories are still about him. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is about Jesus as a child. Further, while you are right, the Gospel of Mary does imply that Jesus and Mary had a deeper relationship, but to imply that it was sexual, seems to also imply that the Gospel is trying to say that Jesus was gay as it also contains this passage spoken by Peter, "He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?" Go on here to read it. But if that Gospel is really saying Jesus and Mary danced the horizontal mambo, then what is it implying about Jesus and his apostles?

And, back then, while some manuscripts may have been obviously written too late or too early, considering the final version of the New Testament wasn't decided on until the second century, how were the church fathers supposed to know the difference between a Gospel written in AD 60 and one written in AD 110. Now, we know the difference by studying writing $TYL3 (GS won't let me write the word), syntax, terminology, as well as looking at how old the oldest copies we have are, but they didn't have these techniques 1800 years ago, so in all liklihood they made their decision based on what they agreed with rather than when they thought a document was written.

I do not have enough time to cover all of this, so I will give my responces in links to one of the best web siteson this kind of material.

On the process of deciding what goes into the Bible

On the Gospel of Thomas

Also, a Gospel focuses on the adult life and teachings of Christ, therefore, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does not qualify as a Gospel.

So are you saying that the Gnostics didn't consider their Gospels holy texts? Are you saying that the people that wrote and read these writings, such as the revelation of Peter, which was widely read throughout christianity until the 4th century, did it for a good time. They wrote and spoke BS about about Jesus, knowing its BSness? You may be able to say this about the original authors, but what we have are copies of copies, so someone, other than the author gave these writings enough importance to copy them in order to preserve them long after the original authors were dead. Being as they are religious documents, I seriously doubt they pursued such a creation without their belief and faith on their minds

No, they thought they were right (for some reason) but were not. They lived far away from Jesus (never met Him, never saw His works) and wrote things about Him and creation (such as that the world was created by two gods: A good God and an evil God).

The Revelation of Peter is not a Gnostic gospel.:|

I don't understand your last comment. Read what about a discussion of Hell? Hell is the 'weeping and nashing of teeth' hell is eternal damnation, hell is eternal torment. I haven't read anything different. If you want my personal opinion about what hell is, it is being absence from God's love. But again, that doesn't counter anything I said in my last paragraph you quoted. If you would like to clarify that last statement, I will read whatever you suggest will help me understand your opinion.

Hell is what atheists want. Seperation from God, as yo said. An ironic blessing.

Dracargen

The main problem with your responce is that it is from a Christian Think tank website, which is going to be highly biased, and based on the ablity for most christian groups to completely misunderstand evolution, I'm going to have a hard time believing that this think-tank is approaching these questions scientifically. But that aside...

Concerning the canon:

"In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, Early Christianity, there seems not to have been a New Testament canon that was complete and universally recognized.

One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was he and his theology, Marcionism. Adolf Harnack in Origin of the New Testament (1914)[5] argued that the orthodox Church at this time was largely an Old Testament Church (one that "follows the Testament of the Creator-God") without a New Testament canon and that it gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion. [4]"

So what we see is that originally there wasn't even a canon, people just read whatever, but then concern arose that the wrong message was getting out so officials began to try to stadardize it, though it didn't officially happen until the 1500's. My point is that a number of different beliefs were running around, and while you may try to scientifically standardize the books by referencing and making sure everything was accurate, but because we are wrking with the interpretation of divine words and often symbolism, to some degree the selection is always going to be a matter of opinion rather than undeniable and provable fact.

That's my point, that people thought they were right. Just like Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Baptists, Evangelists, Daoists, Bhuddists, etc. For some reason everyone thinks what they believe is right, and so the individuals that supported and read these 'apocraphyl books' considered them just as holy as you consider the New Testament. So, why do we only give credit to what we do, cause that's the way it is, and i accept it. But I also see that some things may have been lost in the attempt to standardize everything and remove some books. As you say, and I didn't mean to imply the contrary, the revelation of Peter isn't a Gnostic Gospel, but rather a commonly read revelation (pre-5th century) account that flat out says that hell is temporary, but don't let it get out cause then people won't be afraid and try to be good, which I doubt is true being that the Roman world seemed to fuction rather well prior to christianity, and yet there was not real fear of eternal damnation if you worshiped the wrong God or made a few wrong turns in their world.

