Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Can God love? (Part 1)

Page 3 of 25 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 14 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:40 pm

First topic message reminder :

Can God love?

We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.

Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.

Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.

Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.

It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.

You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity.  You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.

Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you.  See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.

Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.

We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.

Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?

Have you seen God express his love for us lately?

Regards
DL

These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.

[youtube]



avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down


Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri May 04, 2012 6:39 pm

no one can deny that they have basic different roles to play in society and life in general.
Of course I can deny it. Watch me:
They are the bearers of children which involves the care and the welfare of their offspring.
Which was precisely my earlier point of contention. People like you want to reduce women to baby-making machines. That's our role ... make babies and then care for them. That's essentially it. Well, Polyglide, I don't WANT to have babies. I don't want to spend my life changing diapers and reading bedtime stories. I don't wish to be under a de facto "house arrest" because I always have to be home taking care of kids. Oh, and child-bearing age is pretty specific. What happens when I'm too old to keep the babies coming and all of the kids are grown? I guess I should just put a gun to my head at that point because I would no longer have a purpose.

That's the beauty of a free society ... one free from religious fascism. I don't have to buy into your notion of what a woman's "role" in society is. I'm from a country that practiced a caste system for many centuries. There was no freedom to follow your dreams. You were born into a specific role, and there you stayed. It didn't matter what your potential was, where your talents lie, what you had an aptitude for. You could be Albert Einstein, but if you were born into the "untouchable" caste, you would spend your life cleaning sewers and hauling away corpses. What you advocate is a Western style caste system, and that is something I patently reject.
So there has to be a difference between the two
No there doesn't. There are plenty of families where the father stays home and the wife does the providing. In some cases, the roles switch between the two as circumstances change. I know a couple where the mother is a very successful executive and company VP. She makes a pretty large salary. The father makes a small fraction of what the wife makes because she had talents and skills that the husband didn't have. I suppose she should quit her job to raise children while they live in poverty on the father's meager income? But ... in case you haven't noticed, MOST families today cannot survive financially without two incomes. Therefore, your "idyllic" world of women staying home nursing skinned knees and practicing her needlepoint during her free time are no longer relevant - or possible - in the modern world.

Raising children and providing for the family is the job of both parents. Pigeon-holing people into "roles" is outmoded.
and this would work providing everyone adhered to their roles.
No, it didn't work. Not one bit. Women, for centuries, had no means of support and were left vulnerable. Women had to subject themselves to all sorts of abuse because divorce meant losing your source of sustenance, and that goes double if the woman's parents were deceased. Women were always at the mercy of their husbands; even kind-hearted husbands still held all the cards and women had to beg for even the smallest concessions. In essence, women were no better off than the children they were caring for and actually had fewer rights. Women who didn't marry were frowned upon, women who didn't have children even more so. Even the Queen of England, Elizabeth I, couldn't escape that ridiculous role.

There was a great but obscure movie called Bad Girls; it was an American Western about an outlaw girl-gang. But they weren't really "bad" girls. They were forced into criminal behavior because it was the only way to survive due to the oppressive laws and "societal roles" forced upon them by a patriarchal society. In one scene, a woman is trying to collect the money her husband had put away before his death, but because the husband wasn't alive to claim it, only another male relative could claim it. This prompted one of the best lines in the movie. She stood up, overturned the banker's desk, and said, "If your laws don't include me, then they don't apply to me." Thus she became a notorious outlaw.
Neither, in my opinion, being better than the other or neither deserving better treatment etc
Women adhered to that role for thousands of years and it was always unequal. The moment you make yourself dependent on someone else is the moment you put yourself at their mercy. That, in itself, is unequal. When you can't buy so much as a pack of chewing gum without both the husband's approval and him physically giving you the cash, you will never be equal ... or be regarded as equal. Thus you will never be treated as equal. There is 6,000 years of historical precedent to prove that simple assertion stretching all the way into the 20th Century. This is something I have learned from history so I'll be damned if I'm going to repeat it.
The main problems arose when many women decided they would rather change their role in life and branch out for themselves
The main problem for .... who, exactly? Men and their patriarchal society?

But let's put the blame where it belongs, shall we? I'm not conceding that there IS, in fact, a problem with women "branching out for themselves" (how dare we!!), but let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a problem. Where is the root of it?

Well, first it started with WWII. Because some *men* decided to rule the world and other *men* had to stop them, thus prompting most of the *men* to go off and fight a world war, women had to build the weapons of war to keep it all going. That gave women a taste of freedom - the ability to earn an honest wage and be able to spend the money as she saw fit. No longer did she have to ask permission or rely on an allowance as if she were a 9 year-old child. At that point, Pandora's Box was opened, and it will never be closed again. So, men, blame yourselves.

