|
|
|
TG
Skeptic Friend
USA
121 Posts |
 Posted - 06/23/2004 : 09:17:15
|
Assuming God (or gods) exist, of course.
Numerous ancient cultures share a common mythological theme wherein the god(s), sensing that humanity is becoming too powerful, decide to take action to keep mankind in check.
With regard to Christianity, there are the following notable OT passages:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
and
Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Ignoring, for the time being, the problematic use of the pronoun “us” in the preceding verses, there appears to be an element of concern on the part of God that not only will humanity become too powerful, but that if left unchecked, it would ultimately be out of His (Their?) control (“… and now nothing will be restrained from them …). A rather odd comment, coming from an omnipotent being.
Is anyone aware of other passages, either OT or NT, that suggest that God was concerned that man, through his own devices, would become a threat to Him?
Tom
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 16:41:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ignoring, for the time being, the problematic use of the pronoun “us” in the preceding verses,
There is absolutly no "problenatic use" of the term "us". We have alway's reffered to a "holy trinity", which is literaly a trinity. Meaning there are three of them. The bible list's them very clearly as The Father, The Son, And the Holy Spirit. In which there are three seperate beings, yet are in a whole, one God.
So please don't present problems that aren't there. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
 |
|
|
ethan
New Member
USA
14 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 20:25:17 [Permalink]
|
| i fully agree with Adam. If the Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit are all eternal beings as it states, then saying "us" would be completely legitimate. It's not multiple gods but one God with three parts. |
ethan |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 23:33:00 [Permalink]
|
TG, if god is omnipotent and omnicient, how could we then be a threat to him? Unless, of course, we become the same. In which case, we would then be god, would we not?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2004 : 05:39:12 [Permalink]
|
| The OT God is commonly called a "jealous" God. If I understand jealously correctly, it is motivated ultimately by fear, is it not? In terms of relationship, if you experience jealously it is because you fear your significant other may find someone else to be more significant than you and abandon you. If God is jealous in His relationship to His people, then he fears we will abandon Him. Thankfully God appears to have matured in the NT. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
TG
Skeptic Friend
USA
121 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2004 : 07:33:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
posted by creation88:
There is absolutly no "problenatic use" of the term "us". We have alway's reffered to a "holy trinity", which is literaly a trinity. Meaning there are three of them. The bible list's them very clearly as The Father, The Son, And the Holy Spirit. In which there are three seperate beings, yet are in a whole, one God.
The concept of the trinity is not universally accepted by all Christians. Members of the Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Jehovah's Witness's, to name a few, believe Jesus was the Son of God, not an alternate manifestation of God.
If God uses the pronoun "us" to refer to Himself in the quoted passages, why doesn't He always use the plural? Virtually everyplace else in the Bible He uses the singular ... "I am the Lord thy God".
Tom |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 13:07:59 [Permalink]
|
Chablooi--
The term jealous here means that he literally weep's over every lost soul. He does'nt say "oh well, i lost that one"!
TG--
I could not dis-agree more with a Jehova's Witness on anything. So what they believe means nothing to me.
And what some other's believe, does not have an effect on me either. The bible says it clearly. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 17:42:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And what some other's believe, does not have an effect on me either. The bible says it clearly.
....and therin lies the problem with religious fundamentalism. A completely closed mind. Quite sad really. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 21:49:09 [Permalink]
|
creation88 wrote:quote:
The term jealous here means that he literally weep's over every lost soul. He does'nt say "oh well, i lost that one"!
And I've tried to get this out of you before, but I'll try again: it seems to me that "lost" must mean "gone to Hell." Because all the other souls must - necessarily - go to Heaven to be with God. Rather than clutter up this thread, however, I'd prefer it if you answer me over here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 22:02:03 [Permalink]
|
| Well, the Bible does contradict itself quite a bit... This seems to me just another example of distortion throughout years of inverse translations. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 23:21:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
TG, if god is omnipotent and omnicient, how could we then be a threat to him? Unless, of course, we become the same. In which case, we would then be god, would we not?
You can only become a threat to yoursevlves on your own sinful planet!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2004 : 23:36:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by satans_mom
Well, the Bible does contradict itself quite a bit... This seems to me just another example of distortion throughout years of inverse translations.
Coming from a radical evolutionists I wouldn't doubt they would find ample contradictions in another form of 'where humans obtained existense and how.' |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 00:14:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
originally posted by verlch:
You can only become a threat to yoursevlves on your own sinful planet!!!
Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about now? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 04:29:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
originally posted by verlch:
You can only become a threat to yoursevlves on your own sinful planet!!!
Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about now?
Eh.. Maybe. How about this: As our knowledge increase, our abilities makes us more God-like each day. As we get closer to that day that we become gods, we will be an increasing threat to our selves.
Cinematic reference: Forbidden Planet, 1956
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
TG
Skeptic Friend
USA
121 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 12:40:05 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the Forbidden Planet reference Doc. I remember thinking that the primary effect of Krell super-intelligence was a hang up for oversized meters, if nothing else.
C88 has commented on everything except the original question, which is how we explain the passages: "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" and "this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do". God is basically saying "if We let them take this next step, it's out of Our control". Not something you would expect froom an omnipotent being.
Tom |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2004 : 13:03:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"if We let them take this next step, it's out of Our control". Not something you would expect froom an omnipotent being.
Basically I heard that heaven was concerned that now that man had fallen and should they eat of the Tree of Life. Sin could and everything unGodly could live forever. Then there would be no end to it!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
