DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on November 25, 2008, 10:51:50 PM
-
Taser Used To Subdue Naked Man In Washington Chapel
WASHINGTON, Pa. -- Washington police officers had to use a Taser to subdue a naked man reading Bible passages inside the City Mission on West Wheeling Street Sunday night.
Officers said that the 6-foot-4, 300-pound Baltimore-area man would not respond to requests from police to get on the ground.
The suspect was reportedly standing in the pulpit acting as if he was giving a sermon. Police said that the man?s clothes were in a pile on the chapel floor.
A few people were in the chapel at the time. Police said others left because they were frightened.
The suspect was taken to Washington Hospital to receive treatment.
-
I wonder why they felt they had to subdue him in the first place. Eventually, he would have most likely gotten tired and quit preaching.
This story calls him a "suspect". What was he suspected of, I wonder.
It seems to me that he was just bonkers, and the fuzz was just lazy and obsessed with being obeyed immediately by a guy who was really not threatening anyone with anything.
You can't blame people for being frightening, since there were cops shouting and tasering. Not what people come to church to experience, as a rule.
-
You can't blame people for being frightening, since there were cops shouting and tasering. Not what people come to church to experience, as a rule.
Depends. Some folks seem to love having the bejeezis scared out of them, with the preacher painting a particularly nasty picture of hell and the torment that awaits them if they transgress even the teeniest bit.
-
Depends. Some folks seem to love having the bejeezis scared out of them, with the preacher painting a particularly nasty picture of hell and the torment that awaits them if they transgress even the teeniest bit.
======================================================
I have yet to see a sermon where the preacher actually is armed with a harmful device. There may be a few people that might appreciate being tasered for Jesus, but so far no preacher has actually tried that sort of service. Benny Hinn pushes people and they fall over, but there is always someone behind them to insure they do not bust their skulls on the altar.
The descriptions of Hell given by preachers over the years are curiously all much more greatly descriptive than those of Heaven, have you noticed?
-
The descriptions of Hell given by preachers over the years are curiously all much more greatly descriptive than those of Heaven, have you noticed?
It depends on the denomination, the preacher, and the church. Some preachers seem to be stuck on hell fire and damnation, and some denominations seem to push those type of sermons more. Some churches are actually pretty laid back, and the sermons are more about the rewards of a good life. I've even found a couple that encourage the discussion of opposing points of view, such as mine.
-
It depends on the denomination, the preacher, and the church. Some preachers seem to be stuck on hell fire and damnation, and some denominations seem to push those type of sermons more. Some churches are actually pretty laid back, and the sermons are more about the rewards of a good life. I've even found a couple that encourage the discussion of opposing points of view, such as mine.
The Fundie churches seem to stress how God is gonna punish sinners for their wicked deeds, and the more progressive churches spend a lot more effort focusing on how we can make Earth a better place rather then how wonderful Heaven is going to be or how much better things will be when Jesus decides to return. This may have something to do with better educated people having a better sense of history and their place in it. Fundie churches seem almost entirely unaware of the non-Fundie Christian places in the world, except those that are out to get Fundie Christians-- formerly Roman Catholics, more often Muslims these days.
Perhaps your church is Unitarian?
-
I am an atheist. Cut my teeth on the Bible, raised hard core Southern Baptist, tried every denomination I could find before settling on one, almost became a minister, and finally realized it wasn't for me.
-
I am an atheist. Cut my teeth on the Bible, raised hard core Southern Baptist, tried every denomination I could find before settling on one, almost became a minister, and finally realized it wasn't for me.
It is fairly hard to be an atheist and a minister at the same time. Nonetheless, I am pretty sure that it has been done. Are you familiar with Miguel de Unamuno's novel San Martin Bueno, Martir (Saint Martin the Good, Martyr?). An excellent religious vision.
What about being an atheist and a shaman? How would that work out?