And I would say that atheists don't want hell, they simply see too many problems with religion and a belief in a creator to support such a view. One atheist I knew actually read the bible and what turned him off was the passage where Jesus smites the fig tree for being without fruit out of season. In otherwords he read a passage about an all loving creator killing a tree because it fuctions as he created it to, namely only to bear fruit in its proper time. He couldn't rectify the logical connundrum in his mind and as a resuld found himself not believing in God. I think you would find that most atheists would happily convert if there was a single definite piece of proof for God's existence, but as there is no such proof (as by definition of the nature of God) they cannot be persuaded. Unfortunate, yes. Unreasonable, no.

Okay; what other texts are more well-documented? How many of those texts have over 1,000 original manuscripts?

We KNOW exactly what the Bible originally said because we HAVE what the Bible originally said. And you know something else? You are the second person who has said that my saying the Bible is the most accurately copied text on Earth somehow undermines my arguments, yet niether you or the other person have yet to provide a single example of when/where/how I am wrong. . .simply "The Bible is old, therefore it is false!" which is begging the question.

Dracargen

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

99.9% of the texts we have now are the exact same as what was originally written, making the Bible the single most accurately copied text on Earth.

quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="blacktorn"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="Salvy41"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

Why would god have emotions?

Blood-Scribe

Why wouldn't He?

By definition, he is meant to be an omniscient and perfect being without flaw. Emotions are based upon your environment and how you perceive it. Obviously because of the fact that such a being would essentially know everything there is to know, it would mean that all factors are taken into account when something happens, thus meaning that the environment and conditions by which the emotions are derived from are comprehensive to the highest extent. So you could say that there wouldn't be a need to feel angered or saddened by something that happened, because you would know why, how, when, and what. If you knew what was going to happen, then you would know how to deal with it. If you're perfect, then you wouldn't have any need to deal with it, because it wouldn't affect you, as perfection also implies that nothing can inherently affect you in any way, hence such a being transcends all forms of emotion and being. So if God knew what was going to happen, why, when, where, and how, why would there be an inherent need to feel affected by something if you're perfect enough to not have the need to feel? Where is the need to feel emotions derived from? If you're perfect, you don't have any needs.

Very well said.

You're probably one of the few people who hasn't called me crazy for thinking like this.

No i agree too,emotions wouldnt of existed in eden either,as there was no good or evil,besides satan later turning up off course.If neither good or evil exsist then that also eliminates any emotions that we know to love and hate today.Happiness can only exist along with sadness,or else it isn't happiness,because you have nothing to contrast it with.Good has to exist along with evil,or else it isn't good,if you eradicate both of them then you have paradise...Eden...heaven.

In which case one would have to wonder what it is that defines actions as inherently good or evil. That would also tie back into the original idea of a perfect being, in that it means that God allowed good and evil to exist of his own volition, otherwise it wouldn't have come into being. That would mean that the rebellion lead by Lucifer would have been foreseen, as well as Eve getting tempted by the serpent, yet Adam and Eve were made in God's image, so they should have been perfect as well. There's really a myriad of paradoxes that I have been dwelling upon concerning the implications of reality, including those that have been defined by religion, Christianity or otherwise.

Well no,god made eden for adam then eve,but because he gave them the ability to have free-will they we're able to be tempted by satan who abused his free-will.Adam and eve we're only subject to evil and good after they ate from the tree of knowledge and were thrown out of eden.Neither adam or ever were ashamed of there bodies for example until they gave in to satans temptations,he did want them to live in perfect harmony,it's not his fault that they misused the free will god gave them.