Yet it doesn't end there. Because *men* in the upper echelons of business management kept wanting more and more wealth (which is still happening today), more and more families kept feeling the financial pinch. Eventually, the husband's income wasn't enough. As executive wages skyrocketed (in 2010, executive pay rose 22.8% followed by an additional raise of 13.9% in 2011) and worker pay stagnated (workers pay increased by a paltry 2.8% in 2011, not even enough to keep up with inflation), women HAD to enter the workforce just to keep food on the table. Well, whose fault was that? Women's? Or the fat cat executives - almost all of whom are male? For many women, leaving the home and going to work was a necessity not some frivolous choice.

So let's not talk about "women branching out for themselves" ... as if doing so is some heinous evil. Let's talk about how men made that circumstance an inevitability.

(And that's how you properly refute an argument).

Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri May 04, 2012 6:55 pm

Poliglide

Do you agree with one of Christianity' founders?

“If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing - she is there to do it.”
- Martin Luther

Also.
Do you believe that men should rule over women?

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Fri May 04, 2012 8:07 pm

They have to say things like that, to dispel their inferiority complex at not being able to bear children.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12030
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by sickchip on Fri May 04, 2012 8:11 pm

Can God love?

- maybe he only likes a small number of people and that's why he allows 1% of the population to have 95% of the money.
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Fri May 04, 2012 8:27 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Do you agree with one of Christianity' founders?

“If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing - she is there to do it.”
- Martin Luther

Martin Luther is not “one of Christianity’s founders.” Martin Luther was a man, part of ha adama, created by YHVH Elohim, as are we all.

Greatest I am wrote:
Do you believe that men should rule over women?

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Keep going, my brother.


To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Then to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’, cursed is the ground because of you. In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Genesis 3:16-19

Also…


Rule, Hebrew mâshal, to rule, govern, reign, have dominion, have power.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Fri May 04, 2012 8:29 pm

Power Games are not a 20th. Century construct.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12030
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri May 04, 2012 9:03 pm

oftenwrong wrote:They have to say things like that, to dispel their inferiority complex at not being able to bear children.

Womb envy
Quite possibly.

Regards
DL

avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri May 04, 2012 9:09 pm

sickchip wrote:Can God love?

- maybe he only likes a small number of people and that's why he allows 1% of the population to have 95% of the money.

I do not think our socio economic pyramid is quite that top heavy or is quite that bad but I could not find one to disprove you.

That fact may be part of the Illuminati's suppression of information. By Illuminati here I mean just those at the top of our demography.

I do know for a fact that Canada's is not like that.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri May 04, 2012 9:13 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Power Games are not a 20th. Century construct.

I think we have always been oligarchies but just wanted to believe the democracy B S for dumb pride.

Hard to criticise religious delusion when we are all in our own where politics is at issue.

If we had a demographer in the house, he could prove it.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri May 04, 2012 9:19 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Do you agree with one of Christianity' founders?

“If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing - she is there to do it.”
- Martin Luther

Martin Luther is not “one of Christianity’s founders.” Martin Luther was a man, part of ha adama, created by YHVH Elohim, as are we all.

Greatest I am wrote:
Do you believe that men should rule over women?

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Keep going, my brother.


To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Then to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’, cursed is the ground because of you. In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Genesis 3:16-19

Also…


Rule, Hebrew mâshal, to rule, govern, reign, have dominion, have power.

I was just after showing the women are to be our slaves part but thanks for filling in the rest.

Strange that everybody gets punished for A & E refusing to stay as dumb as cows. That is from a Christian fall POV.

Some Jewish sects call Eden man's elevation and do not have that original sin. I prefer their take.

Say, you would not know how prevalent that view is would you?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri May 04, 2012 9:31 pm

Strange how the story of Eve sounds suspiciously like the Greek story of Pandora.

There were other people already on the planet when Adam and Eve strolled into town. We know this directly from the Bible as Genesis 4:17 states "Cain made love to his wife ..." Wait a minute, WHAT wife? Where in blazes did SHE come from? Cain and Abel were the first offspring of Adam and Eve, and if Adam and Eve were the first humans, and Eve bore no daughters, where did the wife come from? So we know there were others. This means that the story does NOT represent the first humans but the first Hebrews.

Again, this is a tribal story of how they came to be. Many tribes all over the planet have similar stories that pertain only to THEM. Some tribes were created from trees and wood, others rose up out of the ground from mud, some were created by gods, some were not. The stories are wildly diverse, and the story of the first Hebrews is no more special than any of the others. The Old Testament portion of Christianity was meant for the Hebrews - later the Jews - and ONLY for them. It was their story after all, not anyone else's, and like every other tribe that worships a god, the Hebrews were "chosen" by their God. Not anyone else, just the Hebrews.