-
I'm pretty sure that there are atheist and non-Christian Unitarian-Universalists
-
I'm pretty sure that there are atheist and non-Christian Unitarian-Universalists
I agree with that. Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity, hence the name. They do not believe that Jesus was God. The emphasis of the UU Church is to for a community to live in harmony with everyone.
-
"I'm pretty sure that there are atheist and non-Christian Unitarian-Universalists
I agree with that. Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity, hence the name. They do not believe that Jesus was God. The emphasis of the UU Church is to for a community to live in harmony with everyone."
It's a Faith issue.
Jesus Christ Himself said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me."
Who is Me? Jesus Christ, also known by these:
Adam, the Last (1 Cor. 15:45)
Advocate (1 Jn. 2:1)
All & in All (Col. 3:11)
Almighty (Rev. 1:8)
Altogether Lovely One (Song of Sol. 5:16)
Amen (Rev. 3:14)
Anchor (Heb. 6:19)
Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:9-11 with Rev. 1:13-16)
Angel [of the Lord] (Gen. 16:9-14; Gen. 48:16)
Anointed, His (Ps. 2:2). See also Messiah.
Apostle (Heb. 3:1)
Arm of the Lord (Isa. 53:1)
Alpha & Omega (Rev. 1:8; 21:6)
Author (Heb. 12:2)
Balm of Gilead (Jer. 8:22)
Beginning (Col. 1:18)
Begotten (One and Only – John 3:16)
Beloved (Eph. 1:6)
Bishop of your souls (1 Pet. 2:25)
Blessed and only Potentate (1 Tim. 6:15)
Branch (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; Rev. 11:1)
Bread (John 6:32-33; 6:35)
Bridegroom (Mt. 9:15; Jn. 3:29; Rev. 21:9)
Bright & Morning Star, see Star.
Brightness of His (God's) glory (Heb. 1:3)
Captain of their salvation (Heb. 2:12; Josh. 5:4)
Carpenter['s son] (Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3)
Chief[est among ten thousand] Song of Sol. 5:10)
Child, [the young] (Isa. 9:6; Mt. 2:8-21)
Chosen of God (Lk. 23:35)
Christ (Mt. 1:17; Mk. 8:29; Jn. 1:41; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23)
Comforter (Isa. 61:2; Jn. 14:16)
Commander (Isa. 55:4)
Consolation of Israel (Lk. 2:25)
Corn of Wheat (Jn. 12:24)
Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20; see also Isa. 28:16)
Counsellor (Isa. 9:6; Isa. 40:13)
Covert (Isa. 32:2)
Creator of all things (Col. 1:16)
Daysman (Job 9:33)
Dayspring from on high (Lk. 1:78)
Day Star (2 Pet. 1:19). See also Bright & Morning Star.
Deliverer (Rom. 11:26)
Desire of all nations (Hag. 2:7)
Door [of the sheepfold] (Jn. 10:7, 9)
Emmanuel (Mt. 1:23; see also Isa. 7:14; 8:8)
End, see Beginning & the End. End of the Law (Rom 10:4)
Express image of His (God's) person (Heb. 1:3)
Faithful Witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14; 19:11)
Faithful & True (Rev. 19:11)
Father of Eternity (Isa. 9:6)
Fellow of God (Zech. 13:7)
First & the Last (Rev. 1:17)
First begotten of the dead (Rev. 1:5)
Firstborn Firstfruits [of them that slept] (1 Cor. 15:20, 23)
Foundation (Isa. 28:16; 1 Cor. 3:11)
Fountain (Jer. 2:13; Zech. 13:1)
Forerunner (Heb. 6:20)
Friend of sinners (Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:34)
Fulness of the Godhead (Col. 2:9)
Gift of God (Jn. 4:10; 2 Cor. 9:15)
Glory of God (Isa. 60:1)
God (Jn. 1:1; Mt. 1:23; Rom. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:8)
Good Master (Mt. 19:16)
Governor (Mt. 2:6)
Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Guide (Ps. 48:14)
Head (even Christ) (Eph. 4:15)
Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
Helper (Heb. 13:6)
Hiding Place (Isa. 32:2)
High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 7:1)
Holy Child (Acts 4:30)
Holy One [& the Just] (Acts 2:27; 3:14)
Hope of Israel (Jer. 17:3)
Horn of salvation (Ps. 18:2; Lk. 1:69)
I AM (Jn. 8:24, 58)
Image of [the invisible] God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15)
Intercessor (Heb. 7:25)
Jehovah (Isa. 26:4; 40:3)
Jesus (Mt. 1:21)
Judge (Micah 5:1; Acts 10:42)
Just One (Acts 7:52)
King (Zech. 14:16)
Kinsman (Ruth 2:14)
Lamb [of God] (Jn. 1:29, 36; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:17)
Last, see First. (Rev. 22:13)
Lawgiver (Isa. 33:22)
Life (1 Jn. 1:2)
Light (Jn. 12:35)
Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
Lord [& Saviour] (1 Cor. 12:3; 2 Pet. 1:11), see also Master.
