This is based on years of academic research, and it's common knowledge to anyone who isn't a Biblical literalist. Only the faithful say that the Bible is an extraordinarily accurate historical record, scholars realize it's multiple sources. The Bible as we know it was compiled at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. I suggest you read some of the work of Elaine Pagels. As Beyond Belief shows us, in the earliest days of Christianity, no one had an exclusive lock on what was or was not holy scripture. Many people were proclaiming the Good News. The “Pistis Sophia” (literally, “Faith Wisdom”), the Gospels of Philip, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Matthias, Judas, and Bartholomew, the Gospel of Perfection, and “Thunder, Perfect Mind” (in which a feminine personification of God proclaims the truth about God’s love and forgiveness) are just a few of the ancient texts that scholars are beginning to rediscover. Obviously, not every ancient document is holy scripture. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, probably written around the same time the Gospel of John was written, tells us that as a child of about six, Jesus was jostled by a playmate. The child Jesus told his playmate to drop dead, which the unfortunate boy instantly did. When the dead boy’s parents remonstrated with Mary and Joseph, they were stricken blind for their blasphemy. (4:1-5:1) Moreover, not every religious leader’s teachings are to be trusted, even today — as the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh might tell you if they could. In the first few centuries after the Crucifixion, many Christian faith communities formed around leaders and scriptures who may have been mistaken, like the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Complicating matters was the fact that followers of Jesus were not merely bucking the Establishment; they were outlaws. Persecution of Christians between 30 and 300 C.E. varied, depending on who was Emperor and what his problems were, but to insist upon practicing Christianity in that period generally meant a good chance of being tortured and killed in any of several gruesome ways — crucifixion, being thrown to the lions, being burned alive at the stake, and being “gladiator fodder” among them. In the middle of the second century, a bishop of the Graeco-Gaulish (Greek/French) church named Polycarp thought it would be a good idea for Christianity to have what we now would call quality control: That is, wherever in the Roman Empire one might find oneself, one’s local Christian leaders would be proclaiming pretty much the same doctrine as every other Christian leader. St. Vincent of Lerins set this idea into writing almost 300 years later, with his famous, “What is believed by all Christians, everywhere, for all time.”
It was possible for Adam to sin because God created him with free will. That gift is not at all in conflict with the fact that Adam was perfect. In truth, only God is perfect in the absolute sense. Perfection in anyone or anything else is limited. For example, a knife might be perfect for cutting meat, but would you use it for eating soup? A thing is perfect only in relation to its purpose. It was God’s objective to produce through Adam a race of intelligent people with free will. Those who wanted to cultivate their love for God and his ways would show this by choosing to obey his laws. Obedience was therefore not programmed into man’s thinking faculties but would spring voluntarily from the heart. Thus, if Adam had lacked the ability to choose disobedience, he would have been incomplete—imperfect. Perfection in human Biblical human terms does not mean we could not make a mistake. Well, then, did God create Adam with a moral weakness, so that he lacked the ability to make sound decisions or to withstand temptation? Prior to Adam’s disobedience, God had examined all of his earthly creation, including the first human pair, and had determined that it was “very good.” (Genesis 1:31) Thus, when Adam sinned, his Creator did not need to correct some design flaw, but rightly placed the blame squarely on Adam. (Genesis 3:17-19) Adam had failed to let love for God and right principle motivate him to be obedient to God above all. Consider, too, that Jesus when on earth was a perfect man like Adam. Yet, Jesus, unlike other descendants of Adam, was conceived as a result of holy spirit and thus inherited no vulnerability to temptation. (Luke 1:30, 31; 2:21; 3:23,*38) Jesus of his own volition remained loyal to his Father despite the strongest pressures. Adam, in exercising his own free will, was personally responsible for his failure to obey God’s command. Why, though, did Adam choose to disobey God? Did he believe that he would improve his situation in some way? No, for the apostle Paul wrote that “Adam was not deceived.” However, Adam decided to accede to the wishes of his wife, who had already chosen to eat from the forbidden tree. His desire to please her was greater than his desire to obey his Creator. Surely, upon being presented with the forbidden fruit, Adam should have paused to reflect on the effect that disobedience would have on his relationship with God. Without a deep, unbreakable love of God, Adam was vulnerable to pressure, including that from his wife. In the garden of Eden, God employed two trees for symbolic purposes: “the tree of life” and “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” Failure to respect God’s decree concerning the latter brought man’s fall.—Ge 2:9, 16,*17; 3:1-24. By standing for “the knowledge of good and bad” and by God’s pronouncement decreeing it to be out-of-bounds for the human pair, the tree became a symbol of God’s right to determine or set the standards for man as to what is “good” (approved by God) and what is “bad” (condemned by God). It thus constituted a test of man’s respect for his Creator’s position and his willingness to remain within the area of freedom decreed by God, an area that was by no means cramped and that allowed for the greatest enjoyment of human life. Therefore, to violate the boundaries of the prohibited area by eating of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” would be an invasion of or a revolt against God’s domain and authority. The tree did not actually DO ANYTHING to Adam and Eve, they already knew what was good and bad. By eating of the tree and therefore disobeying God, they were in effect saying to God that they wanted to do their own thing. Therefore they made their OWN "good and bad", instead of letting God decide what was good and bad. Although the tree was literal, it was symbolic in the sense that it did nothing, but prove that they didn't want to obey God anymore. Again, I ask you for evidence. Are you going to follow blindly, a book?