Then comes the New Testament. What was that all about? Well, the New Testament was like building a bunch of new rooms onto a preexisting house. The more modern Christians simply took the Hebrew story and tacked on the New Testament to make the religion more suitable for the Christ followers. Essentially Christians did to the Jewish faith what the Muslims did to the Christian faith ... and what the Mormons ended up doing to all three. People just keep adding "stuff" to the original Hebrew story so that it could both apply to them and to make it more appealing to their particular cultures.

There's nothing special about any of it, and it's popularity in the modern world is notwithstanding. The Iliad and the Odyssey ... as well as the philosophies of Plato are also popular and timeless yet we do not necessarily believe every word is "truth." The Mahabharata from India is probably the most ancient holy text there is yet who here in the West believes any of it? Why not? It has survived as a religion much longer than Christianity has. So that argument is easily debunked.

What's more is that a lot of whats in Genesis sounds suspiciously like old wives tales, explanations for things we tell children too young to understand the real answer. It's in the same league as the old "angels bowling in heaven causes thunder" story I heard as a child. Some of these include:

0). An explanation for why childbirth is painful
1). An explanation for why farming is such an arduous, backbreaking chore.
2). An explanation for why snakes have no legs.
3). An explanation for why humans have an irrational fear of snakes, and why snakes attack humans
4). An explanation for why we feel embarrassed of our nakedness.
5). An explanation for why women are weaker willed and deceitful.
6). A justification for why women should be second class citizens.
7). An explanation for why we age.
9). An explanation for why there is evil in the world.

And I could go on, but I'll stop at 9 since 10 will destroy my perfectly aligned list. I also started from zero so I could skip number 8 since using an 8 with parentheses results in the sunglasses emoticon! Cool

These are just stories ... just like hundreds of others from various cultures all across the world. They even sound like other stories with the same familiar ring to them. You can almost imagine a grandmother telling them to her small grandchildren around a fire just before they go to bed for the night. They have no more truthful substance to them than a campfire ghost story. I find it inexplicable that billions will take the Adam and Eve story to heart while dismissing the Greek story of Pandora as merely a "myth" ... even though there is no logical reason to accept either of them as historical fact. Even if a god did create us, there is no evidence ... none ... that any particular or specific god is responsible.

Ever watch any of the ghost shows so prevalent on television these days? I find the subject fascinating, not that I believe in all of those stories. A lot of the time they'll have some Catholic priest come in and bless the house after which everything is all hunky-dory. Some of the victims of the ghost will make claims like, "I just saw the power of God at work!" No, they saw the power of belief at work. How do we know? Because I've seen a Native American medicine man come into a haunted house and perform some pagan shamanistic ritual ... no prayers to God or Jesus ... and the house was cleared of evil spirits just as easily.

So I continue to issue my challenge: Even if a god did create the universe, how do we know it was YOUR god who did it?




Last edited by Shirina on Fri May 04, 2012 10:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri May 04, 2012 9:43 pm

Shirina wrote:Strange how the story of Eve sounds suspiciously like the Greek story of Pandora.

Older. It all came out of Egypt and Sumer from what I can gather.

Poor Gilgamesh and the ENUMA ELISH has been forgotten.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84m5k_2007doc-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri May 04, 2012 10:17 pm

Older. It all came out of Egypt and Sumer from what I can gather.
LOL! Yes, indeed. You managed to sneak in your post while I was editing mine about Pandora. For shame! Very Happy

But yes, I agree wholeheartedly.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri May 04, 2012 10:39 pm

Shirina wrote:
Older. It all came out of Egypt and Sumer from what I can gather.
LOL! Yes, indeed. You managed to sneak in your post while I was editing mine about Pandora. For shame! Very Happy

But yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

Great minds think alike.

I will catch up to you some day.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sat May 05, 2012 12:00 am

Greatest I am wrote:
I was just after showing the women are to be our slaves part but thanks for filling in the rest.

Two more points:

  1. It was the man, not the woman, that caused the fall of man (ha adama, gender inclusive. Check out the text:

    When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

    Genesis 3:6-7
    She eats; nothing changes. She offers it to him; nothing changes. He eats; all hell breaks loose.

    Why? Check this out:

    Then to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’, cursed is the ground because of you. In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

    Genesis 3:17
    Adam was not to sch’ma his wife’s voice. My interpretation follows. Note that this is not exposition; thus, even though it’s based upon careful, thoughtful, analysis, it’s only the word, the opinion, of a man created, as are we all, and thus has absolutely no authoritative weight.

    Adam was to listen to her concerns, her wants, her needs; he was not to act on his own desires to please her so that she would be more, shall we say, amorous towards him. I suspect that, to him, she looked good, sounded good, smelled good… my, my, my! So of course he would eat of the fruit when she offered it to him!

    When I was 4-6 years old, we lived across the street from a Filipino family, father, mother, daughter (“Rosa”) a few months younger than me, son (“Manuel”) about one and a half years younger than me. As often as I could, I asked permission to go across the street to play with Manuel.