Man (Jn. 19:5; Acts 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5). See also Son of Man.
Master (Mt. 8:19)
Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5)
Merciful High Priest (Heb. 2:17)
Mercy Seat (Rom. 3:24-25)
Messiah (Dan. 9:25; Jn. 1:41; 4:25)
Mighty God (Isa. 9:6; 63:1)
Minister of the Sanctuary (Heb. 8:2)
Nazarene (Mk. 1:24)
Nobleman (Lk. 19:12)
Offering (Eph. 5:2; Heb. 10:10)
Offspring of David (Rev. 22:16). See also Root.
Ointment poured forth (Song of Sol. 1:3)
Omega. See Alpha & Omega.
One and Only Son, see Son. (John 3:16)
Passover (1 Cor. 5:7)
Peace, our (Eph. 2:14)
Physician (Mt. 9:12; Lk. 4:23)
Plant of Renown (Ezek. 34:29)
Potentate, Blessed and only, see Blessed Prince [& a Saviour] (Acts 3:15; 5:31)
Prophet (Acts 3:22-23)
Propitiation (1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10)
Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)
Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Quickening (life-giving) Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45)
Rabbi (Jn. 3:2; Mt. 26:25; Jn. 20:16)
Ransom (1 Tim. 2:6)
Redeemer, Redemption (Isa. 59:20; 60:16; 1 Cor. 1:30)
Refuge (Isa. 25:4)
Resurrection & the Life (Jn. 11:25)
Righteousness (Jer. 23:6; 33:16; 1 Cor. 1:30)
Rock [of offence] (Deut. 32:15; 1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8)
Rod (Isa. 11:1)
Root (Rev. 22:16)
Rose of Sharon (Song of Sol. 2:1)
Sacrifice (Eph. 5:2)
Same, the (Heb. 1:12)
Sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30)
Saviour [of the world] (Lk. 1:47; 2:11; 1 Jn. 4:14)
Second Man, see Man.
Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 19)
Seed Servant (Isa. 42:1; 49:5-7; Mt. 12:18)
Shadow of a great Rock (Isa. 32:2)
Shepherd ( 1 Peter 5:4)
Shiloh (Gen. 49:10)
Son (Isa. 9:6; 1 Jn. 4:14)
Sower (Mt. 13:37)
Star (Num. 24:17)
Stone (Psalm 118:22)
Sun of Righteousness (Mal. 4:2)
Surety (Heb. 7:22)
Teacher (Mt. 26:18; Jn. 3:2; 11:28). See also Master.
Tender Plant (Isa. 53:2)
Testator (Heb. 9:15-17)
True Bread, see Bread.
Truth (Jn. 14:6)
Vine (Jn. 15:1, 5)
Way (Jn. 14:6)
Wisdom [of God] (1 Cor. 1:24, 30)
Wonderful (Isa. 9:6)
Word (Jn. 1:1)
BTW, A VERY GOOD WAY to give Thanks! Giving Thanks for Him!
-
You are reading a lot into the OT, it seems.
