Question for believers

[Christa]

Please explain to me, after reading these two passages, why Jesus had to be sacrificed after God made the choice to exclude man from eternal life after evicting Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden?

1) Genesis 3:22-24 (King James Version)

22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


2) John 3:16 (King James Version)

16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



♥

[BlueJazz]

1. I don't know but the Bible reads like something that was written in an Insane Asylum.

[Christa]

7. Written by lunatics

high on drugs.

[rug]

11. It's refreshing to see you're seeking serious discussion.

[rd_kent]

16. Coming from you, thats just precious...Pot, meet kettle.

[rug]

21. Oh, it's one-note kenty.

:hi:

[rd_kent]

23. Again, pot, meet kettle. You are KING on the one line drive-by!

Such a hypocrite, but I expect that from you.

[rug]

24. You've hurt my feelings.

[rd_kent]

25. Sorry.

[westerebus]

12. May be half right.

The Road to Eleusis, unveiling the secrets of The Mysteries.

[HBravo]

2. Old Testament vs. New Testament

God of wrath vs. God of forgiveness.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Did he attend some anger-management classes 2000 years ago?

[Christa]

9. So this God

who is omnipotent and omnipresent first ban his creation from paradise, then had his only son tortured and killed because he changed his mind.

[HBravo]

10. You quoted yourself. John 3:16

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. You're wrong. NT is full of cruelty and violence.

New Testament is full of Jesus saying that the psychotic mass murdering god of the OT is just fine with him.

[humblebum]

4. Read the book and find out for yourself. I don't want to

spoil it for you.

[Christa]

6. Oh, believe me I have read it

quickest way for a believer to become an atheist is to read the bible.


edited for spelling

[rd_kent]

17. +100000! Absolutely right!

[FiveGoodMen]

8. In complete seriousness, with no snark intended...

Ask a bunch of atheists what made them stop believing in their former religion.

A very significant percentage will tell you, "I read the whole bible."

Your little joke misses the mark by a considerable distance.

[humblebum]

15. I'm used to it. That's OK.

There are many more who have had the opposite reaction.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

20. And men like me are "guided" to make sure that people

remain free to make their own decisions to believe, perceive, and to conceive ideas, and to oppose those who would stand in the way of that process.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

26. I'm sorry, but I doubt that.

When that person's decisions to believe, perceive, and conceive ideas eventually leads them to atheism, you immediately feel the need to attack their position as inferior, immature, and lacking. Your statement here contradicts your posting history.

[humblebum]

29. Just about all of my posts you see in R/T are on threads where

religion and especially Christianity are being attacked or questions are being asked to those who believe. So you feel that expressing an opposing opinion in an open forum is wrong? And I would also question whose position is being characterized as "inferior, immature, and lacking"? I've already said to you that you should either put me on block or conduct your discussions in the
atheist group forum if you expect no arguments. You keep saying you're done and won't be back - then low and behold!

[rd_kent]

31. The punch-me clown analogy was perfect for you!

[humblebum]

32. Right on schedule.

[darkstar3]

34. I will no longer argue atheism with you, and you know exactly why.

If, however, you would like to discuss other topics, as we have started on below, I'm all ears.

As for what you say about threads attacking faith and Christianity specifically, if you feel that your faith is under attack, I encourage you to defend your faith on its merits, rather than trying to attack the supposed attackers. Shooting the messenger has never been an effective argumentation method.

[humblebum]

36. The reason you will not argue atheism is because you cannot.

Simple as that.

[darkstar3]

37. You keep feeling yourself that.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

5. "It Is Finished." John 19:30.

I'm not a believer, but if you want the answer according to Christian apologetics, that's the passage that is supposed to close the circle.

[DeSwiss]

13. The problem here is....

...the question is directed toward believers, who as a group it has been my experience, tend to exhibit less knowledge about their bible and what's inside of it than anyone else on the planet. What they do tend to learn I have found, are only those portions which reinforce their existing god delusion and things which contradicts it or which causes significant Cognitive Dissonance are strictly avoided in discussion.

- I say this from direct and longtime experience. Rationality and reason have no place in religion. None.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. It's actually very simple, but I suspect...

you're not really looking for an answer-- you think this is trick question.