Er: So you don't know what "perfect" means... IF Adam were perfect, as you contend, then his decision must have been "perfect". It's quite simple. In other words "perfection in human beings" isn't perfection. In other words before eating that fruit Adam didn't know the difference between "good and bad" and therefore cannot shoulder the blame. God failed to explain his reasons correctly. Rather difficult considering that you contend such a discussion would be between one perfect being and another... :roflmao: If they already knew then eating from the tree would have had no effect. If they didn't know then they can't be blamed. Are you going to blindly spout self-contradictory nonsense?
Think outside of the box. All of that is based on whether you see the bible as a true historic record which it is not. There is no evidence that the tale is true, much less that Adam and Eve ever existed.
And please save us the headache and don't state that there is evidence that Adam and Eve existed because its in the bible and that bible is an accurate historical reference.
Understood. So what is the purpose of a perfect human with a perfect reasoning brain? Free will combined with the ability for rational thought that can perfectly weigh the pros and cons of any given action should always result in the optimum choice, correct? So how could Adam or Eve have made a mistake? Saying they had free will to choose badly doesn't make any sense, unless their ability to reason was seriously flawed (i.e. a design flaw). In which case it was not their fault that they sinned and shouldn't have been punished for something where they were inadequately prepared. I don't see anywhere in the bible where God explains to them the implications of sin. Why would they consider it a bad thing? Had God explained to them that to sin would mean that they would die and that billions of humans who follow them would also die and have tormeneted lives, then perhaps they might have had some concept of the issue, and be appropriately prepared. I am not doubting the ability to choose incorrectly, my point is that without adequate knowledge a poor choice is inevitable. Had they fully understood God's love then they would have no reason to disobey, not only because of strong emotions but through their ability to reason as well using their intelligence that you reference. With all that going for them why would they make a poor choice? The argument from Christianity is that Adam was inherently bad and hence the reason he was thrown out of Eden and why his evil nature is in all humans that followed. So the upshot here is that God designed a human who was inherently bad (sounds a lot like a design flaw), and he knew he was going to make a bad choice, he is omniscient remember, so the choice to allow Adam to exist and go bad was entirely by design. Remember also that where omniscience exists then free will cannot exist. Adam had no choice but to sin since that had been his designed destiny. Your point here seems to emphasize the bible inconsistency - if Adam was good and had no moral weakness then how could he have chosen to sin, which requires a moral weakness? So in the end Adam was not good but that contradicts God's statement that he was. Except that Jesus knew he was a part of God or at least had divine powers, one does not perform or call upon miracles and somehow not realize he is not just an ordinary man. The comparison doesn't hold up since Adam was not divine. All of that again strongly emphasizes that God's design of Adam was seriosuly flawed. What we see here is a man who has not been adequately prepared, educated, or informed about how to balance his ability to reason alongside strong emotions. Had God's design not been flawed then Adam would have had appropriately balanced abilities to always reach an optimum choice. And God's failure to appropriately educate Adam about the severity of these issues was God's fault and Adam can never be held responsible for choices he made where his poor design was destined to be bad. That's fine, but again this simply does not address why Adam would make a poor choice had the issues been appropriately explained to him and if his so called perfection was indeed true. That's not what the bible says of course. But whatever. All you are claiming here is that they both turned bad for no apparent reason. That screams very clearly that they were the result of a serious design flaw. Why would God create so called perfect beings that he knows full well that as soon as he releases them in the wild they will go bad? Had they truly been created perfect and provided with adequate knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, then it is inconcievable that would make such a poor choice. The story has no credibility, it is purile.