They could of listened to god and not taken the forbidden fruit,they could of ignored Satan altogether,but they didn't,only have themselves to blame,and we can learn from there mistakes.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Okay; what other texts are more well-documented? How many of those texts have over 1,000 original manuscripts?

We KNOW exactly what the Bible originally said because we HAVE what the Bible originally said. And you know something else? You are the second person who has said that my saying the Bible is the most accurately copied text on Earth somehow undermines my arguments, yet niether you or the other person have yet to provide a single example of when/where/how I am wrong. . .simply "The Bible is old, therefore it is false!" which is begging the question.

quiglythegreat

But the teachings all remain the same,you can say it in anyway you want,as long as it carries the same message.

They could of listened to god and not taken the forbidden fruit,they could of ignored Satan altogether,but they didn't,only have themselves to blame,and we can learn from there mistakes.

blacktorn

the point is not that they didn't listen but that God supposedly didn't know they would do this. or at least that's part of it. and in the original story it wasn't Satan but merely a snake that did this.

[QUOTE="blacktorn"]

They could of listened to god and not taken the forbidden fruit,they could of ignored Satan altogether,but they didn't,only have themselves to blame,and we can learn from there mistakes.

Hewkii

the point is not that they didn't listen but that God supposedly didn't know they would do this. or at least that's part of it. and in the original story it wasn't Satan but merely a snake that did this.

Right,the snake is pretty much assumed to be satan,seeing as he was casted out of heaven onto earth,and he wished to h8 on gods creations hence why he was hell-bent on tempting adam and eve away from him,no one else at that time wanted to do that,the links all point to the snake being satan.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]

They could of listened to god and not taken the forbidden fruit,they could of ignored Satan altogether,but they didn't,only have themselves to blame,and we can learn from there mistakes.

blacktorn

the point is not that they didn't listen but that God supposedly didn't know they would do this. or at least that's part of it. and in the original story it wasn't Satan but merely a snake that did this.

Right,the snake is pretty much assumed to be satan,seeing as he was casted out of heaven onto earth,and he wished to h8 on gods creations hence why he was set on tempting adam and eve away from him,no one else at that time wanted to do that,the links all point to the snake being satan.

Where exactly in the Bible is all this said about the Devil? I mean, I hear all these stories, but in the only parts I've ever read (the OT and the book of Matthews), all Satan does is test people, make bets with God... And that's it.

[QUOTE="batboy113"]I mean we didn't choose if we wanted to be born, so why would he put us in hell? Whats stopping him from just leaving us dead (unless you go to heaven).unholymight

Because he's a figment of our imagination.

*ding, ding, ding*

We have a winner! :D

:P

[QUOTE="blacktorn"][QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]

They could of listened to god and not taken the forbidden fruit,they could of ignored Satan altogether,but they didn't,only have themselves to blame,and we can learn from there mistakes.

Zagrius

the point is not that they didn't listen but that God supposedly didn't know they would do this. or at least that's part of it. and in the original story it wasn't Satan but merely a snake that did this.

Right,the snake is pretty much assumed to be satan,seeing as he was casted out of heaven onto earth,and he wished to h8 on gods creations hence why he was set on tempting adam and eve away from him,no one else at that time wanted to do that,the links all point to the snake being satan.

Where exactly in the Bible is all this said about the Devil? I mean, I hear all these stories, but in the only parts I've ever read (the OT and the book of Matthews), all Satan does is test people, make bets with God... And that's it.

The Torah tells you this,there are different interpretations of it from Christianity and Hebrew,but sometimes the Christianity doesn't state certain things,to make it simpler perhaps,They both carry the same messages but the Hebrew Torah holds more information.

He did write the Torah in Hebrew afterall...

The Torah tells you this,there are different interpretations of it from Christianity and Judaism,but sometimes the Christianity doesn't state certain things,to make it simpler perhaps,They both carry the same messages but the Jewish Torah holds more information.

