Was reading the other day and came across this synopsis of Christianity: "God sent God to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save humanity from His wrath." Its been kind of going through my head for a while and i'm a little curious as to whether any Christians on here see any fallacies within it. Master_G im looking at you. Also, out of my own curiosity, the story of Adam and Eve. Is there ever any reason for why God put an apple tree in the middle of Eden. It just seems like a recipe for disaster. You'd think God could put his apple trees somewhere else considering he is all powerful; and adding a sneaky, talking snake into the mix just seems to be compounding the issue. You'd think being omnipotent he'd be able to see the problem ahead of time, or atleast keep an eye on the tree. I understand alot of Christians probably just discount the story of Adam and Eve as a morality tale... however, once you start picking and choosing from your own Religion I'd think things might get pretty confusing. Creationists seem to take the story as factual evidence of creation, so i'm trying to look at it from that perspective.
-fear-feari do believe it fully, not as tales which is why we are called fundamentalists even by liberals, anyway ill answer it tomorrow or the weekend, to tired now.
"God sent God to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save humanity from His wrath." ^^ As a non-religious girl, I can't think of a reason why this is a misconception. I agree to whoever written this quote that if God hadn't sacrificed Himself, his power may have destroyed all humanities due to all the sins we have caused. If Adam and Eve were to get thrown out of the Garden of Eden just by disobeying God's instruction on not touching or eat the apples, what happens to those who has broken the Ten Commandments? Should a murderer take "an eye for an eye" by God's power or by fate? If God had punished everyone due to the wrath that He will eventually build up because humanity is not as perfect as He has thought to have created. Also in relation to the question about why was the apple tree in Eden and God did not move it due to his omnipotent power. I remembered a teacher telling me (in primary school) that it was a test whereby we will obey the rules/law that we were being told; whether we can resist temptation or not; and the consequence of what may happen if we did not comply to the rules. I maybe talking to gibberish as per usual :S
Well in the concept on Christianity (once again), God has given us the ability so call "Free Will", we can choose to do things that goes against God and we could do things that favor God. God doesn't want us to believe HIM because God "said so", God want us to believe him because we want to believe in HIM.
so you don't see any problems with the phrase, ""God sent God to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save humanity from His wrath."? lol it doesn't seem to make any sense when you look at it logically.
ok ok, i guess i know why this doesn't seem to make sense.... this is the equivalent to a person saying "to build a car you get a flat base and stick four wheels on it" (leaving out all the rest)... let me guess... the person who said this doesn't believe in God, a mocker? the bible speaks of the spiritually blind leading the blind and you can take that however you will but people taking any form of religious teaching or concept from a mocker makes no sense to me.-shrug I guess unless a person is mocking you and your beliefs its hard to notice. if you really want to know then A: put half the effort you put into finding so-called problems into finding answers (without always asking others to do it for you) then if you have problems, ask. B: ..... Read the Bible, not a verse here and there, a chapter here and there, but the bible. you can do it in a few months or over a year. a good place to start you off. http://www.carm.org/ all you have to do is look for the answers, believe it or not 90% of the questions asked were answered a loooooooooong time ago. as for the apple tree... an apple tree? orly
lol the way fearless put it is jokes, but he also makes a good point. mocker or not mocker, that synopsis can be accurate (based on the evidence that no one has said anything to deny it), and the logic is contradictory. the adam and eve story is full of lulz. like fearless said, with God's omnipotent power, you'd figure he'd hide the tree or even destroying it as opposed to just leaving it in the wide open with a huge sign saying "COME EAT MEH!!!"
TBH, I can't find the quote "God sent God to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save humanity from His wrath" anywhere other than it linking me back to this forum... @Dan
If that was the case then it can only be true within the confines of the PA forum (that would be contradictory), im pretty sure the redemption plan is explained on the internetz or a book which is what i was trying to say. If you read genesis youll see that adam and eve took no notice of the tree until eve was deceived. while she was being deceived she saw that the fruit of the tree was edible (so before this it wasn't even something they thought about eating or touching). The tree didnt have a huge sign saying "COME EAT MEH!!", if it did then the deception wouldn't have been necessary as the tree itself would have done the job. same here, I saw that and assumed it must be a subscribers only place he got it from. -fear-fear
lol they gave ADAM and EVE the free will.. it's adam and eve's fault for being so undisciplined. the rest of us have to pay for it. damn bastards. sarcasm: " A form of humor that is marked by mocking with irony, sometimes conveyed in speech with vocal over-emphasis. Saying something that is opposite of what is intended to be meant; An act of sarcasm" you're taking literature too seriously. chill for a sec
i was addressing the notion that the tree itself was attractive after adam/eve was told not touch or eat of it (i go to extra lengths for the sake of others who may read it too and may be thinking on the lines of your sarcasm) but the definition shows that you meant the opposite. its hard to pick up sarcasm sometimes (though i know you wasn't talking about a literal sign written in forum language), unless you use lots of smiley's or emotes, its pretty hard to convey or discern emotion.:mad: but no worries, i dont get serious at all and ive been here long enough -sweat, if i did i would just leave the thread-out2 (which i also do if the thread is boring )
lol anyways, i was looking at the wallpaper thread, and ac had a very good wall: this explains why i can't just settle for "just believing in God", because believing in God requires stopping the questioning
there's a difference between learning while believing, and questioning while believing i understand if you are learning while believing, because whatever your beliefs are, you don't know everything, so you learn but when you question your beliefs while you believe in them, that's called being a hypocrite
^ Hmm, I don't think so... It's like when the 1st person realize that Earth is not flat but it's round, but he has no way on proving it... Can he not believe it and question it why it is round but not flat? Or when you're little, you question things, but you still believe it whether you question it or not...
questioning: 'doubting; marked by or given to doubt; "a skeptical attitude"; "a skeptical listener"' Learning: "Learning is acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, preferences or understanding" There's a difference between the two words. If you believe something, and you are doubting it at the same time, how does that make sense? If you believe in something, and you want to acquire new knowledge of your beliefs, that's more logical. Also, on a side note, if there's something I don't believe in, is the mindset of "no way of proving it". If people had that mindset, scientific discoveries would not have been made. If you believe in a theory, you will try to prove its truthfulness, to the best of your ability. Until that proof is given, there is enough room for reasonable doubt. And if there is even one evidence that contradicts the theory, it is thrown out. The way scientists make discoveries, is by proposing a theory, and consistently try and show evidence against it. If one evidence is found against it, the theory is flawed. I am merely doing the same.
But I still don't think if I question my beliefs while believe in it makes me a hypocrite... It is human nature to question things... Even Atheist question their belief (of Atheism) does that make them a hypocrite... They will still continue to question things and try to find answer...
I think you and I are on two separate boats going opposite ways. I believe in Buddhism, I don't question/doubt my beliefs in Buddhism, because if I do, that would make me not want to believe in Buddhism any longer. On the other hand, I strive to learn more about Buddhism. Anyways, whatever yo, this is getting ridiculous. I'm out.
