aChristian

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 539 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aChristian

• 
  103

  The "Tree" of WHAT?

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the account of adam and eve as a literal event is so full of logical contradictions that it is mind-boggling.

  it only takes a minimum of scrutiny to discover that fact, too.. there is something god did not want adam and eve to know.

  he didnt want them to know the difference between good and evil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes." (Matt. 13:15)
• 
  103

  The "Tree" of WHAT?

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the account of adam and eve as a literal event is so full of logical contradictions that it is mind-boggling.

  it only takes a minimum of scrutiny to discover that fact, too.. there is something god did not want adam and eve to know.

  he didnt want them to know the difference between good and evil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  : God actively punished Adam, banning him from the Garden and from the tree of life,

  The Nobel Prize awards committee has not given me the Nobel Prize in Physics. Are they punishing me by not giving me something I have not earned and do not deserve? I don't think so.

  : making the ground difficult for him to cultivate, making all his days back-breaking and unpleasant.

  You refer to Gen. 3:16-19. There God told Adam and Eve what life would be like for them outside of the Garden of Eden which they proved by their actions they did not deserve to live in. God did not make the ground difficult to cultivate outside of Eden. That was its natural condition. God did not make life difficult for Adam. That is how life naturally is. Adam and Eve had been temporarily given much more than they deserved, in order to illustrate the good things God has in store for all who choose to serve Him.

  : He made childbearing painful and difficult for Eve and for women ever since.

  No, God only predicted that Eve's pains to come, those she would experience in child bearing, would be greater than any pain she had yet felt. God was not saying He would increase her child bearing pains. For she had no child bearing pains previously. God was only using child bearing pain as an example of the many difficulties Adam and Eve would experience in this world.

  : He punished children and grandchildren for the sins of their parents and grandparents. Today, we are "blessed" with disease and sickness, which, according to most Christians, is the result of the "sinful nature" you say he lovingly gave us.

  You refer to the doctrine of "the fall of mankind." This doctrine is based on what I believe is a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1Corinthians 15:21,22. Romans tells us that "sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin." And that "many died by the trespass of one man," "death reigned through that one man" and "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." 1Corinthians 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."

  With these verses in mind, many feel that these verses clearly indicate that all people inherit a "fallen" nature from Adam. And they say that it is this "fallen" nature inherited by us because of Adam's disobedience that brings upon us God's condemnation of death. They maintain that these verses prove that human beings were not "sinful" creatures until after Adam's spiritual, physical and genetic natures were somehow radically changed at the time he disobeyed God in Eden. Then, they say, when Adam fathered children after his nature had been corrupted, his children and all their descendants inherited Adam's "corrupted," "fallen," "sinful" nature.

  However, I contend this doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind must be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it contradicts several clear teachings of the Bible.

  For instance, though the Bible tells us God does not hold children responsible for the sins of their parents (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2Kings 14:6; Ezekiel 18:20), the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind says that all who have not accepted Christ as their Lord will be eternally condemned by God because of something Adam did.

  Some may argue this point, reminding us that God has taken the lives of "innocent" children along with their "guilty" parents when executing a judgment in the past. However, those Divine judgments were not eternal judgments. For Jesus Himself told us that everyone who lost their lives in such past judgments by God will receive a resurrection from the dead. And He told us that they will then all be judged as individuals, and not by their parents past behavior. (Matthew 11:20-24; John 5:28,29)

  The Bible also clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2Corinthians 5:10)

  And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

  The doctrine of "The Fall" must also be an incorrect understanding of Scripture because it is in conflict with proven science. The science of genetics has determined that information coded within the nucleotide sequences of human RNA and DNA is fully responsible for determining what characteristics will be inherited by a couple's children. And this branch of science has proven conclusively that a human being's genetic code cannot be altered by actions as ordinary as those performed by Adam in the garden of Eden.

  I do not believe the Bible teaches that mankind "fell." Rather, I believe it tells us that God originally created the human race as free people. Free to do both right and wrong. In the exact same way we are free to do so today. Unfortunately we often choose to do what is wrong rather than what is right. God, however, cannot do wrong. For God is "Incorruptible." (Romans 1:23) So, because we can and often do behave unrighteously, and because God cannot and never does behave unrighteously, we are less righteous than God. And, because "all unrighteousness is sin" we are all born "sinful". (1John 5:17; Psalms 51:5)

  Being able to do wrong, Adam was, from his very beginning, also less righteous than God. And he later proved his "sinful" condition by his behavior. Because Adam in paradise could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated that he and the entire human race, including those who had lived before him and those who would live after him, were far less righteous than God.