That part of Genesis is simply a metaphor for the necessity of free will in a relationship with God. If you do not believe in God, there is no need to deal with this, but the concept of free will does pop up in lots of other secular discussions, so some theological background here might help.

A far as God seeing his son killed, it is a bit over the top, but religions up to that time dealt with sacrifices to gods ansd this is the ultimate sacrifice of God to us. It's all to seal the deal, so to speak.

Again, if you don't believe in God, there's no point dealing with this, but, again, the concept of sacrifice does pop up here and there in other contexts, so the thousands of years this has been kicked around by Judeo-Christian theologians does have a few pearls of wisdom here and there.

[Igel]

19. The problem is simple.

Is there a narrative in the Bible, one that unites it from beginning to end, or isn't there?

If there is, is the "sacred" history teleological or not?

Most believers think there is a narrative. We differ as to what it is. The narrative imposes a confirmation bias, in part; also, in part, it provides a way to deal with what appear to be a lot of internal contradictions. It's confusing for many because there are various narratives inferred--whether they're in the text or not is a hard question. Since there are different narratives, some founded closely on the text, some founded rather less closely, you're going to run into divergent interpretations and "solutions" to contradictions and questions.

A lot of narratives make different assumptions. My assumptions differ from many, so while I generally understand a lot of competing Xian-like narratives I don't agree with them and don't do a fantastic job defending them. So I usually don't. It usually doesn't matter. I did have a devoutly Catholic friend just stare at me once when he told my wife that all Xians accepted the idea of the Trinity, and I replied that I didn't. I also think that YHWH died on the cross, but hey. Most people that say their church relies on the Nicene Creed don't really know what it says. (Mine didn't use the old creed, but easily could have, even if it would mean taking a word or two in a slightly different sense.)

Each narrative has a different goal in mind. Sometimes people pick their narrative for the goal, sometimes people like the narrative and accept the goal that's entailed (or are indifferent to it).

In any event, while I could give my version of the narrative that makes sense of the two passages, it only really makes sense in terms of that narrative and it would likely diverge from what most would say.

[humblebum]

27. Very well stated and I agree with you. nt

[darkstar3]

28. So the story is whatever you make it? n/t

[humblebum]

30. No. It means that there are natural ambiguities in human understanding

and the bible openly recognizes that fact and makes accomodations for it. While believers have differing opinions on certain issues most agree central ideas. They are no different from any other group of people. We are not "the Borg".

[darkstar3]

33. Recognition is reserved for those with sentience.

The Bible cannot "recognize" and "make accommodations for" anything at all.

[humblebum]

35. On the contrary, the bible is a book that addresses the human

condition as it is.

[darkstar3]

38. How, exactly? N/t

[rd_kent]

39. No, its a collection of tales written by men that had little understanding of the world around them.

[darkstar3]

44. So let me get this straight.

You made a claim about the Bible that violated the very basics of the English language (recognition and accommodation). When called on that, you posted some twaddle about how the Bible "addresses the human condition as it is," which has nothing to do with recognition or accommodation and was itself a claim that needed to be substantiated. Now, when asked very simply to substantiate anything you've said, you run away to another subthread to argue about arguing about atheism and absolutely refuse to come back.

Sound about right?

Repeated fallacies, lack of substantiation, and completely ignoring questions and points posed to you does not make an argument. You are a parody of your own self and your points of view. I name you Poe, and hope for the sake of the sanity of other members on this board that they see that faster than I did.

[humblebum]

47. Um? Kinda sounds like what you've been doing for quite awhile.

Arguing gets tough, you fire a few frantic ad homs and leave. You're too predictable.

[darkstar3]

48. Wow.

1. Your post here qualifies as ad hom, and so does much of your supposed contribution to this thread.
2. If you think your argumentation qualifies as "tough", you've obviously been lying to yourself for far too long. You see, the only tough thing about arguing with you is that EVERY time someone answers one of your fallacious or venomous points, you ignore, divert, or abandon, only to come back the next day and pigeon-drop the same tired shit in a new thread. You are projecting your MO onto others as a defense mechanism. Anyone with a sixth grade education and some time to read your contributions to this forum could see that, and the fact that you've been thoroughly trounced more than once.
3. With every post where you "argue about arguing about atheism", you qualify more as a Poe, a shit-starter, and a punch-me clown.
4. Did you have something of merit to contribute to this thread, or are you just here trying to piss of as many people as possible?