Jews who have studied the OT for 100 generations or more do not see any evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, or that the Messiah was a ever said to be a part of a Trinity. The Holy Spirit is an even less evidenced add-on. I suppose when anyone thinks of two humans, they would automatically think of, you know, a man and a woman, so some clever sould said, "hey, let's up it to three, and then they can all be guys, like us!" Or something like that.
So, you are right: it's a matter of faith. With just a tiny shred more, you can be a Mormon and we can ALL be divine.
Then maybe we won't have to spend all eternity singing in the Choir Celestial, which just has to get tedious after the first thousand years or so.
-
"You are reading a lot into the OT, it seems.
Jews who have studied the OT for 100 generations or more do not see any evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, or that the Messiah was a ever said to be a part of a Trinity. ......."
I am not sure about the Trinity, trinity is just an explanation of how God could be god and man , and why Jesus said he had to leave rather than stay. As far as I know it is correct , but it isn't supported directly by scripture.
The early church was full of Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah and some modern ones do as well.
-
So, you are right: it's a matter of faith.
That plays a big part in many of the true believer's arguments. You gotta have faith, when you can't fall back on logic or facts.
-
"You are reading a lot into the OT, it seems.
Jews who have studied the OT for 100 generations or more do not see any evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, or that the Messiah was a ever said to be a part of a Trinity. ......."
I am not sure about the Trinity, trinity is just an explanation of how God could be god and man , and why Jesus said he had to leave rather than stay. As far as I know it is correct , but it isn't supported directly by scripture.
The early church was full of Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah and some modern ones do as well.
====================================================================
The early church befoe Paul was very, very small, but all its members were Jews. Paul saw that the future of the church was nil if they did not accept former pagans. He also made a special concession for them when pagan men were not receptie to being circumsized. Paul was a PR man and an opportunist.
If God can be everywhere (omnipresent, a doctrine of the Church) then he is not logically required to be three persons. You might as well say as far as I know God is four, or five, of twenty-three entities. Three was just the lowest number after one. One God is the most important belief of Judaism.
Two is not possible: two humans is a couple, and never two males. So they had to add the "holy spirit" not a usual entity in Hebrew scripture.
The Bible is full of nonsense and contradictions (just google Biblican contradictions: do not annoy me with a "source?" bit). I do not accept the Bible as the Word of any God except perhaps a Discordian Deity.
But the trinity is not one of these contradictions or zany rants. As I said, ONE GOD is the central belief of Judaism. None of those early church Jews believed in any trinity. The trinity is an invention of the post-Pauline Roman Church since around 300 AD
-
Reading Scripture differnetly is obviously a major reaosn we have do many denominations. Is that a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? I am not entirely sure. Regardless, jsut because different people, including Jews, read Scripture differently does not invalidate it.
Being a construct of the early Church does not make the concept of the Trinity invalid.
Again, we enter the domain of Faith.
-
Being a construct of the early Church does not make the concept of the Trinity invalid.
Again, we enter the domain of Faith.
=====================================================================
It hardly makes it valid, either. The Messiah was supposed to be a king of the Hebrews, NOT the "son of God", not a divine being. The definition of the Messiah as believed by the Church was decided by scholars who were told to accept a specific definition or be executed.
The Church maintained for centuries that the Earth was at the center of the universe, with the Sun and all the planets revolving around it, that there were just three continents, and that madness was caused by diabolical possession.
-
That one God might have three aspects is no stranger than a single man haveing two hands, so the Trinity makes sense to me.
However that may be right or wrong, it is definately not one of the things one must beleive to be saved or to be considered a Christian.
Its importance is as an attempt to be logical , which I think Jesus specificly stated is not a requirement.
-
The Church maintained for centuries that the Earth was at the center of the universe, with the Sun and all the planets revolving around it, that there were just three continents, and that madness was caused by diabolical possession.
If by "the Church" you mean the central authority of the Roman Catholic church , then I as a Prodestant agree that this was a mistake.