He did write the Torah in Hebrew afterall...

blacktorn

I did read the Torah in Hebrew, after all. Nothing of the sort in there. Only tests and bets, no more.

Well no,god made eden for adam then eve,but because he gave them the ability to have free-will they we're able to be tempted by satan who abused his free-will.Adam and eve we're only subject to evil and good after they ate from the tree of knowledge and were thrown out of eden.Neither adam or ever were ashamed of there bodies for example until they gave in to satans temptations,he did want them to live in perfect harmony,it's not his fault that they misused the free will god gave them.

They could of listened to god and not taken the forbidden fruit,they could of ignored Satan altogether,but they didn't,only have themselves to blame,and we can learn from there mistakes.

blacktorn

That still doesn't answer why god would even bother to put Satan and other forms of "evil" in the first place. The fact that the contrast between "good" and "evil" is apparent in this world would mean that it was put here in one way or another by God, assuming that such an entity exists by these standards. In which case, I wouldn't understand the need to put it here. I also don't get why if he's perfect, that he would feel the need to create, and then put contrasting criteria in this world that defines whether or not you get to go to heaven, or suffer for an eternity. Not to mention that free-will isn't something that can be comprehensively defined, because you could just as easily say that everything we do is the result of a chemical process in your brain that was triggered by an external event. I could give plenty of reasons as to why the concept of free-will is just an ambiguous title for the actions that we commit as humans.

[QUOTE="blacktorn"]

The Torah tells you this,there are different interpretations of it from Christianity and Judaism,but sometimes the Christianity doesn't state certain things,to make it simpler perhaps,They both carry the same messages but the Jewish Torah holds more information.

He did write the Torah in Hebrew afterall...

Zagrius

I did read the Torah in Hebrew, after all. Nothing of the sort in there. Only tests and bets, no more.

"And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him."

Rev 12:9

I think you need to read the actual books before you say anything more.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]

The Torah tells you this,there are different interpretations of it from Christianity and Judaism,but sometimes the Christianity doesn't state certain things,to make it simpler perhaps,They both carry the same messages but the Jewish Torah holds more information.

He did write the Torah in Hebrew afterall...

blacktorn

I did read the Torah in Hebrew, after all. Nothing of the sort in there. Only tests and bets, no more.

"And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him."

Rev 12:9

That part isn't in the Torah. Revelations is the New Testament. But okay, so it does say that he was cast down. But does it say for what? Is it for deceiving the whole world?

Edit: Nevermind, read the passage and saw the whole thing.

[QUOTE="blacktorn"]

Well no,god made eden for adam then eve,but because he gave them the ability to have free-will they we're able to be tempted by satan who abused his free-will.Adam and eve we're only subject to evil and good after they ate from the tree of knowledge and were thrown out of eden.Neither adam or ever were ashamed of there bodies for example until they gave in to satans temptations,he did want them to live in perfect harmony,it's not his fault that they misused the free will god gave them.

They could of listened to god and not taken the forbidden fruit,they could of ignored Satan altogether,but they didn't,only have themselves to blame,and we can learn from there mistakes.

Blood-Scribe

That still doesn't answer why god would even bother to put Satan and other forms of "evil" in the first place. The fact that the contrast between "good" and "evil" is apparent in this world would mean that it was put here in one way or another by God, assuming that such an entity exists by these standards. In which case, I wouldn't understand the need to put it here. I also don't get why if he's perfect, that he would feel the need to create, and then put contrasting criteria in this world that defines whether or not you get to go to heaven, or suffer for an eternity. Not to mention that free-will isn't something that can be comprehensively defined, because you could just as easily say that everything we do is the result of a chemical process in your brain that was triggered by an external event. I could give plenty of reasons as to why the concept of free-will is just an ambiguous title for the actions that we commit as humans.

He didn't put satan in eden on purpose,and he had no reason to doubt eve and adam would abuse the free-will he gave them,he didn't build eden for them so thay they could just disobey him.They were supposed to live for all eternity in eden,sin and evil comes from satan not god,ok it's a result of free-will that god gave them,but you can't blame him for letting them think for themselves.

Free-will,your will power is the ultimate test in this world,satan wants you to use it against god's wishes,but it's not like god doesn't care,he gave us the ten commandments for example,he gave us Jesus,the ultimate sacrifice that was supposed to rid the world of sin.Your life on this world is all but a test.

[QUOTE="unholymight"]

You believed wrong, parallel to your belief in God.

LJS9502_basic

One of you dudes was on about original sin. I didn't bring it up.

You have absolutely no proof that my belief in God is wrong.;)

You have absolutely no proof that your belief in god is correct.

(See what I did there?) :)

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="icarus212001"]

but how do we know anything in those stories (even the ideas they are based on) are true?

Dracargen

we don't, but the fact of the matter is that men edited the Bible to its present form.

We have over 13,000 manuscripts of the Bible, and the differences in all thirteen thousand to the editions we have now amount to about 0.001% of the entire Bible, and that .001% is mere spills of ink and spelling errors.

Anyway, to the topic: One theory is that, since matter cannot be created or destroyed, the soul has to go somewhere. The where simply depends on what the person wanted in life; Hell for those who reject God and Heaven for those that accept Him.

How is a 'soul' matter? Isn't it supposed to be some immaterial thing, ie not physical?

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]You forgot the endless pain and torture blacktorn

Well where do the sinners go...they don't roam with angels do they? Good and evil doesn't go exist in the spirit world,if it did it would be no better or worse than earth.

Wasn't Satan once an angel .. who roamed with other angels .. who was a sinner?

He became satan (Lucifer originally) when he turned on god,when god gave him free-will,then god cast him out of heaven and he became satan,it's the ultimate teaching in my view,he abused his free will,and decided to make it his no.1 goal to hate on god and his creations,turn them on him.I think it speaks to many people in this world,he's the very source of evil in this world,sin isn't related to satan for no reason,learn from his mistakes,he is the reason why adam and eve we're shut out of eden,if you sin then you are no better than him,you are calling to him not god.To rebel is to be like satan,i don't understand how people can;t get that,it makes perfect sense to me.

Wow, god's just screwing up one thing after another. First, it makes an angel that would rebel and take other angels along, then makes a bunch of stuff and lets the rebel walk around and do whatever, then makes humans, puts a tree they're not supposed to eat from right in front of their faces, and finally lets the rebel convince it's 'good creations' to eat from said tree. Doesn't sound like omniscience to me, how about you?

99.9% of the texts we have now are the exact same as what was originally written, making the Bible the single most accurately copied text on Earth.

Dracargen

What proof do you have of this claim?

How is a 'soul' matter? Isn't it supposed to be some immaterial thing, ie not physical?

Nobody knows exactly what the soul is. I said that that is just one theory.

What proof do you have of this claim?

The 6,400 New Testament manuscripts.

rinkegekido2110

[QUOTE="rinkegekido2110"]

How is a 'soul' matter? Isn't it supposed to be some immaterial thing, ie not physical?

Nobody knows exactly what the soul is. I said that that is just one theory.

What proof do you have of this claim?

The 6,400 New Testament manuscripts.

Dracargen

Where are these manuscripts? Who studied them in their myriad of languages and determined that they are 99.9 percent accurate?

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="rinkegekido2110"]

How is a 'soul' matter? Isn't it supposed to be some immaterial thing, ie not physical?

Nobody knows exactly what the soul is. I said that that is just one theory.

What proof do you have of this claim?

The 6,400 New Testament manuscripts.

rinkegekido2110

Where are these manuscripts? Who studied them in their myriad of languages and determined that they are 99.9 percent accurate?

The Dead Sea scrolls are but a few of those manuscripts. Many historians study them; I don't get your point with that.

uhhh... Why must all atheists be so snobby and arrogant. If you don't believe in God, then fine its your choice but keep quiet. But no, every atheist has to go around saying that God doesn't exist and were all just simple minded. Anyways, on to the discussion about dimensions and the such, he's GOD, he can live where ever he damn well pleases. And to all atheists, I suggest you starting reading about hell, cus I'm sure the devil is begging to ram a flaming pole up your ass!Bigg_Boi

Well for one thing, religious people feel the need to cram their beliefs down other's throats, so it's only natural that those who disagree speak up.

[QUOTE="rinkegekido2110"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="rinkegekido2110"]

How is a 'soul' matter? Isn't it supposed to be some immaterial thing, ie not physical?

Nobody knows exactly what the soul is. I said that that is just one theory.

What proof do you have of this claim?

The 6,400 New Testament manuscripts.

Dracargen

Where are these manuscripts? Who studied them in their myriad of languages and determined that they are 99.9 percent accurate?

The Dead Sea scrolls are but a few of those manuscripts. Many historians study them; I don't get your point with that.

I'm just asking who came out and said "All manuscripts of the bible are 99.9 percent accurate". Isn't that what you said?

I'm just asking who came out and said "All manuscripts of the bible are 99.9 percent accurate". Isn't that what you said?

rinkegekido2110

I first read it from Gary Habermas and Norman Geisler. And I was wrong--It wasn't 99.9%. It was 99.99%.

so I missed a bunch, but here is my $.02.

God's intention wasn't for us to go to hell, but overpopulation of unruly group such as us was a tough pill to swallow. Being the loving God that (s)he is, God decided that he'd find out if humans would follow him(her). So he puts a tree with some tasty fruit on it and says "you guys can have baby back ribs everyday cause you're in charge of the animals and you can just sit in the garden takin' huge bong rips cause you're in charge of all the plants! But for the sake of me and my home, leave those fruits alone!"

So the Devil lost really bad at poker one night and decided he'd get even. long story short, original sin and a life of hardship!

So anyway, you could say why didn't he just scrap the human project! Probably because we were the best choice. Doesn't say much, but who else is gonna run the planet!? So God had to hide his existence mostly but considering how bad we botched the garden can't just let us run wild! So he leaves hints and tips and lets a few people in on his secret. He could control the eb and flow of the universe much better with faith and the carrot and stick of heaven and hell, so he decided that it was the best way to run existence. Sure there are a few trouble makers. Sure a few will fall between the cracks. Sure he has to help people find a decent parking spot from time to tim, but overall it works.

An interesting side note, I forget the book, but I read one about the anti-christ and the second coming (fictional work I assume) and there was a chief demon or imp or whatever that was in charge of making people's lives miserable. He would add small hardships like removing all the left socks from the dryer and shutting down telephone grids, but for the most part people did his job for him.

so I missed a bunch, but here is my $.02.

God's intention wasn't for us to go to hell, but overpopulation of unruly group such as us was a tough pill to swallow. Being the loving God that (s)he is, God decided that he'd find out if humans would follow him(her). So he puts a tree with some tasty fruit on it and says "you guys can have baby back ribs everyday cause you're in charge of the animals and you can just sit in the garden takin' huge bong rips cause you're in charge of all the plants! But for the sake of me and my home, leave those fruits alone!"

So the Devil lost really bad at poker one night and decided he'd get even. long story short, original sin and a life of hardship!

So anyway, you could say why didn't he just scrap the human project! Probably because we were the best choice. Doesn't say much, but who else is gonna run the planet!? So God had to hide his existence mostly but considering how bad we botched the garden can't just let us run wild! So he leaves hints and tips and lets a few people in on his secret. He could control the eb and flow of the universe much better with faith and the carrot and stick of heaven and hell, so he decided that it was the best way to run existence. Sure there are a few trouble makers. Sure a few will fall between the cracks. Sure he has to help people find a decent parking spot from time to tim, but overall it works.

An interesting side note, I forget the book, but I read one about the anti-christ and the second coming (fictional work I assume) and there was a chief demon or imp or whatever that was in charge of making people's lives miserable. He would add small hardships like removing all the left socks from the dryer and shutting down telephone grids, but for the most part people did his job for him.

god didn't create anything. People created god.

uhhh... Why must all atheists be so snobby and arrogant. If you don't believe in God, then fine its your choice but keep quiet. But no, every atheist has to go around saying that God doesn't exist and were all just simple minded. Anyways, on to the discussion about dimensions and the such, he's GOD, he can live where ever he damn well pleases. And to all atheists, I suggest you starting reading about hell, cus I'm sure the devil is begging to ram a flaming pole up your ass!Bigg_Boi

I know,they take pride in calling themselves atheist too,it's just so wrong on many different levels,it's just a cover-up for there sins,because they refuse to believe there doing anything wrong,so arrogant it's unreal.

god didn't create anything. People created god.

Food_Nipple

.

uhhh... Why must all atheists be so snobby and arrogant. If you don't believe in God, then fine its your choice but keep quiet. But no, every atheist has to go around saying that God doesn't exist and were all just simple minded. Anyways, on to the discussion about dimensions and the such, he's GOD, he can live where ever he damn well pleases. And to all atheists, I suggest you starting reading about hell, cus I'm sure the devil is begging to ram a flaming pole up your ass!Bigg_Boi

You hypocrite. You tell athiests to stop being snobby and arrogant, and to keep quiet, and then you go on to say they are wrong and throw out immature insults.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]uhhh... Why must all atheists be so snobby and arrogant. If you don't believe in God, then fine its your choice but keep quiet. But no, every atheist has to go around saying that God doesn't exist and were all just simple minded. Anyways, on to the discussion about dimensions and the such, he's GOD, he can live where ever he damn well pleases. And to all atheists, I suggest you starting reading about hell, cus I'm sure the devil is begging to ram a flaming pole up your ass!blacktorn

I know,they take pride in calling themselves atheist too,it's just so wrong on many different levels,it's just a cover-up for there sins,because they refuse to believe there doing anything wrong,so arrogant it's unreal.

Who the hell are you to say what's right and what's wrong? And don't bring religion into this, because it doesn't apply to us. We can't sin if we don't believe in god, can we? And who is arrogant, when you are absolutely REFUSING to open your mind to any foreign concept. And for the record, I'm agnostic, not athiest.

[QUOTE="blacktorn"]

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]uhhh... Why must all atheists be so snobby and arrogant. If you don't believe in God, then fine its your choice but keep quiet. But no, every atheist has to go around saying that God doesn't exist and were all just simple minded. Anyways, on to the discussion about dimensions and the such, he's GOD, he can live where ever he damn well pleases. And to all atheists, I suggest you starting reading about hell, cus I'm sure the devil is begging to ram a flaming pole up your ass!Manly-manly-man

I know,they take pride in calling themselves atheist too,it's just so wrong on many different levels,it's just a cover-up for there sins,because they refuse to believe there doing anything wrong,so arrogant it's unreal.

Who the hell are you to say what's right and what's wrong? And don't bring religion into this, because it doesn't apply to us. We can't sin if we don't believe in god, can we? And who is arrogant, when you are absolutely REFUSING to open your mind to any foreign concept. And for the record, I'm agnostic, not athiest.

Can't sin??? That's the most arrogant thing I've ever herd,it's because your extremely arrogant that fail to see sin,it's completely blinded you.You can't see that then you are truly lost.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]uhhh... Why must all atheists be so snobby and arrogant. If you don't believe in God, then fine its your choice but keep quiet. But no, every atheist has to go around saying that God doesn't exist and were all just simple minded. Anyways, on to the discussion about dimensions and the such, he's GOD, he can live where ever he damn well pleases. And to all atheists, I suggest you starting reading about hell, cus I'm sure the devil is begging to ram a flaming pole up your ass!blacktorn

I know,they take pride in calling themselves atheist too,it's just so wrong on many different levels,it's just a cover-up for there sins,because they refuse to believe there doing anything wrong,so arrogant it's unreal.

Who the hell are you to say what's right and what's wrong? And don't bring religion into this, because it doesn't apply to us. We can't sin if we don't believe in god, can we? And who is arrogant, when you are absolutely REFUSING to open your mind to any foreign concept. And for the record, I'm agnostic, not athiest.

Can't sin??? That's the most arrogant thing I've ever herd,it's because your extremely arrogant that fail to see sin,it's completely blinded you.You can't see that then you are truly lost.

Sin is a religious concept. An atheist can do wrong, can commit a crime, but can't sin. That would be like saying that Christians commit a sin when eating pork since it's non-kosher in Islam (exclusing Judaism since it's nice enough to not impose its restrictions on others).

[QUOTE="blacktorn"][QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]uhhh... Why must all atheists be so snobby and arrogant. If you don't believe in God, then fine its your choice but keep quiet. But no, every atheist has to go around saying that God doesn't exist and were all just simple minded. Anyways, on to the discussion about dimensions and the such, he's GOD, he can live where ever he damn well pleases. And to all atheists, I suggest you starting reading about hell, cus I'm sure the devil is begging to ram a flaming pole up your ass!Zagrius

I know,they take pride in calling themselves atheist too,it's just so wrong on many different levels,it's just a cover-up for there sins,because they refuse to believe there doing anything wrong,so arrogant it's unreal.

Who the hell are you to say what's right and what's wrong? And don't bring religion into this, because it doesn't apply to us. We can't sin if we don't believe in god, can we? And who is arrogant, when you are absolutely REFUSING to open your mind to any foreign concept. And for the record, I'm agnostic, not athiest.

Can't sin??? That's the most arrogant thing I've ever herd,it's because your extremely arrogant that fail to see sin,it's completely blinded you.You can't see that then you are truly lost.

Sin is a religious concept. An atheist can do wrong, can commit a crime, but can't sin. That would be like saying that Christians commit a sin when eating pork since it's non-kosher in Islam (exclusing Judaism since it's nice enough to not impose its restrictions on others).

Sin is the name given to evil doings,you know evil is wrong,but instead of accepting it as a sin you choose to be arrogant and ignore it, and to say you can commit a crime but can't sin is like saying there's nothing wrong with it at all,therefore you don't know what sin is even when it's surrounding you,you refuse to believe anything because your hell-bend on rebelling.

Surely this makes sense to you?

[QUOTE="blacktorn"][QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="blacktorn"]

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]uhhh... Why must all atheists be so snobby and arrogant. If you don't believe in God, then fine its your choice but keep quiet. But no, every atheist has to go around saying that God doesn't exist and were all just simple minded. Anyways, on to the discussion about dimensions and the such, he's GOD, he can live where ever he damn well pleases. And to all atheists, I suggest you starting reading about hell, cus I'm sure the devil is begging to ram a flaming pole up your ass!Zagrius

I know,they take pride in calling themselves atheist too,it's just so wrong on many different levels,it's just a cover-up for there sins,because they refuse to believe there doing anything wrong,so arrogant it's unreal.

Who the hell are you to say what's right and what's wrong? And don't bring religion into this, because it doesn't apply to us. We can't sin if we don't believe in god, can we? And who is arrogant, when you are absolutely REFUSING to open your mind to any foreign concept. And for the record, I'm agnostic, not athiest.

Can't sin??? That's the most arrogant thing I've ever herd,it's because your extremely arrogant that fail to see sin,it's completely blinded you.You can't see that then you are truly lost.

Sin is a religious concept. An atheist can do wrong, can commit a crime, but can't sin. That would be like saying that Christians commit a sin when eating pork since it's non-kosher in Islam (exclusing Judaism since it's nice enough to not impose its restrictions on others).

Sin is a universal rule. . .saying you can't sin because you don't believe sin exists is like saying I can't commit a crime because I don't believe a crime exists.