    Yeah, right! Rosa was always my intended playmate. She was cute as all get out, nice smile, long hair… my, my, my! She liked to play “house”, which I hated. We played “house” every time she asked me to play “house.” She “cooked” mud pies for me, and always offered me the whole pie. I ate every pie she “cooked” and offered.

    Back to Genesis 3, I believe Adam’s example is meant to teach a man to actively love his wife/woman by doing what’s right, which is simply doing what will most benefit her. That includes sacrificing his life for her if necessary.

  2. Man (gender specific) was never created to enslave woman, and woman was never created to be a slave to man.

    Ha adama in the image of God (YHVH Elohim) is male and female. Without female, male is incomplete. Without male, female is incomplete. With male and female, both are complete, ha adama is complete.

    Check this out.

    Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

    Genesis 2:7

    Then God said, “Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Genesis 1:26-27

    Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

    So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept. Then he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which he had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

    The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, because she was taken out of man.”

    For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

    Genesis 2:18, 21-25
    Male and female are the same “stuff”, dirt into which the breath, spirit, of YHVH Elohim has been “breathed.” “Be fruitful and multiply cannot happen without both female and male.


Greatest I am wrote:
Strange that everybody gets punished for A & E refusing to stay as dumb as cows.

Ha adama is fallen because ha adama, specifically man gender specific, chose to not sch’ma YHVH Elohim. It has nothing to do with “dumb.”

Greatest I am wrote:
Some Jewish sects call Eden man's elevation and do not have that original sin.

Say, you would not know how prevalent that view is would you?

Excellent point and question. A Reform Jew, a bit of a scholar, will almost certainly call (“ring me up”) sometime this evening. I’ll ask, and I’ll ask that the question be passed on to a certain Reform congregation’s rabbi and members, one of whom, the “rabbi emeritus” shall we say, is one of the finest biblical Hebrew language and Hebrew Bible scholars I know and/or know about.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sat May 05, 2012 3:13 am

I am done for this evening but if you still have your ears on----

Genesis 1:26-28
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

I was told by more than one Jewish friend that Adam should be spelled adam and that adam represents society or community and that is why it looks like God is calling both Adam and Eve adam.

A & E are supposed to be seen as our archetypal children or ourselves within a myth of a rite of passage from child to adult and leaving the garden represents leaving home.

I will have to digest your post above tomorrow.

Regards
DL


Last edited by Greatest I am on Sat May 05, 2012 12:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by trevorw2539 on Sat May 05, 2012 11:16 am

Shirina quote

Re: Can God love?

by Shirina Yesterday at 9:31 pm





There were other people already on the planet when Adam and Eve strolled into town. We know this directly from the Bible as Genesis 4:17 states "Cain made love to his wife ..." Wait a minute, WHAT wife? Where in blazes did SHE come from? Cain and Abel were the first offspring of Adam and Eve, and if Adam and Eve were the first humans, and Eve bore no daughters, where did the wife come from? So we know there were others. This means that the story does NOT represent the first humans but the first Hebrews.

Again, this is a tribal story of how they came to be. Many tribes all over the planet have similar stories that pertain only to THEM. Some tribes were created from trees and wood, others rose up out of the ground from mud, some were created by gods, some were not. The stories are wildly diverse, and the story of the first Hebrews is no more special than any of the others. The Old Testament portion of Christianity was meant for the Hebrews - later the Jews - and ONLY for them. It was their story after all, not anyone else's, and like every other tribe that worships a god, the Hebrews were "chosen" by their God. Not anyone else, just the Hebrews.

Wheeeeeee. I am just getting off the floor. I have been saying that for years. Can't remember anyone actually agreeing with me, even on the old MSN threads. Thank you Shirina. You've made my day.Wink
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Sat May 05, 2012 11:19 am

THEN BECOME A LESBIAN.

I wonder on just what planet some people are on.

Just watch me.

Can a man have a baby?

Can a woman make a man pregnant?

Just because someone does not want to be a mother changes nothing, only that the person concerned has no maternal instincts, in all probability for selfish reasons, they would rather other people bring childred into the world and just enjoy themselves at the expense of others.

I just wish people could stop using quotes etc; and have a few original sensible ideas.

Anyone can look on the internet and come up with thousands of out of date ideas what is needed is a bit of original thought.



avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Ivan on Sat May 05, 2012 12:00 pm

polyglide. I’ve yet to read anything original in your dreary postings, and your attempts to defeat Shirina in an argument are, quite frankly, embarrassing. You’re way out of your depth! And there’s nothing wrong with using quotations and sources from the internet to support (but not replace) an argument.

Michael Nazir-Ali, who was Bishop of Rochester from 1994 to 2009, described people who didn’t have children as “selfish”, rather like you’ve just suggested. I couldn’t agree less. I think they’re being responsible, and if they don’t want children they don’t deserve insults from crusty old clergymen or homophobic bigots who post on forums. The population of the world has increased from 6 to 7 billion in just twelve years, and there are millions of people starving and children needing homes. You might have a better case if you argued that people who do create children are selfish, when there are more than enough people in the world already. Is that original enough for you?


avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7281
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sat May 05, 2012 1:43 pm

R O B

Interesting take of Genesis. 2 and 3. I do not quite agree with it.