Can you be more specific? You seem to be completely clueless about the facts of the origin of your religion. These non-canonical gospels have been found and translated. This isn't a controversial statement that even requires proving.
The rich kids learn the poor girls dance . Its good work if you can get it. Put Me on coach if I can get it. Yeah keeping coaches off the cheer leaders . Same old song Spidy . I like your history lesson . The book of Judas should have been canonized only because I like that book . It has a Great House in a dream . Yeah baby!!! The future is now
Jesus was an impersonator . He took my glory like a thief . He did not think it thievery to consider him self " To Be Equal with God " That is my name :: """To Be Equal""" Me=To Be=I am ,,,, Equal = Egal= E-gal= ? That would be Mr. Greathouse to you. I don't care , you can call Me what ever trips your trigger
Cris, A slight correction. What is nonsense is a self creating world. Theists would have us believe that God is the uncaused cause of this world. No we don't. So duch a being could communicate with man. That's all I wanted to know. Excellent point. Also, not all communication is clear to all people, even though they are clear to some. Thanks. There is no reason why scriptures should not be classed as evidence. I'd ask you to give reason why this couldn't be so, but I'm quite sure you can't. So I wont. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So the idea of God being created is logically incoherent. That's all I wanted to know Cris. Thanks. jan.
Why is an eternal complexity more plausible than an evolution from simple to complex? The latter is the process we see going on all around us, not spontaneous creation.
Evolution is real . Every creator knows this . Painters and drawers know this well, House builders too
Yes, the question comes from the assumption that since the universe appears complex, it required a complex creator.
Jan, Then don't suggest it, I haven't. From the physics perspective nothing is ever created or destroyed, there is only matter/energy transformations with no net loss or gains. BBT simply suggests that at some point in the past the universe was much more dense than it is now, it does not suggest or imply there was a point of creation. From the theist creation perspective the universe was magically created from nothing: Now that is a total nonsense, where did all the material come from? That suggests a god does not exist since an all powerful god would have zero problems communicating excrutiatingly clearly to even the most stupid person. They can be classed in the same way as any fictional or fantasy text. Their only validity rests in whether the claims can be detected in reality, and at this time no such credible evidence of that nature has ever come to light. No that is not what I said. The issue concerned was an infinite regression in response to your point -
Assuming 'God' in the first place leads to all of the subsequent paradoxes discussed here. It's the same result in everyday life when one makes something up.
G’DAY BIBLE STUDY CLASS. Someone has located the Garden of Eden: it is now underwater, unfortunately, at the head of the Persian Gulf, near Bahrain. It was into this gulf that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers spilled their waters in antiquity. Nearby, the Karun river which bears a similar name to the Bible’s Gihon river—flows southeast through Iran towards the gulf. We discovered all this by using Google Earth. We have also located the Ark of the Covenant; it is in a secret chamber deep within the Temple Mount, underneath the present-day Dome of the Rock. It was hidden there by Jeremiah immediately before the Neo-Babylonian destruction of the temple in 586 B.C. We are leaving it there since there may have been five more Commandments than we previously thought, and we may have broken some of them. Tonight’s homework is to have a wild evening sitting around reading the Dead Sea Scrolls while drinking wine and smoking some fine stuff. Be prepared to act them out. …
What the... your the one that is not making an ounce of sense. I think you are just not trying to understand this. This is basic Bible teachings. Human perfection does not mean we cannot make mistakes. It's as simple as that. For correct Bible understanding one must not make the common error of thinking that everything called “perfect” is so in an absolute sense, that is, to an infinite degree, without limitation. Perfection in this absolute sense distinguishes only the Creator, God. Because of this Jesus could say of his Father: “Nobody is good, except one, God.” (Mr 10:18) Perfection of any other person or thing, then, is relative, not absolute. (Compare Ps 119:96.) That is, a thing is “perfect” according to, or in relation to, the purpose or end for which it is appointed by its designer or producer, or the use to which it is to be put by its receiver or user. The very meaning of perfection requires that there be someone who decides when “completion” has been reached, what the standards of excellence are, what requirements are to be satisfied, and what details are essential. Ultimately, God the Creator is the final Arbiter of perfection, the Standard-Setter, in accord with his own righteous purposes and interests. Some illustrations: The planet Earth was one of God’s creations, and at the end of six creative ‘days’ of work toward it, God pronounced the results “very good.” (Ge 1:31) It met his supreme standards of excellence, hence it was perfect. Yet he thereafter assigned man to “subdue it,” evidently in the sense of cultivating the earth and making the whole planet, and not just Eden, a garden of God.