  So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) This is true because Adam's disobedience demonstrated that the entire human race was not only capable of doing wrong but incapable of not doing wrong. So, after Adam clearly showed himself to be unrighteous in a demonstration God arranged to for that purpose, God had good reason to condemn the entire human race as being undeserving of eternal life.

  I believe those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" also basically misunderstand the events which transpired in Eden. The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life." (Genesis 2:9) Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and prevented them from eating from "the tree of life."

  Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to eat from "the tree of life" they would have lived forever. (Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths. A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.

  Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life."

  Of course, that "tree of life" was meant to picture Jesus Christ. For, as we have seen, God was going to give Adam and Eve eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life," only if they passed a very simple test. And the Bible tells us that we will be given eternal life from an outside source, Jesus Christ, only if we pass a very simple test. That test is to simply believe in our hearts that Christ's death was sufficient payment to buy every human being God's full forgiveness, forgiveness for both our sinful nature and our sinful acts.

  I see no other way to understand the Bible's story of Adam and Eve. And the traditional concept of "The Fall," I am convinced, is in conflict with several clear teachings of Scripture, proven science and a natural reading of the events which took place in the Garden of Eden.
• 
  103

  The "Tree" of WHAT?

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the account of adam and eve as a literal event is so full of logical contradictions that it is mind-boggling.

  it only takes a minimum of scrutiny to discover that fact, too.. there is something god did not want adam and eve to know.

  he didnt want them to know the difference between good and evil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  : So why does God punish us for the sinful nature he lovingly gave us?

  He doesn't punish us. He gives us all life. Every day of life is a gift. He gives us all more gifts than we deserve. And he offers to give us all much, much more than we deserve, eternal life, if we will only believe in the way He has chosen to give it to us.

  God creates us as free people, allowing us to do both right and wrong. So He does not force anyone to do things "His way." Is that OK with you so far? Then He treats every one of us equally well, allowing His rain and sunshine to fall upon all of us, both those who choose to serve him and those who don't, allowing both good things and bad things to happen to all of us equally, both those who choose to serve Him and those who don't, all of our natural lives. Is that OK with you so far? Then He says, that since only those who are perfectly righteous deserve to live forever, He will overlook all of our unrighteousness and give us all eternal life, even though none of us deserve it. Is that OK with you so far? Then He says that He will do this if we will just believe in our hearts that He paid the price for all of our unrighteousness by allowing His only begotten Son to die in our place. Is that OK with you? Maybe not.

  This seems to be the part that is too much for many people. They say God should just give them eternal life and not ask anything of them. They say that God is asking too much of them when He says they must believe something in order to gain eternal life. To me this seems quite odd. Why? Because people are often willing to believe things to gain just a few years of life. But they are unwilling to believe something to gain eternal life.

  People often jump out of burning buildings because they are willing to believe the promises of complete strangers that they will catch them in a large blanket when they do. People on sinking ships often jump into icy cold seas because they are willing to believe the promises of complete strangers that they will immediately pull them out of those waters and into a nearby lifeboat. They don't complain that their rescuers are asking too much of them. They don't say that their rescuers should come and physically carry them out of those buildings and off of those ships. They don't say that their rescuers asked too much of them by requiring them to take a "leap of faith" to gain life. But people complain all the time that God asks too much of us by requiring us to take a similar "leap of faith" to gain eternal life.

  Go figure.
• 
  103

  The "Tree" of WHAT?

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the account of adam and eve as a literal event is so full of logical contradictions that it is mind-boggling.

  it only takes a minimum of scrutiny to discover that fact, too.. there is something god did not want adam and eve to know.

  he didnt want them to know the difference between good and evil.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  The only way the story of Adam and Eve makes sense is to understand that God not only knew how things were going to end up in Eden, but that He deliberately set the whole thing up to make a point. What point? This one. If Adam in paradise, without a problem in the world, could not manage to obey one simple command from God, what chance does any human being have of living their entire trouble-plagued life without sinning either in word, thought or deed? No chance at all. That is the lesson that was illustrated in Eden. Human beings have a sinful nature. A nature which God gave us.