You say that Eve ate of the tree of knowledge and nothing happened till Adam ate. Yet logically, this cannot be accurate. If the Jewish theme of elevation is followed, Eve would indeed have changed before Adam and biologically speaking, we know that women mature faster than men. FMPOV, Eve ate, gained her moral sense, saw that human morality was better for man than God's morality and command not to eat and she decided to indoctrinate Adam to the better morals and wisdom that she now had. It was a moral decision to ignore God.

Hurray for Eve.

You call what happened a fall. Was it or was it an elevation?

Gnostics call wisdom Sophia. Perhaps because they also knew that women reached wisdom before men. Generally speaking of course.

As to your view on Adam.

Gen 3 16; Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

Not quite the equality hinted at in Gen 1.

You have yet to give how you are reading. As literal, a myth or how.
Don't leave me hanging as then, I will not know how to reply.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Sat May 05, 2012 3:25 pm

THEN BECOME A LESBIAN.
Utterly absurd. Even if I wanted to "become" a lesbian, it is not something I can choose to be. One may as well say, "Then become a cat!" Ridiculous.
Can a man have a baby?
Who cares? Just because a woman *can* have children doesn't mean she *has* to have children. What fascistic, rigid, unwavering rule book are you operating from?
Just because someone does not want to be a mother changes nothing
Teehee! You're sounding like a Nazi. They believed that it was the woman's patriotic duty to have children so they could grow up to fight for the Fatherland. In fact, so heavily did they promote this that they even believed that married women whose husbands were off to the front should continue having sex with other men just to keep the babies coming.
only that the person concerned has no maternal instincts, in all probability for selfish reasons
Do you see a shortage of human beings around here? Now I'm going to ask you what planet YOU are on. Because on MY planet, we have 7 billion humans. Perhaps you live on some other planet facing a post-apocalyptic future where humans are on the verge of extinction? If so, you have my sympathies, but here on earth, overpopulation is actually becoming a problem. Perhaps, if your planet has a shortage of humans, earth can send you all of our British Tories, American conservatives, religious fascists, bigots, and misogynists. It sounds like they would adapt to your planet in no time flat.

Now I would ask that you look at the news. It is filled with instances of parents killing their children, children dying of neglect, and let's not forget all of the instances of child abuse and neglect that never make the papers. THEY are the selfish ones. Some women understand they would never make a good mother; they have no business having children. If a woman does not WANT to have children, then she shouldn't have them. Period. End of story. The reasons are irrelevant. Women who do not want children will never make good mothers. Are you really blind to this immutable fact or are you simply being obtuse?
they would rather other people bring childred into the world and just enjoy themselves at the expense of others.
Wait a minute ... at the expense of others? Are you suggesting that some poor woman out there is having kids only because some other woman out there is *not* having kids? Is there some tally sheet that women consult to see if the baby quota is being met? I can just hear it now. (Woman consulting the baby quota tally sheet): "Oh bloody hell, I see that Margaret down the street isn't having children. Now, because of her, the arduous task of giving birth to yet another child falls to me ... again. How many is that, so far, Henry? Ten? Eleven? I've lost count. I'm so *sick* of these women not having children since I have to give birth to the children they're deciding not to have. Selfish gits, I say. After all, I don't want kids, either, but at least I'm fulfilling the one and only purpose I have in life!"

Do you have any conception of just how stupid this argument is? Any conception at all? Even an inkling? An iota? The tiniest fraction? If I choose not to have children, the child I decide not to have doesn't magically appear in some other random woman's womb. Fortunately, the vast majority of women who have children actually *want* them. It isn't some "expense" that they abhor, some chore they're stuck with because I'm shirking my Nazi-inspired "duty." What I decide to do in regards to children has absolutely NO effect on anyone else, and since our species is not even close to becoming extinct, I have no moral, legal, religious, or civic responsibility to have children. Perhaps the truly selfish ones are the men who expect women to involuntarily give up their hopes and dreams to become baby factories.
what is needed is a bit of original thought.
I find this comment hysterical in light of the fact that you're the one preaching *traditional* roles for women. Oh, how original THAT is!

Seriously, Polyglide, I can appreciate it if that's how *you* want to live your life. The decisions you make for yourself and your family is your business. However, trying to impose your own personal set of values on everyone else is just plain wrong - especially when it can be so easily proven that your values do not work for everyone. In many ... many ... cases, your values would actually cause harm to others, especially the children you think all women should have.