-
Also, having Faith does not necessarily mean you cannot logically look into Scripture and validate it via that process as well. Logic and Faith are not necessarily opposites nor do they have to be.
-
That one God might have three aspects is no stranger than a single man haveing two hands, so the Trinity makes sense to me.
However that may be right or wrong, it is definately not one of the things one must beleive to be saved or to be considered a Christian.
Its importance is as an attempt to be logical , which I think Jesus specificly stated is not a requirement.
=================================================================
The Trinity does not say "God in three aspects": it says "God in three PERSONS".
Any fool can see that a man has two hands. Seeing that the same being is really three different entities: two of them totally invisible, one that only pops in once in 2000 years, promises to return and then doesn't, well that takes major amounts of faith, or self-delusion, depending on your point of view.
If you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, which is the least mentioned and vaguest of the three parts of the Trinity, you are in a world of hurt, says the Bible:
Truly I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter: but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they say, ‘He has an unclean spirit’. Mark 3:28-29
Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Matthew 12:30-32
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. Hebrews 6:4-9
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Hebrews 10:26-27
-
Also, having Faith does not necessarily mean you cannot logically look into Scripture and validate it via that process as well. Logic and Faith are not necessarilt opposites nor do they have to be.
Logic is revealed by reasoning such as syllogisms:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
------------------
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Biblical "scholarship" (Protestant, Catholic, it really makes little difference)
BEGINS with the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and entirely true, then tries to explain how it could be true.
The Earth is 4000 years old, but the years in the early times years were longer, the Earth appears to be older because SATAN is deceiving us, Dinosaur bones were planted by God or Satan to test our faith, The Earth is really old, and 4000 years is only a way of saying really, really old, etc.
Jesus is the Son of God and is not just 50% divine, because Mary was also divine, because God made her that way without sin.
Jesus is 100% divine because his human side was transformed. etc., etc., etc.
In other words, Biblical scholarship differs from all other logical studies, because it begins with an unproven and illogical assumption.
If you fail to believe, then somehow you are an "enemy of God".
How is that? If my cat ignores me, she is not my enemy. She just is not interested in eating or being petted at the moment.
-
Also, having Faith does not necessarily mean you cannot logically look into Scripture and validate it via that process as well. Logic and Faith are not necessarilt opposites nor do they have to be.
Logic is so valuable that I always wonder why it is not more popular, it applies to so many things and allows the rejection of so much dross that I would favor teaching it as a required subject in school.
But it does not apply to everything, Logic does not answer every question or meet every need , you can no more use logic to prove Gods existence than you can use logic to prove that you should go on living.
I have faith in God and faith that my living is a good thing. Descartes tried hard to prove these things were related and fully logical but I credit him with only partial success , and I don't consider myself more capable of logical analysis than Descartes.
-
Also, having Faith does not necessarily mean you cannot logically look into Scripture and validate it via that process as well. Logic and Faith are not necessarilt opposites nor do they have to be.
Logic is revealed by reasoning such as syllogisms:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
------------------
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Biblical "scholarship" (Protestant, Catholic, it really makes little difference)
BEGINS with the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and entirely true, then tries to explain how it could be true.
The Earth is 4000 years old, but the years in the early times years were longer, the Earth appears to be older because SATAN is deceiving us, Dinosaur bones were planted by God or Satan to test our faith, The Earth is really old, and 4000 years is only a way of saying really, really old, etc.
Jesus is the Son of God and is not just 50% divine, because Mary was also divine, because God made her that way without sin.
Jesus is 100% divine because his human side was transformed. etc., etc., etc.
In other words, Biblical scholarship differs from all other logical studies, because it begins with an unproven and illogical assumption.
If you fail to believe, then somehow you are an "enemy of God".
How is that? If my cat ignores me, she is not my enemy. She just is not interested in eating or being petted at the moment.
That all men are mortal, is an assumption supported by observation but hard to prove.
I have faith in the correctness of this observation , long experience tends to support it and little is there evidence that it is not correct.
