Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Because, rightfully speaking, the accusation would be against those who follow a god who's laws demand a parent kill their own child iver a few different asinine and inane "crimes," an accusation rightly made against those whos god said to kill this person and that person and this person over there for doing things that harmed no one.
And I was deeply touched by your empathy when watching Schindler's List.
Straw man. They were told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I don't know about that other stuff, I'm talking about other celestial beings deciding to follow Satan in the heavenly realm. That actually led to real eternal death to many.
You don't know, or you don't want to address? You want to bring up it being an "accusation" to.follow Satan, but the Bible had the monstrously wicked and heinously cruel author who was filled with enough evil, hatred and bloodlust to proclaim "happy will be he who dashes your little oneals on the rocks."
Not to that degree, where lots if people recognize some things but are oblivious to some. Yeah, the Baphomet is widely recognizable, especially in a pentagram, but more often I see certain sigils that the public at large doesn't recognize (occultists would be about the only ones who would). But mine has a Black Mass passage so it's more readily identifiable as Satanic rather than some occult thing.
That's like putting a steak on the floor and telling a dog not to eat it. Guess what's gonna happen? You should only be angry with yourself that the dog ate the steak.
Prove it.
The symbol of the serpent relates to the crucifixion and to the Pharisees.
People have a greater capacity for self-control than animals do. Also, the forbidden fruit was part of the lesson that bad decisions have consequences.
They had no knowledge of good or evil. They couldn't have had a mentality beyonf a small child in this regard. Ergo they could not have known disobediance was bad. For all they knew it was good to eat from the tree and would have let them impress daddy. Except they wouldn't have known parental approval would come to be thought of as good.
Which part do you want proved?
Your "it was exaggerated and edited and finalized by Babylon." Those "tainted by the scribes" arguments are never the strongest or most solid grounds to stand on.
Its always been obvious to me that Noah's flood is a fiction and much of the other inconsistent nonsense was invented by those favored within the story! But apart from common sense and critical analysis revealing multiple authors and conflicting accounts of then same stories, I cant prove it.
There's still the emotional attachment that a child has with their parent. A child learns that disobedience will likely lead to disapproval even though there's no understanding of the reason behind it.
Okay, so you responded to the wrong person. So what? Why didn't you fix your post? You could have easily have edited it. Since you did not do so my claim still holds.
But if you have no knowledge of good and evil you don't know that disobedience and disapproval might be bad.
Intellectual knowledge and emotional response are both valid motivators.