It was bad enough when you pushed AT off the board with your homophobia. Are you now itching to push me off the board, as well, with your misogyny? Who would be next on your hit list? Atheists? LOL! Well, you have your work cut out for you since I'm not going anywhere.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Sat May 05, 2012 3:38 pm

Michael Nazir-Ali, who was Bishop of Rochester from 1994 to 2009, described people who didn’t have children as “selfish”, rather like you’ve just suggested.
You know, Ivan, there was a documentary on television a few years ago that discussed various ways humanity could be wiped out. All throughout the two-hour long show, they interviewed random people on the street asking them: "If the world was going to end next year and there was no possibility of escaping this fate, how would you spend your time?"

It's a pretty standard question, and I expected all of the standard responses. But I realized the responses were far from standard. Do you know what a good number of young women said they would do? Okay, I hope you're sitting down for this because the answer is utterly staggering. Okay, ready? Here it comes ...

Have children!

That's right, no kidding, no joke. And it wasn't just one or two who said this. In fact, so many young women said this that the show made a rapid-fire montage of dozens of women saying, "Have kids!" "Have children!" "Start a family!"

Talk about selfish! These women would actually bring new lives onto a doomed planet just so they could satisfy their own personal, selfish desire to have kids before they die. They would give birth to babies *knowing* they would have to suffer the pain of death before their 1st birthday. What kind of sick and twisted person would do such a thing? It would seem that those who desire to have children are at *least* as selfish as those who desire not to.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Sat May 05, 2012 3:41 pm

Thank you Shirina. You've made my day.
Heehee, you're quite welcome. Our conclusion seems perfectly obvious doesn't it? Strange how so few seem to see it.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sat May 05, 2012 5:08 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Genesis 1:26-28
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

I was told by more than one Jewish friend that Adam should be spelled adam and that adam represents society or community and that is why it looks like God is calling both Adam and Eve adam.

A & E are supposed to be seen as our archetypal children or ourselves within a myth of a rite of passage from child to adult and leaving the garden represents leaving home.

Your Jewish friends are excellent sources of information about the Hebrew Bible. I’ve been told the same thing.

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ve noticed the term ha adama. Adam, uppercase intentional, is derived from adam or adama, man, gender “race”/ethnicity inclusive. Check it out:


Then God said, “Let us make man1 in our image, after our likeness…” So God created man2 in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male3 and female4 created he them.

Genesis 1:26-27


  1. אָדָם ‎ ‘âdâm, ruddy, that is, a human being, an individual or the species, mankind.
  2. אָדָם ‎ ‘âdâm, ruddy, that is, a human being, an individual or the species, mankind.
  3. זָכָר ‎ zâkâr, a male, of man or animals.
  4. נְקֵבָה ‎ neqêbâh, female, from the sexual form.

Hebrew again, my brother. ha adama is the form of adam found in Genesis 1:26-27.

Deeper understanding of the Hebrew Bible is often possible by actually studying the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew rather than studying English translations only. That’s why I gave myself permission to learn as much biblical Hebrew as I can. Thankfully, such scholars as Dr. Spiros Zodhiates have done much to make biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek accessible to folks like you and me.

About being multi-lingual: Before tackling biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek, I already had learned four languages, English, Spanglish, Texish, and Brother-On-The-Blockish.


Last edited by RockOnBrother on Sat May 05, 2012 7:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sat May 05, 2012 6:54 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Interesting take of Genesis. 2 and 3. I do not quite agree with it.

You say that Eve ate of the tree of knowledge and nothing happened till Adam ate. Yet logically, this cannot be accurate.

Depends upon which “logically” you’re talking about. Chronologically (chronos + logos; i.e., “chrono-logically”), referencing a logical progression of chronos, time, (1) the woman (not yet called “Eve”0 ate of the fruit, (2) she offered the fruit to the man, (3) the man ate of the fruit, and then (4) the eyes of both were opened.

That’s the chronology, the logical time progression, of the events described in Genesis 3. As Junior used to say, “I’ve got it, I’ve got it, and I’ve GOT to report it.” Don’t kill the messenger.

Greatest I am wrote:
You call what happened a fall.

Nope. God’s Word calls it a fall. Once again, don’t kill the messenger.

Greatest I am wrote:
Was it or was it an elevation?

Once you choose to grant yourself permission to learn sufficient biblical Hebrew to exposit/analyze the text, Genesis 1:1 will reveal to you that Elohim is the power behind everything, period. Bing Bang, insofar as the data behind the theory is concerned, bears this out.

Accordingly, God choice to make/create man in his own image is in fact a choice to deem man something. The Hebrew word asah, used in Genesis 1:26, makes it crystal clear that God chooses to make man special.

As the prefix “re” means “do it again.” the word “redeem” means “deem again.” One can’t be “redeemed” unless one was “deemed” in the first place.