But can it be logicly proven?
-
That all men are mortal, is an assumption supported by observation but hard to prove.
===================================
Not true:
Scientifically speaking, it is easy to prove.
Science requires a repeatable phenomenon. Every human who has died has eventually died before they reach a maximum age of 150.
Just as when you drop an object it is predictable that it will fall downward.
Just as the Sun has always set in the West.
Scientific proof is more reliable than syllogistic logic. Science does not require every single man must be dead before we can state the conclusion that men are predictably mortal to such an extremely high degree
that we can say that it might as well be an absolute. Science has no absolutes, of course.
-
That all men are mortal, is an assumption supported by observation but hard to prove.
===================================
Not true:
Scientifically speaking, it is easy to prove.
Science requires a repeatable phenomenon. Every human who has died has eventually died before they reach a maximum age of 150.
Just as when you drop an object it is predictable that it will fall downward.
Just as the Sun has always set in the West.
Scientific proof is more reliable than syllogistic logic. Science does not require every single man must be dead before we can state the conclusion that men are predictably mortal to such an extremely high degree
that we can say that it might as well be an absolute. Science has no absolutes, of course.
If there is a record or a roumor of longer lived people the theroy will have to disprove them or account for them.
I notice that we have jumped from Logic to scientific method.
Must I defend both|?>
-
If there is a record or a roumor of longer lived people the theroy will have to disprove them or account for them.
I notice that we have jumped from Logic to scientific method.
Must I defend both|?>
=====================================
You are not defending either.
To logically disprove the statement "all men are mortal", you must find an example of one immortal man.
Scientifically, it is already proven.
-
If there is a record or a roumor of longer lived people the theroy will have to disprove them or account for them.
I notice that we have jumped from Logic to scientific method.
Must I defend both|?>
=====================================
You are not defending either.
To logically disprove the statement "all men are mortal", you must find an example of one immortal man.
Scientifically, it is already proven.
So the demands of Logic are lesser or more stringent than the demands of science?
Since a fellow who is actually several centurys old would have lived through several centurys in which "whichcraft " would have got him burnt , he would only exist if he were good at hideing his diffrence.
By now he is either extremely good at remining annonymous or he is a member of the ogliarchy and can actively surpress couriosity on his longevity.
So an absense of evidence is not evidence in this case , such a fellow would necessacerily be uninterested in makeing himself a couriosity.
I think that Men being mortal is a scripturally supported idea and a safe assumption , I have just as much faith in it as you do.
-
I think that Men being mortal is a scripturally supported idea and a safe assumption , I have just as much faith in it as you do.
=================================
It seems pretty obvious, more so than scripture would suggest.
Adam was told that he would die if he ate the Forbidden Fruit, but then the Bible says he lives over 800 years. My guess is that after 500 or so, he probably discounted the threat a tad.
If someone says they are going to kill you if you do X, and then you do X, and you are still alive even a year after that, I don't think you are likely to take threats from that person seriously.
The issue here is the trinity, which is a rather illogical hodgepodge, and is unmentioned in a Bible so specific it goes into which locusts you can and can't eat.
-
I think that Men being mortal is a scripturally supported idea and a safe assumption , I have just as much faith in it as you do.
=================================
It seems pretty obvious, more so than scripture would suggest.
Adam was told that he would die if he ate the Forbidden Fruit, but then the Bible says he lives over 800 years. My guess is that after 500 or so, he probably discounted the threat a tad.
If someone says they are going to kill you if you do X, and then you do X, and you are still alive even a year after that, I don't think you are likely to take threats from that person seriously.
The issue here is the trinity, which is a rather illogical hodgepodge, and is unmentioned in a Bible so specific it goes into which locusts you can and can't eat.
How old was Adam when the forbidden fruit was eaten?
-
The Earth is 4000 years old...
Actually, just over 6000; it was supposedly created in 4004 BC, if you go back and add up all the ages and begats and stuff.