—Ge 1:28; 2:8. The city of Jerusalem with its hill of Zion was called “the perfection of prettiness.” (La 2:15; Ps 50:2) This does not mean that every minute aspect of the city’s physical appearance was supremely attractive, but rather, it relates to its use by God, the city’s beauty resulting from the splendor that he conferred upon it, making it the capital of his anointed kings and the site of his temple. (Eze 16:14) The tent, or tabernacle, built in the wilderness at God’s command and according to his specifications served as a type or small-scale prophetic model of a “greater and more perfect tent,” God’s heavenly residence into which Christ Jesus entered as High Priest. (Heb 9:11-14, 23,*24) The earthly tent was perfect in that it satisfied God’s requirements, served its appointed end. Yet when God’s purpose concerning it was accomplished, it ceased to be used and passed out of existence. The perfection of that which it represented was of a far higher type, being heavenly, eternal. Thus, in each case the context must be considered to determine in what sense or relation perfection is meant. The foregoing information aids in understanding how perfect creatures of God could become disobedient. To view this as incompatible with perfection is to ignore the meaning of the term, substituting a personal concept that goes contrary to fact. God’s intelligent creatures are granted free moral agency, the privilege and responsibility of making a personal decision as to the course they will take. (De 30:19,*20; Jos 24:15) It is evident that this was the case with the first human pair, so that their devotion to God could be subject to test. (Ge 2:15-17; 3:2,*3) As their Maker, he knew what he wanted of them, and from the Scriptures it is clear that he wanted, not an automatic, virtually mechanical obedience, but worship and service that sprang from hearts and minds motivated by genuine love. (Compare De 30:15,*16; 1Ch 28:9; 29:17; Joh 4:23,*24.) If Adam and his wife had lacked the ability to choose in this matter, they would not have met God’s requirements; they would not have been complete, perfect, according to his standards. It must be remembered that perfection as it relates to humans is a relative perfection, limited to the human sphere. Though created perfect, Adam could not go beyond the limits assigned him by his Creator; he could not eat dirt, gravel, or wood without suffering ill effects; if he tried to breathe water instead of air, he would drown. Similarly, if he allowed his mind and heart to feed on wrong thoughts, this would lead to entertaining wrong desires and finally bring sin and death.—Jas 1:14,*15; compare Ge 1:29; Mt 4:4. That the creature’s individual will and choice are determining factors readily becomes evident. If we were to insist that a perfect man could not take a wrong course where a moral issue was involved, should we not also logically argue that an imperfect creature could not take a right course where such moral issue was involved? Yet some imperfect creatures do take a right course on moral issues involving obedience to God, even choosing to suffer persecution rather than change from such a course; while at the same time others deliberately engage in doing what they know is wrong. Thus not all wrong actions can be excused by human imperfection. The individual’s will and choice are deciding factors. In the same way, it was not human perfection alone that would guarantee right action by the first man but, rather, the exercise of his own free will and choice as motivated by love for his God and for what was right.—Pr 4:23.
The perfect emoticon for you: :bugeye: Yet again, you are going by human standards which God does not have to go by. You say: It is therefore impossible for a god to create time since that would require time to exist to perform such an action. But, the thing is, he WOULDN'T need time to do this! You are just not thinking, and I think you are not being very open minded. If you create a valid point, I will agree with you, as I have about some other things on this thread, but you aren't making sense here.
Okay, tell me where matter and energy came from then? I'm trying to understand you, I really am here...