  Why did God give us a "sinful" nature? Because "God is love" He wanted to create people whom He could have a loving relationship with. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil.

  Because we can do wrong and often do, and because God can't do wrong and never does, we are less righteous than God. And because we are, none of us deserve to live forever. That means all human beings have, in effect, from their births been condemned by God to die. Not because of anything Adam did, but because we ourselves all fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

  Farkel is, in effect, asking. "But they didn't KNOW good from evil until after they ate from that tree. So how could God rightly condemn them for doing wrong when, at the time they did wrong, they didn't know right from wrong?"

  I believe Farkel, and many others, miss the meaning of "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." First of all, Adam and Eve already had a knowledge of good. For Adam and Eve knew God and God is good. Adam had not only talked with God himself, but he and his wife had both walked with God in the Garden of Eden. (Gen. 3:8) So, since Adam and Eve already had a knowledge of good, their eating from "the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil" represented their also gaining a knowledge of evil.

  The accent should be placed on the word "and." As in "the knowledge of good AND evil." For God knew that, as free people, Adam and Eve could not possess any knowledge of evil. For simply having a knowledge of evil corrupts free people and makes them unworthy of eternal life. How so? Because when free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil. And, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than God. Why is that? Because the Bible tells us that "In God there is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5) So, since only people who are perfectly righteous deserve eternal life, free people who are automatically corrupted by a knowledge of evil are all unworthy of eternal life, and thus they all deserve to die.

  That, I believe, is what was represented by Adam being told that if he ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good AND bad" that he would die. For eternal life is something which God says only those who are perfectly righteous deserve. And free people can never be perfectly righteous. So free people can never be worthy of eternal life. They can only hope to receive it by God overlooking their unrighteousness. Fortunately for us, God has said that He will do just that, if we will only believe in our hearts that the death of His only Son Jesus Christ paid the price of all of our sins. When we do this God willingly overlooks all of our unrighteousness and views as being perfectly righteous, and thus fully worthy of eternal life.
  
  note that I didn't say Adam and Eve already knew "good vs. evil" or that they knew good and evil. I said they already knew good. For they already knew God, and "God is good."

  Farkel also refers to Adam and Eve being naked and being unaware of their condition until after they had disobeyed God.

  As I said, I believe that the story of Adam and Eve in Eden was meant by God to illustrate that no human being, being less righteous than God, is deserving of eternal life. But it is also meant to illustrate that because we are always less righteous than God we are always in need of His forgiveness even when we have not recently committed any "sinful" act. I believe this lesson was illustrated by Adam and Eve being totally unaware of their nakedness before God until after they had committed a blatant act of disobedience. (Nakedness is a condition always portrayed as shameful in the scriptures.) Then, suddenly, after they had "sinned" they became aware of their nakedness and felt the need to "hide from God." Just as we often only become aware of our shameful condition before God after committing some "sinful act." And just as we then often feel ashamed of ourselves and try to hide from God by withdrawing from Him by not praying or by not attending Church, etc., until we finally get over our guilt. However, the fact is, we are no more worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect God before committing a "sinful act" than we are after doing so. Just as Adam and Eve were, in reality, just as naked before they disobeyed God as they were after doing so. They just didn't realize it.

  Some may say that this understanding means that God is not free, for he can do no wrong. In a way they are right. For God is not free in the way that we are. We are free in that we are able to either live our lives in the way that God wants us to live them, or to live our lives in a way that is contrary to God's wishes. God is not free in such a way. For He must, of course, always behave according to His wishes.

  I also believe that the "knowledge of evil" that Genesis refers to in the story of Adam and Eve refers to "knowing" something "in the biblical sense." This kind of "knowledge" is an "intimate knowledge." Such as in the Bible's statement that Joseph did not "know" Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus. (Matt. 1:25)

  That being the case, Adam and Eve had an intimate knowledge of good before they disobeyed God. For they personally knew God and they knew by experience all the good things being obedient to Him brought them. But until they disobeyed God they did not really "know" evil. For they had no intimate knowledge of evil. For such a "knowledge" would include having experienced the harmful effects of evil, a knowledge which Adam and Eve only acquired after they disobeyed God.
• 
  26

  Creation Story Contradiction

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the two different creation stories in genesis contradict each other in the matter of the order of the creation of man and vegetation.

  in the first story, vegetation was created on the third day, and three days later man was created.

  however, in the second creation story, there was no vegetation before man.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  Joseph wrote: Several believers have joined the forum since I last raised the issue of creation order.

  Joseph has apparently sensed the presence of some here whose faith he has not yet had the opportunity to try his best to destroy.

  Joseph, I know I said I would not participate in threads you obviously create with the sole purpose of bashing the Bible. But providing the answer to this alleged "contradiction" was just too easy for me to resist. Honestly, Joseph, the Bible has a lot of things that are hard to understand. Why don't you pick on those things? Why do yo pick on everything and anything having to do with a belief in God or the Bible, even things which can be easily explained by almost any Bible student? I'll resist the temptation to speculate on the answer to that question.

  Joseph wrote: The two different creation stories in Genesis contradict each other in the matter of the order of the creation of man and vegetation. In the first story, vegetation was created on the third day, and three days later man was created. However, in the second creation story, there was no vegetation before man.

  The very simple solution to Joseph's "question" is to understand that Genesis chapter One is describing God's creation of vegetation on our earth before His creation of Adam. And that Genesis chapter Two is describing God's creation of the Garden of Eden in a previously barren region of the earth, immediately after His creation of Adam. It is with this solution in mind that the translators of the NIV Bible tell us in a footnote attached to Genesis 2:5,6, that the Hebrew word which is usually there translated as "earth," giving most readers the idea that these two verses are referring to our entire planet, can also be translated as "land," which most readers would then understand to refer only to a limited geographical area.

  The sad thing is that Joseph is well aware of this fact. For it was recently discussed at some length in another thread dealing with Noah's flood. In that discussion Hebrew lexicons were quoted saying that the Hebrew word 'eres, which appears in both of the passages which Joseph wants us to believe are in conflict, is used in the Old Testament to refer to both our entire planet and to a limited geographical area. Thus Bible translators and Bible readers are often left to determine only from its context which of these two ways the writer of Genesis was using this word.

  The same thing is true today of many English words. One word often has two or more meanings. When we read something someone has written using such a word, we must determine its meaning by examining the context in which the writer used it. Usually the context makes its particular meaning quite clear, but not always.

  Since this subject matter was very recently discussed at some length with Joseph, I must now decide if he has a very bad memory, very poor reading comprehension skills or if he is very dishonest.
• 
  25

  Jehovah Witness Pastors Has A Sheep ...Arrested

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovah witness pastors has a sheep in their care arrested.. hi my name is david wiltshire and i have suffered horribly from the hand of my pastors.

  because i know longer believe the jehovahs witnesses are the only true religion i was disfellowshipped from all jehovahs witnesses i cant even come over their houses any more, they refuse to return my greetings.. the worst torture that they have put on me is that my little grand daughter, who i used to give horsy back rides to cant even be allowed so visit with me for fear both she and her parents could be disfellowshipped.

  the watchpower teaches that you cant fellowship with disfellowshipped persons, so they are good jehovah witnesses and obey the watchpower.. some say the jehovah witness religion is a mind control cult.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  Dave,

  You wrote: People were telling her what I was saying to others about things.

  What issues caused you to part ways with the Watchtower to begin with? I asked you this before and you referred me to a thread in which you posted your DF appeal letter. But in it you really didn't discuss specific issues that you had disagreements with the Watchtower on. Were your issues mainly doctrinal (like the FDS, the deity of Christ, the two classes, blood and various legalisms), procedural issues (such as the use of disfellowshipping and compulsory door knocking and turning in of time), or personal such as the way certain people in the congregation treated others?
• 
  25

  Jehovah Witness Pastors Has A Sheep ...Arrested

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovah witness pastors has a sheep in their care arrested.. hi my name is david wiltshire and i have suffered horribly from the hand of my pastors.

  because i know longer believe the jehovahs witnesses are the only true religion i was disfellowshipped from all jehovahs witnesses i cant even come over their houses any more, they refuse to return my greetings.. the worst torture that they have put on me is that my little grand daughter, who i used to give horsy back rides to cant even be allowed so visit with me for fear both she and her parents could be disfellowshipped.

  the watchpower teaches that you cant fellowship with disfellowshipped persons, so they are good jehovah witnesses and obey the watchpower.. some say the jehovah witness religion is a mind control cult.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  Dave,

  Maybe you can point out to your family what is said on the Watchtower's official website. Maybe print a full colr copy out and send it to them. In the Frequently Asked Questions section, it says that "Disfellowshipping does not severe family ties." You can highlight that portion. : )

  After reading that they will either then have to start treating you in the way most children treat their Father or recognize the Watchtower Society to be the liars which they are, which may help accomplish the same thing.