I’ve an exceptionally logical mind, honed by growing up under the tutelage of a Jewish mother and a Jewish grandmother, neither of whom was a Jew. Part of my problem in seeking God is an almost inbred desire to encapsulate YHVH Elohim within the confines of my logicality (“logicity” ought to be a word). But a deeper understanding of Genesis 1:1 brings me to the inescapable realization that I can never entrap God within the constricted confines of my logic. Ain’t nothing logical about creating everything from nothing; accordingly, power to do so cannot be defined logically.

Exposition/analysis of asah awaits you.

Greatest I am wrote:
As to your view on Adam.

Gen 3 16; Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

Not quite the equality hinted at in Gen 1.

Notice that the speaker, YHVH Elohim, says this to fallen woman. Once redeemed, “re-deemed”, “deemed again”, both female and male (ha adama, adam, man, male and female) are in the image of God.

Is this logical? Is creating everything from nothing logical?

Going deeper: Women are not equal to men…

Let that sink in as you answer these questions within your mind. Can women donate sperm to men, in other words, can women impregnate men? Can men accept sperm from women and incubate and bear babies? Do men have two X chromosomes? Do women have a Y chromosome?

The inherent logical fallacy that most often follows the realization that women are not equal to men, i.e., that women and men are unequal, is the ridiculous conclusion that men are superior to women. Hogwash! Nothing in Genesis even suggests that.

What men and women are is interdependent, parts of a whole, each incomplete without the other. Women are superior to men in incubating and bearing children. Men are superior to women in siring children. Both are required for survival of the species. Look around you; every human you see was sired by a man and incubated by/born of a woman.

In non-biological ways, the inherent superiority of each gender in certain areas is also apparent. Women are far better as a whole in colors identification and coordination, for example. To me, there are ten colors; red, yellow, blue, orange, green, purple, black, white, brown, and pink. Ask a woman, and you’ll hear coral, chartreuse, and all sorts of things I know nothing about and can’t spell.

Greatest I am wrote:
You have yet to give how you are reading. As literal, a myth or how.
Don't leave me hanging as then, I will not know how to reply.

I “blank slate.” I read for meaning. As for myth, many once believed Hittites were myth.


Last edited by RockOnBrother on Sat May 05, 2012 7:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Sat May 05, 2012 6:59 pm

[quote="Shirina"]


Have children!

That's right, no kidding, no joke. And it wasn't just one or two who said this. In fact, so many young women said this that the show made a rapid-fire montage of dozens of women saying, "Have kids!" "Have children!" "Start a family!"

Talk about selfish! These women would actually bring new lives onto a doomed planet just so they could satisfy their own personal, selfish desire to have kids before they die.

With respect, that's a complete misunderstanding of what might be termed "Nature's Imperative." In times of famine, in times of War, and whenever the Human Race's survival is threatened, Mother Nature steps in to manufacture replacements. For all our veneer of culture, the principal function of a human is to ensure continuance of the Species.

Some people think that's our only function.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12030
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sat May 05, 2012 7:44 pm

R O B

"Notice that the speaker, YHVH Elohim, says this to fallen woman. "

God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods.

Why is becoming as God an evil thing?

Gen 3 16; Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

Can a woman rule over a man?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sun May 06, 2012 1:08 am

Greatest I am wrote:
God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods.

Let’s together examine the text of Genesis 3 (entire chapter) and see if we can find “God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods” or its equivalent.


Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?’”

The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat, but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”

He said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”

And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”

Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field. On your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Then to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’, cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.”

Therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So he drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden he stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 3

I can’t find “God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods” or its equivalent.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Sun May 06, 2012 4:29 am

With respect, that's a complete misunderstanding of what might be termed "Nature's Imperative."
I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but I think it has a lot to do with selfishness ... it's about doing something you want to do before you die. So great is the fulfillment of self that they are willing to subject children to an impending doom. The question, after all, did include a clause that there was no possibility of escaping our fate. Perhaps if they were actually facing such a catastrophe and had time to think about the ramifications of what they were doing, they would change their minds.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sun May 06, 2012 6:25 am

Shirina wrote:
… I think it has a lot to do with selfishness…

Of course it does.

One of the first words an English-hearing baby learns to say is “mine.” A baby comes into the wide world selfish. Think about just how much sympathy a baby has for a dead=tired parent while screaming in the night for no apparent reason.

In the USA, the 1960s saw a “surgence’ of somethings noble, plural intentional. Folks who came of age during this time were faced with historic and new injustices that almost required them to put self on hold and act for the good of mankind.

Fifty-eight thousand two hundred seventy-two Americans ceased to exist in Vietnam in a war the purpose of which I still can’t fathom. Amendments 14 and 15 were ratified 9 July 1868 and 3 February 1870 respectively, yet Evers, Goodman, Chaney, Schwerner, Luizzo, and many others were executed for asserting the rights guaranteed by those amendments more than ninety years later.

Then came the 1970s and 1980s. By 1990, an entire generation of Americans had been born and grown up in an increasingly me-oriented society. The children of the me-generation are now coming into adulthood.

