Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Dear Susan: I offered my opinion based upon my study of it. Presupposition wasn't a factor as you suggest. I look at what is there. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I have found them. God is inconsistent and has to repent of his evil (Exodus 32:14). If the bible is inerrant, as you suggest, then men are " God " ; for they wrote the words. As to the First Words in the garden, I suggest that your questioning is just making a mountain out of a sandgrain. The First Words are right to the point, simple and clear. (Then God said, " I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.) Sin came about because of the eating of the forbidden fruit (animal flesh), which is disobedience to the First Words (First Love?). There are even skins left over from the kill with which to make clothes (Genesis 3:21). I personally believe the garden story is a depiction of the human brain and the serpent is the medulla oblongata (seat of aggression). Of course, my brain has a " convoluted " sense of itself and may be taking liberties with insight. regards, tev Susan <susan_wilkinson wrote: Hi Tev, Thanks for the response. I realize that we all come from different places and histories with consequent diverse presuppositions that preclude agreement. That said, I do believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God and have spent many years now studying it in depth to discover that there are no inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or contradictions. I do acknowledge that some appear to be there on the surface though. It wasn't until I discovered systemic theology that it all began to fall into place and make sense. Because of all this, I have learned that God's words must be put into context. Yes, we should pay particular attention to God's first words in the garden, but they must be framed properly. Who was he talking to? Why? What was the occasion? What was the world like then (it was perfect, there was no sin, there was no rain, the earth was watered differently and the atmosphere was different then, there was no death so eating animals was not an option, etc...)? All of God's Word is equally important, though all of it has it's own context. The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1] New Photos - easier uploading and sharing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 > There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies. > I have found them. God is inconsistent and has to > repent of his evil (Exodus 32:14). How is God inconsistent? Why do you call Him evil? > If the bible is inerrant, as you suggest, then men > are " God " ; for they wrote the words. Men are not God. They did not write the Bible on their own. They wrote what the Holy Spirit told them to write. The only texts that are inerrant are the original. (This is probably where you will find some disagreements among Christians.) Translations, and with society changing the meanings of words, have distorted some passages. However, with consistent reading and the willingness to find the truth, you will find it. > Sin came about because of the eating of the > forbidden fruit (animal flesh), which is disobedience > to the First Words (First Love?). There are even > skins left over from the kill with which to make clothes > (Genesis 3:21). The forbidden fruit was not animal flesh. It was a fruit from a tree. ~Wendy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Can we please keep the discussion to relating the raw diet to the bible instead of having a theological discussion? Thanks, Bridgitte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 rawfood , " Bridgitte " <syndactylcat> wrote: > Can we please keep the discussion to relating the raw diet to the > bible instead of having a theological discussion? > > Thanks, > Bridgitte i totally agree, i almost got booted off because of my anti modern christian beleifs. and i don't think this is a place for a historical debate about god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 I agree as well. I have my question answered sufficiently in that no one here can answer my question sufficiently, so thanks for all who responded, but this is definitely not the place for a debate about God, historical or otherwise. Susan > and i don't think this is a place for a historical debate about god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 The raw food forum isn't the place for this discussion. This is the last I shall comment on this matter. If you wish, we can discuss off list. > There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies. > I have found them. God is inconsistent and has to > repent of his evil (Exodus 32:14). W: How is God inconsistent? Why do you call Him evil? T: The bible itself does, not me. You obviously haven't read the bible? Reading the Exodus 32:14 passage: " And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. " > If the bible is inerrant, as you suggest, then men > are " God " ; for they wrote the words. W: Men are not God. T: " Are ye not Gods? " John 10 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? W:They did not write the Bible on their own. They wrote what the Holy Spirit told them to write. T: OK, And the Holy Spirit tells me what to write here too. W: The only texts that are inerrant are the original. T: According to who? I dispute the inerrancy claim. (This is probably where you will find some disagreements among Christians.) Translations, and with society changing the meanings of words, have distorted some passages. T: There are other places to find disagreement among Christians; just look in the yellow pages under " Churches " ; Christians running in all different directions. W: However, with consistent reading and the willingness to find the truth, you will find it. T: That is exactly what I have been writing: the truth; as the God of Love (not the animal sacrificing god of the bible) bids me write. > Sin came about because of the eating of the > forbidden fruit (animal flesh), which is disobedience > to the First Words (First Love?). There are even > skins left over from the kill with which to make clothes > (Genesis 3:21). W: The forbidden fruit was not animal flesh. It was a fruit from a tree. T: I respectfully disagree. The genesis description is metaphorical. It is typical for the human mind (human consciousness) to attempt to deny it has done a bad deed (killing; disobeying), just as it is typical for that same human consciousness to project that blame onto " another. " Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the serpent (medulla oblongata; animal lust). To hide the deed from itself, the human consciousness projected blame onto an innocent. The fruit tree; fruit. Now the forbidden food is a " fruit " , instead of animal flesh. What a twisted self deception (full alzheimers- like tangled proteins?). That is why the garden scene is set as a story. Not only has the carnivoristic human consciousness rejected God's guidance in living as rawfood vegan fruitarians, they cast aspersions upon fruit as food via the " forbidden fruit " stigma. The human carnivore mind continues its carnal lust by inserting falsehoods in the text (such as " God requires us to sacrifice animals; again putting blame on an innocent). I finish with the following quote: " All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human invention -- of barbarian invention -- is to read it. Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you would of any other, get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form of superstition -- then read the Holy bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity to be the author of such ignorance and such atrocity. " --Robert Green Ingersoll (from his essay 'The Gods') The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1] New Photos - easier uploading and sharing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 God is Love. What's there to debate? regards, tev Susan <susan_wilkinson wrote: I agree as well. I have my question answered sufficiently in that no one here can answer my question sufficiently, so thanks for all who responded, but this is definitely not the place for a debate about God, historical or otherwise. Susan The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual, and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all. [The Urantia Book: 1094:1] New Photos - easier uploading and sharing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 > but this is definitely not the place for a debate about > God, historical or otherwise. You are right, and I wasn't even going to respond to Bridgette because that would be adding even more to this discussion. However, I think whenever anything pertaining to Christianity comes up on a nonChristian group, we get silenced; yet other religions (especially secular humanism) are not treated the same. If something is stated as fact that is not, I think we should have the right to respond, regardless of the subject. The Bible and Christianity are not the only off topics that get brought up, but they do seem to be the only ones that people want to stop. And that is the last thing I will say pertaining to this. ~Wendy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.