-
This is correct, e.g. 6000 years if you add them up and assume that the days in Genesis were literal days and not millenia, etc.
-
How old was Adam when the forbidden fruit was eaten?
========================
A good question, but it has no answer. The general opinion of most people is that he was recently created.
-
How old was Adam when the forbidden fruit was eaten?
========================
A good question, but it has no answer. The general opinion of most people is that he was recently created.
Was it God who said the fruit would cause death or the serpent?
-
Was it God who said the fruit would cause death or the serpent?
==========================
God was the one who said this.
The serpent wanted them to eat it. "Here eat this and die" is a poor incentive.
I think the serpent promised a less boring existence, involving knowledge and fun.
It was interesting that as soon as they bit the fruit, they decided they needed clothes. Many societies have run around naked until modern times with no sense of shame: South American Indians, Pacific Islanders, New Guineans, some African tribes.
The New Guinean penis wrapper is more of an enhancement than a garment indicating shame.
Of course, old folks tend to have seniority and being the parents of the younger tribesmen, they have the authority to make the rules. Old people tend to be less attractive on the whole, with more to flop around. Clothes serve to retain the appearance of youthful vigor more than nakedness.
Hebrews and other peoples in that area tended to wear clothes to keep warm. Even Egypt gets too cold for year-round nakedness.
-
Genesis 2
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [e] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [f] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31)
That is definately too far north to be nude all year nowadays.
-
While we are on the subject of Adam & Eve:
http://www.youdamnkid.com/d/20010315.html (http://www.youdamnkid.com/d/20010315.html)
This is a great cartoon series. Either this guy has a terrific memory or a lot of imagination: al this steff could never have happened to one little boy.
There are two possibilities: Adam & Eve could have lived naked in Eden, because (1) God did a special 'global warming' event just for them, or (b) they were created in the summer and never reached the point where they would need more clothes to keep warm.
A third possibility, of course, is more likely: that there was never and Adam, and Eve or an Eden. Someone just wrote this to get people to obey even logical suggestions, like eating fruit, because obedience is really important to keeping the members of a church in line. If they did something the priest didnt want them to do, he would say "God doesn't want you to do this", and then add "remember what happened to Adam & Eve".
-
To those of us who have children in our lives, whether they are our own, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or students... here is something to make you chuckle.
Whenever your children are out of control, you can take comfort from the thought that even God's omnipotence did not extend to His own children.
After creating heaven and earth, God created Adam and Eve.
And the first thing he said was ' DON'T?!'
'Don 't what???' Adam replied.
'Don't eat the forbidden fruit.' God said.
'Forbidden fruit? We have forbidden fruit? Hey Eve..we have forbidden fruit!'
'No Way!'
'Yes way!'
'Do NOT eat the fruit!' said God.
'Why???'
'Because I am your Father and I said so!' God replied, wondering why He hadn't stopped creation after making the elephants
A few minutes later, God saw His children having an apple break and He was ticked!
'Didn't I tell you not to eat the fruit???' God asked.
'Uh huh,' Adam replied.
'Then why did you?' said the Father.
'I don't know,' said Eve.
'She started it!' Adam said.
'Did not!'
'Did too!'
'DID NOT!'
Having had it with the two of them, God's punishment was that Adam and Eve should have children of their own.
Thus the pattern was set and it has never changed.
If you have persistently and lovingly tried to give children wisdom and they haven't taken it, don't be hard on yourself.
-
Or the fourth possibility - the story harks back to oral traditions that go to the times when the earth was much warmer than it is today.
Remember, we've been in a "mini ice age" for a few hundred years. Around 6000BC Norway had three growing seasons.
-
Priceless Miss Henny. No wonder my wife & I only have dogs vs children 8)
-
Priceless Miss Henny. No wonder my wife & I only have dogs vs children 8)
(As I watch my son hop around the room on one foot and alternating with spinning to make himself dizzy, hyper to the point where a stranger would think he's on speed...)
YOU'RE TELLING ME! ;D
-
I love that story, Henny, thanks!