Along the way, the purpose of parenthood has been obscured and the role of parents has been adulterated. No longer is the welfare of the child the overarching focus. That’s wrong, and in my opinion, that’s immoral. The phrase “parents’ rights” needs to fade into obscurity through disuse, replaced by the phrase “parents’ responsibilities”, accompanied by diligent attention to same by parents. Given the current climate, however, I doubt that this will occur in this century.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by sickchip on Sun May 06, 2012 11:33 am

Can God love?

Can a vague, and undefined, concept experience a vague, and undefined, concept?

Possibly or possibly not.



Is this the most meaningless thread on these boards? Possibly! Possibly not!
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Sun May 06, 2012 11:37 am

"No longer is the welfare of the child the overarching focus."

That may be a trend in "Western" society, but continuous TV coverage of famine in Africa shows women trekking miles across desert in search of food for their families.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12030
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by sickchip on Sun May 06, 2012 11:44 am

oftenwrong wrote:"No longer is the welfare of the child the overarching focus."

That may be a trend in "Western" society, but continuous TV coverage of famine in Africa shows women trekking miles across desert in search of food for their families.

Those women in Africa on occasion abandon their diseased, or starving children by the roadside. Is the western trend for neglecting parental duty spreading?
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Sun May 06, 2012 11:55 am

sickchip wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:"No longer is the welfare of the child the overarching focus."

That may be a trend in "Western" society, but continuous TV coverage of famine in Africa shows women trekking miles across desert in search of food for their families.

Those women in Africa on occasion abandon their diseased, or starving children by the roadside. Is the western trend for neglecting parental duty spreading?

Why don't they take them to a MacDonalds ferchrissake?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12030
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by trevorw2539 on Sun May 06, 2012 12:36 pm

Those women in Africa on occasion abandon their diseased, or starving children by the roadside. Is the western trend for neglecting parental duty spreading?



sickchip



Posts: 252
Join date: 2011-10-11




This has been going on for centuries in times of crisis in Africa, and other places of poverty and drastic climate changes. Age old survival of the fittest unfortunately.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sun May 06, 2012 1:25 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods.


I can’t find “God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods” or its equivalent.
[/quote]

"Then the eyes of both of them were opened"

"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;"

Whatever you say.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Sun May 06, 2012 5:36 pm

Yea verily.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12030
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sun May 06, 2012 8:05 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods.
RockOnBrother wrote:
I can’t find “God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods” or its equivalent.
Greatest I am wrote:
"Then the eyes of both of them were opened"

That’s not what you said in your previous post. You said “God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods”, which I cannot find in Genesis 3.

Greatest I am wrote:
"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;"

That’s not what you said in your previous post. You said “God says their eyes were opened and that they became as Gods”, which I cannot find in Genesis 3.

Greatest I am wrote:
Whatever you say.

It’s whatever YHVH Elohim (the Lord God) says:


Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil…

Genesis 3:22

It’s important to state the words of YHVH Elohim when one is stating that YHVH Elohim said something.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by sickchip on Mon May 07, 2012 1:40 pm

Can God love?

Can a vague, and undefined, concept experience a vague, and undefined, concept?

Possibly or possibly not.



Is this the most meaningless thread on these boards? Possibly! Possibly not!
avatar
sickchip

Posts : 1152
Join date : 2011-10-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Tue May 08, 2012 3:27 pm

No one seems to answer a quesion they just go off at a tangent with a whole lot of nonsense when considering what the quesion was.

The quesion was were man and women made to carry out different roles, not how they decided to use them but as usual you get a load of nonsense.

As for original thought, I posed the island quesion, still no answer, I posed the butterfly quesion still no answer

It gets tedious when you continually get the same old nonsense if I was a lesbian I could not help it etc;

If you say you cannot help this that and the other what about a rapist a drug addict, a child abuser, stock answer, they have a choice, reply so does everyone else including lesbians.

I am not interested in sexuality, what I am interested in is proving as near as possible that evolution is nonsense but it appears that at some stage someone brings sex into the debate.

You can qoute the bible or any other works but it will not change the facts,
we are a very small and insignificant part of the universe as a whole and history confirms rather than denies that there are far superior beings than man.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Ivan on Tue May 08, 2012 3:58 pm

If you say you cannot help this that and the other what about a rapist a drug addict, a child abuser, stock answer, they have a choice, reply so does everyone else including lesbians.
polyglide. You’re the person who keeps bringing sex into this debate. Not content with having driven one person off the forum, you’re now trying to equate lesbians with criminals. So for the second time you are in breach of our forum rules, which can be found here:-
http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t18-posting-rules#95

Your membership of this forum is suspended for 24 hours in order that the four moderators and global moderator can consider whether further sanctions are appropriate. Ivan.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7281
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 25 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 14 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum