Xtians, I forget, What Do We Need a Saviour For?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

at least they learn how to say sorry, in my opinion. The first step when you become a Christian is "sorry God, I was wrong, please forgive!

But the forgiveness happened 2k years ago. I shouldn’t be charged if the bill was paid.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Rome was pretty tough on those denying that the emperor was a god.

Also on those denying other gods and other religions.

Absorb other cultures including their religion. Give them roman backing in exchange, everyone is happy . To try and break this was treasonous.

He was basically considered Osama bin Laden.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But on the other hand, Jesus proved that that's not true. If he didn't prove it was possible, then someone would have to say Jesus sinned.

Jesus sinned on multiple occasions, such as dishonoring his parents, vandalizing stuff, assaulting people, being a hypocrite, breaking the sabbath, being racist, etc.

 

[stvdv]

Rome was pretty tough on those denying that the emperor was a god.

Maybe a bit like D.Trump, I remember he said to Kim something like:
I wish the Americans would listen to me as the N.Koreans listen to you, and adore you

He does not give up that the elections were rigged. Of course he can't crucify people, but he did try hard. He might see himself as a savior even

 

[stvdv]

Die for what, ....three days? That did not look much of a sacrifice, so probably sin is not such a big issue, after all.

I would sign up for that any day. At least I have some interesting facts to share on RF after those 3 day being "bodily dead" coming back to life.

Note: I would sign up for 'being dead for 3 days" ... without the crucifying part (too painful for me)

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can:

I AM GUILTY OF NOBODY'S WRONGDOING BUT MY OWN.

If you want to be punished for the crimes of your ancestors, fine, you go for it. And I hope it makes you feel better, though I can't see how.

But any so-called GOD that presumes to hold me accountable for what somebody else did is just as ignorant as most of the others humans I've ever encountered -- which is why I suspect that that is exactly who he is. The figment of imagination of a bunch of ignorant, gullible humans.

I think you misunderstand, once Adam disobeyed God ergo sinned God had warned Adam "the day you eat the fruit of the tree you will surely die". God had an idea what man would become once they chose to follow their own desires so there was no way He could afford them eternal life. He had two options, He could either destroy us or find another perfect human who would 'buy back' what Adam lost by showing he could be obedient to God even unto death. Those accept this sacrifice and exercise faith have the chance of eternal life.

It is also obvious from the perspective of God (if you believe in Him) we have all sinned , "“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” so all deserve death.

Just about to finish a degree in philosophy I object to be considered an ignorant, gullible human, I am neither.

,

 

[Sandra Jayne]

So what kind of evil monster of a god would inflict this sort of thing on all of humanity?



So why would an omnipotent god allow us to be caught up in this "tussle" - more indications that your god is a monster.



And now we come the the silliest part of the whole bizarre story. In order to get rescued from this god ordained disaster, we have to believe the nonsense in an incoherent, disjointed, often self-contradictory collection of books and ask for forgiveness for what this god has done to us.

You don't have to believe in anything, it is your choice just as it was Adam's.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think you misunderstand, once Adam disobeyed God ergo sinned God had warned Adam "the day you eat the fruit of the tree you will surely die". God had an idea what man would become once they chose to follow their own desires so there was no way He could afford them eternal life. He had two options, He could either destroy us or find another perfect human who would 'buy back' what Adam lost by showing he could be obedient to God even unto death. Those accept this sacrifice and exercise faith have the chance of eternal life.

It is also obvious from the perspective of God (if you believe in Him) we have all sinned , "“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” so all deserve death.

Just about to finish a degree in philosophy I object to be considered an ignorant, gullible human, I am neither.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the first paragraph of your post has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with religious indoctrination. You even suggest that God can't bear the notion of humans who "follow their own desires." Thus, that God can't stand the idea of humans that were created free.

Even when you quote "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," you betray your unphilosophical indoctrination. OF COURSE we fall short of the glory of God. If you believe, as you appear to, that we are God's creation, then we are by definition NOT God, and cannot pretend to that glory.

But because we are in fact God's creation, that cannot possibly be considered a sin in us -- it is what we were created to be.

Those ideas are dogma, plain and simple. They do not hold up to deep philosophical inquiry, without deliberately suppressing or ignoring the inherent contradictions. And I think, if you are doing that, you are not doing philosophy.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Unfortunately, I have to say that the first paragraph of your post has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with religious indoctrination. You even suggest that God can't bear the notion of humans who "follow their own desires." Thus, that God can't stand the idea of humans that were created free.

Even when you quote "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," you betray your unphilosophical indoctrination. OF COURSE we fall short of the glory of God. If you believe, as you appear to, that we are God's creation, then we are by definition NOT God, and cannot pretend to that glory.

But because we are in fact God's creation, that cannot possibly be considered a sin in us -- it is what we were created to be.

