A Literal Genesis Entails An Evil God

[Esquilax]

No, he did not force them to sin, and that is not what I am saying he did. What he did was make it possible for them to sin, not by the tired old Christian excuse of 'free will', but by placing temptation in their path and not making the consequences clear to them. How could Adam and Eve have any realistic concept of what death entailed? Neither of them had seen a person die or suffer or go without.

I guess the other important question is why? Why did god place the tree in the garden? Actually, why did there even need to be a tree like that in the first place, if nobody was allowed to eat the fruit? What possible reason could there be for something like that to exist?

Does that tree propagate? Would there eventually be a whole garden full of forbidden trees? Or is it just a magic tree that sits there, solely to tempt Adam and Eve, and for no other purpose?

[smax]

When parents bring a child into the world are they being evil, they knowingly are exposing the child to all the dangers this world has to offer. Is this loving the child, or an evil act by allowing the child to have to experience all the world can throw at the child.
This is the reasoning you are using with God, so by your reasoning parents are evil by bring a child into this world.

Parents have a duty to protect their children. Being that god exposed his children to his worst enemy (Satan), a being with superior intellect and ruthless cunning, how was god effectively protecting his children?

[Faith No More]

Your argument is how you perceive your own truth, according your own opinion, of how you understand the narrative, but the actual truth in the narrative, is far greater and loveing than your biassed assumptions will permit you to understand.

It's funny, so many Christians say this, but many of them have vastly different interpretations as to what the narrative means. The one thing they have in common is that they all believe that they have found the right interpretation.

[FallentoReason]

Your argument is how you perceive your own truth, according your own opinion, of how you understand the narrative, but the actual truth in the narrative, is far greater and loveing than your biassed assumptions will permit you to understand.

It's funny, so many Christians say this, but many of them have vastly different interpretations as to what the narrative means. The one thing they have in common is that they all believe that they have found the right interpretation.

It reminds me of my church days... as long as you said your jibba-jabba came from the Holy Spirit, then it must mean your jibba-jabba is worth its weight in gold.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The one thing they have in common is that they all believe that they have found the right interpretation.

And only Swedenborg, guided by the Lord Himself, got it right! :-)

[goodnews]

It's funny, so many Christians say this, but many of them have vastly different interpretations as to what the narrative means. The one thing they have in common is that they all believe that they have found the right interpretation.
[/quote]

Yes its true, and this is because of many reasons, too many to list or explain here, but as technology has advanced especially computers , only in the last several years has it bean possible to have at ones finger tips, the entire Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and all other translations plus a full range of dictionarys past and present to trace the etymology of words, also add to this the different tenses, punctuation, vowels etc etc etc, it is no easy thing to translate one language to another accurately, there will always be problems, since the first translation of the 1611 King James 50000 + improvements have bean made, and todays translation is still not acurate eg: the word hell should be grave etc ! so when one debates what the narrative is , make sure your understanding of it is accurate up to date, and most importantly what you say does not contradict the narrative.

[Faith No More]

So, considering technology is increasing our ability to delve deep into the actual meaning, shouldn't we expect all Christian beliefs to eventually converge into one?

[goodnews]

NO, for the reason "christiandom" have invested too much of their heart and soul in their own pagan interpretations, which they cling to zealously, catholics, J.Wittneses, mormons, 7 day advnsts and countless others even have their own "Bibles" ??? OH lets not leave out our Christian freinds, they have their fancy preachers and witch craft and the rest have shares in the hell fire herecy and the lucifer myth so forth and so on etc etc etc ps: all this is Gods plan as it is prophesied in scripture ! go figar

[Faith No More]

Yes, but they say the same thing about you, I'm sure. All claim to have the correct interpretation. What makes yours different?

[goodnews]

Yes you are correct but, in a debate the person with the more acurate narrative will allways triumph. eg: If I am debateing the non existance of an eternal hell. and my oponent who is totally convinced of its existance, explains his theory and provides the verses he thinks fit in to it , because I know the translations to be inacurate, due to badly translated words, but this also means that these verses have to fit somewhere else in the narrative , so not only can I prove these faulty translated words with physical proof via etymology , but I can also show that these verses do not contradict the narrative but add to it eg: "my" interpretation useing these same better translated verses support that {God loves us all and so He sent His Son who will save us all from sin} / my oponents use of these poorly translated verses {God does not loves us all and so sent His Son to save a few from sin and the rest he will burn for ever and ever in hell} this is a contradiction of the narrative , and so who you going to believe ?