[humblebum]

49. So when are you going to finish answering questions in the other threads?

You are still playing your games of avoidance.

[darkstar3]

50. When are you going to adhere to the rules?

You're not supposed to continue arguments from one thread in another.
You're supposed to at least attempt to stay on topic in each individual thread.

So, if you think there's a thread being overlooked, go kick it. If you think an argument is incomplete, finish it in that thread or contact the poster directly. If you want to argue about atheism, start your own thread.

If you just want to bitch endlessly at people who disagree with you, may I suggest GD?

...or you could always have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.

[humblebum]

51. So you should really go back and finish your discussion in other threads.

Otherwise, I'm done here.

[darkstar3]

52. Finally...

and as I said, if you have a bug up your ass about another thread, go kick the thread and see what happens.

[Christa]

43. Yes

It is open to interpretation, supposedly :eyes:

[darkstar3]

45. But not by just anyone.

Apparently, depending on what denomination you are, you either have to go to school to interpret the Bible, or you should never have gone to school.

Oh, and atheists aren't allowed to interpret the Bible. Tough shit.

[Jim__]

40. This is the "problem" with all writing.

From Barthes' The Death of the Author:

In his story Sarrasine Balzac, describing a castrato disguised as a woman, writes the following sentence: ‘This was woman herself, with her sudden fears, her irrational whims, her instinctive worries, her impetuous boldness, her fussings, and her delicious sensibility.’ Who is speaking thus? Is it the hero of the story bent on remaining ignorant of the castrato hidden beneath the woman? Is it Balzac the individual, furnished by his personal experience with a philosophy of Woman? Is it Balzac the author professing ‘literary’ ideas on femininity? Is it universal wisdom? Romantic psychology? We shall never know, for the good reason that writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin. Writing is that neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body writing.

No doubt it has always been that way. As soon as a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly on reality but intransitively, that is to say, finally outside of any function other than that of the very practice of the symbol itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins. The sense of this phenomenon, however, has varied; in ethnographic societies the responsibility for a narrative is never assumed by a person but by a mediator, shaman or relator whose ‘performance’ — the mastery of the narrative code —may possibly be admired but never his ‘genius’. The author is a modern figure, a product of our society insofar as, emerging from the Middle Ages with English empiricism,

...

Let us come back to the Balzac sentence. No one, no ‘person’, says it: its source, its voice, is not the true place of the writing, which is reading. Another—very precise— example will help to make this clear: recent research (J.-P. Vernant) has demonstrated the constitutively ambiguous nature of Greek tragedy, its texts being woven from words with double meanings that each character understands unilaterally (this perpetual misunderstanding is exactly the ‘tragic’); there is, however, someone who understands each word in its duplicity and who, in addition, hears the very deafness of the characters speaking in front of him—this someone being precisely the reader (or here, the listener). Thus is revealed the total existence of writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted. Which is why it is derisory to condemn the new writing in the name of a humanism hypocritically turned champion of the reader’s rights. Classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader; for it, the writer is the only person in literature. We are now beginning to let ourselves be fooled no longer by the arrogant antiphrastical recriminations of good society in favour of the very thing it sets aside, ignores, smothers, or destroys; we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.

There is no canonical reading of a text.

[trotsky]

42. No canonical reading of a *human-written* text.

But millions of people believe the bible is far more than that. How can you tell them their beliefs are wrong? You could be wrong, too. No one knows.

[darkstar3]

46. That was quite a rambling, literary

(as opposed to vernacular) quote you pulled, but for once, I agree with you entirely.

There is no canonical reading of a text.

This was actually the topic of a multi-day discussion in one of my college composition courses. (say THAT three times fast. :)) Text is what the reader makes it. Once released, the author has no control, and no right to expect control, over the message. This is why respected literary giants were and are very careful with the symbolism and words that they choose.

[Omnith]

53. I'll give it a shot

Hi I'm new to this site
I didn't read all the posts in regards to the original message, so I don't know if anyone has answered the your question, but I'd like to give it a shot.

The reason God stop Adam and Eve from eating the fruit of the tree of life is that he did not want them to live forever in a sinful state. The reason Jesus Christ provided a way for everlasting life is that He became at one with the penalty of the "sin" of Adam and Eve. So now if you have everlasting life it won't be in a sinful state.

[darkstar3]

54. Adam and Eve were not sinful before eating the apples.

Adam and Eve, according to the story, were made pure. Only after eating the apples were they considered to have ever sinned against God.

Further, it wasn't the "tree of life". It was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." The fruit itself would not have granted eternal life (which, BTW, they already had). Rather, the fruit granted them knowledge meant only for God.

[Sarah88]

55. The Tree of Life vs the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil

“Wisdom is beneficent and kind. She is the aura of the power of God, the radiance of the eternal Divine Light, a spotless mirror of God. She renews all things, and passing into holy souls from age to age, She produces friends of God and prophets. She is firm, but Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all Her paths are peace. She is a TREE OF LIFE to them that lay hold upon Her. And Wisdom is far better than weapons of war.” -- The Book of Wisdom

"Wisdom is more precious than rubies: and all the things you can desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a TREE OF LIFE to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retains her. The Lord God by Wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has God established the heavens.” -- Proverbs 3:5-19

“He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches: To him that overcomes will I give to eat of the TREE OF LIFE, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” – Revelation 2:7

“In the midst of the street of it ... there was the TREE OF LIFE, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” Revelation 22:2

The Tree of Life is a symbol for the Wisdom received by those who realize the nature and will of God, which is the Supreme Universal Consciousness and the eternal, omnipresent Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence. It is depicted in the Qabalistic diagram called The Tree of Life.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is also symbolic, and its "Forbidden Fruit" is not an apple, or anything material. It is the produce of the human mind when it becomes egocentric, when it thinks it can judge, when it thinks it is wise, when it is actually spiritually blinded by the illusion of duality. That is why Jesus said that we should judge not, and let our eye be single.

[Sarah88]

56. I forgot to add ...

Here is a very relevant song that speaks to the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuiVNf4RLaM

[Vehl]

59. A rehashing of older tales

The story of the tree of knowledge is not unique to the judeo-xian tradition.

The Sumerian tree of knowledge predates the o/nt one by more than 2 millenia.
And given the fact that the story of Noah is an exact copy of the "Epic of Gilgamesh"(down to even most of the minute details) one might not be amiss if he/she inferred that this story too, is but a version of a story that predates the OT.

The most plausible explanation is that this got incorporated into the OT the same way the story of Noah got incorporated. Albeit, there were a few changes made so as to ensure that "god" is given the pre-eminent place as is required in the judeo-xian tradition. (eg...In the epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim(on whom the Character of Noah is based on) actually became an immortal...whereas Noah did not)


PS: btw the tree of knowledge is found all over the world...as far afield as in the Americas..(Popul Vuh-the story of the hero twins) ...to the Nordic stories...to Hinduism and Buddhism.


imo the inclusion of a third party ("god") between humanity and knowledge is a sign of the creation of forms of religion which cut the connection humanity had with nature/knowledge asunder. religions which replaced it with a "divine vending machine", to which humanity was supposed to "pray". (prayers=coins)


In the older mythologies, we see humans achieving their goals without pandering to a "divine" being...all they had to do was to "eat from" (imbibe on the nectar that is knowledge) from that tree...which, again, is but a metaphor for the search of knowledge.Knowledge results in freedom and enlightenment, not "sin".

[tama]

57. The historical interpretation

that makes most sense to me both historically and mythologically is that together with Buddhist influences and work of Apollonios of Tyana the sacrifice of Jesus, the main point was to stop sacrificing animals to gods, practice that had long time ago lost connection with it's animistic roots of hunter-gatherer societies. And it was accomplished.

But people are generally so self centered that they cannot imagine anything else than "Great Teachers" caring more about them and their escapistic "salvation" than they care about a pidgeon... or a spec of sand... ;)