  Mike
• 
  66

  Arrested for going kingdumb and dumber hall!

  by D wiltshire in

  1. social
  2. current

  arrested for going kingdumb hall!.

  last night (3/21) the mountain view (ca) police arrested me.. this happened as i was attending the sunnyvale congregation service meeting.. i was dfd last july and was told by the elders the conditions for reinstatement were meeting attendance, repentance along with not speaking to anyone or anyone speaking to me (shunning at its finest).

  (btw, i was dfd for apostasy).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  Dave,

  You mentioned you were DF for apostasy. Maybe you've told me this before. But I can't remember. People our age, the memory starts to go. You know, bro? What doctines did you disgree with that got you in trouble?

  Mike
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  Joseph,

  What do you mean it is off screen? It comes to the top of the screen anytime it is posted to. I always view this board in its "active" mode by hitting the "active" button at the top. I think that is the most common way to view the board. As I told you I have a policy not to patronize threads which you start just to bash the Bible. If you want to carry on this conversation we can do so in this thread.

  Faithful,

  Your comment about the Dove, the olive branch and Noah all being "staged" by God to picture Christ at his baptism and our own salvations through baptism may be dead on.

  If you want to argue with Joe in another thread be my guest. As I told him, I boycott threads started by known Bible bashers. His "off screen" excuse makes no sense to me.
• 
  140

  Just As In the Days of Noah

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

  farkel

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aChristian

  Joseph,

  I have made it a policy to never enter a thread which you start for the sole purpose of bashing the Bible. So any further conversations we have on this subject will have to take place in this thread which was started by a man I have long respected. Besides, I would rather give new readers the opportunity to read the various aspects of this subject matter which we have already discussed. I have the feeling that you would not, because you have in my opinion, and that of others who have weighed in on the progress of our debate, not fared well in it so far.

  You wrote: You’re running away because you cannot answer the hard questions. Prove me wrong, and begin by explaining away the dove problem, if you can. ... According to aChristian, the flood was local. Well, if that's true then Noah must have known it was local, too. But, that seems not to be possible, for Noah sent a dove to see if the waters had receded from the land. As proof that the waters had receded, Noah would receive an olive leaf. ... But, what would that prove? Noah--according to the local flood theory--would have known the flood was local, and that therefore there was unflooded land just outside the flooded "land of Noah," wouldn't he? Thus, receiving the olive leaf would prove nothing if the flood was local. If the dove returned with a leaf, why wouldn't Noah just assume that the dove had flown outside the boundaries of the "land of Noah," if it were really true that Noah--and the Genesis writer--thought the flood was local? aChristian doesn't imagine that the dove knew it was only supposed to fly to the boundaries of the "land of Noah," does he?

  There are a few possible answers to your questions. I'll offer a couple which I consider to be quite likely.

  One is that Noah did not know that the flood was local. Most advocates of a local Noah's flood believe that it was a very large flood which flooded most of Mesopotamia. The ark may have been surrounded by water which stretched 50 miles or more in all directions. Much farther than Noah could see from the top of the ark, giving Noah the idea that the entire earth, if he even understood the concept of "the entire earth," had been flooded.

  The next possibility is that Noah did not believe that the flood covered the entire planet but believed the flood was a very large one, covering too much ground for a dove to fly nonstop to the flood's original extremity. With this thought in mind, Noah sent out the dove. For Noah then would have believed that if the dove returned, that would mean that the flood waters had not yet receded far enough for the dove to find a landing place within its flight range. And Noah then would have believed that if the dove returned with some vegetation from a previously submerged tree top, that would mean that the flood waters had receded enough to expose the tops of some trees within the doves flight range, but not enough to provide the dove with a comfortable landing place away from the ark within its flight range. And Noah would have believed that if the dove did not return at all, that would mean that the flood waters had receded far enough for the dove to have found a new home within its flight range.