Those ideas are dogma, plain and simple. They do not hold up to deep philosophical inquiry, without deliberately suppressing or ignoring the inherent contradictions. And I think, if you are doing that, you are not doing philosophy.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Unfortunately, I have to say that the first paragraph of your post has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with religious indoctrination. You even suggest that God can't bear the notion of humans who "follow their own desires." Thus, that God can't stand the idea of humans that were created free.

Even when you quote "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," you betray your unphilosophical indoctrination. OF COURSE we fall short of the glory of God. If you believe, as you appear to, that we are God's creation, then we are by definition NOT God, and cannot pretend to that glory.

But because we are in fact God's creation, that cannot possibly be considered a sin in us -- it is what we were created to be.

Those ideas are dogma, plain and simple. They do not hold up to deep philosophical inquiry, without deliberately suppressing or ignoring the inherent contradictions. And I think, if you are doing that, you are not doing philosophy.

You are still not grasping what I'm saying, I am most certainly not indoctrinated, although I attended church until I was 15yrs they taught very different doctrines to what I now am coming to believe through study and research.

You are making unfair assumptions and I am most certainly not a liar, just finished and assignment in philosophy discussing McMahan and Walzer and Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, would you like to discuss, or John Locke and what is a person, or Socrates, Kant if you prefer, Hume is quite popular?
Don't understand why you're so angry, a debate shouldn't be like this.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are still not grasping what I'm saying, I am most certainly not indoctrinated, although I attended church until I was 15yrs they taught very different doctrines to what I now am coming to believe through study and research.

You are making unfair assumptions and I am most certainly not a liar, just finished and assignment in philosophy discussing McMahan and Walzer and Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, would you like to discuss, or John Locke and what is a person, or Socrates, Kant if you prefer, Hume is quite popular?
Don't understand why you're so angry, a debate shouldn't be like this.

There was not one word of anger in my post. I am quite familiar with everything you have just mentioned, but in my view none of them has much to do with religion. Certainly David Hume did not, and his "A Treatise on Human Nature" is one of my favourite things, along with "Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding" and his posthumously published "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion."

Hume was very popular in the salons in Paris, especially that of the Baron D'Holbach, one of the world's most affable atheists -- who also provided a great table!

But this debate isn't about those philosophers, nor about whether it's right to make war, or what rights people have in war. It's about why we need a Saviour. That ought, at the very least, to include some notion of what it is we need saving from, and what that salvation looks like. And my contention is that the answers propounded by the Christian religion do not make any coherent sense, and that is what I have been arguing.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

There was not one word of anger in my post. I am quite familiar with everything you have just mentioned, but in my view none of them has much to do with religion. Certainly David Hume did not, and his "A Treatise on Human Nature" is one of my favourite things, along with "Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding" and his posthumously published "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion."

Hume was very popular in the salons in Paris, especially that of the Baron D'Holbach, one of the world's most affable atheists -- who also provided a great table!

But this debate isn't about those philosophers, nor about whether it's right to make war, or what rights people have in war. It's about why we need a Saviour. That ought, at the very least, to include some notion of what it is we need saving from, and what that salvation looks like. And my contention is that the answers propounded by the Christian religion do not make any coherent sense, and that is what I have been arguing.

Of course it has nothing to do with religion but you questioned my honesty and it was a way of giving some evidence that I am familiar with philosophers and philosophical terms and I am coming to the end of a degree in philosophy so I am neither ignorant or gullible.

In fact I am quite surprised that anyone who has read philosophy would be so disrespectful, you are angry, it's not what you say but how you say it and your accusations and disrespect shine through. I have engaged with those I refer to as aggressive atheists before and there is usually a reason for it.

Look at the world around you, and I do not mean the physical world, that's what we need saving from, starvation, disease war.

I refuse to be bullied and you obviously have a closed mind so best not to engage any further.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course it has nothing to do with religion but you questioned my honesty and it was a way of giving some evidence that I am familiar with philosophers and philosophical terms and I am coming to the end of a degree in philosophy so I am neither ignorant or gullible.

In fact I am quite surprised that anyone who has read philosophy would be so disrespectful, you are angry, it's not what you say but how you say it and your accusations and disrespect shine through. I have engaged with those I refer to as aggressive atheists before and there is usually a reason for it.

Look at the world around you, and I do not mean the physical world, that's what we need saving from, starvation, disease war.

I refuse to be bullied and you obviously have a closed mind so best not to engage any further.

As you wish.

I have reviewed both of my posts to you, and I don't feel I've said anything out of place -- nor disrespectful nor angry. I suspect you may be a bit thin-skinned to engage in debates of this kind -- they seem to touch on matters that you don't wish to be up for discussion.

 

[Deeje]

This notion of a "tussle between the forces of good and evil" strikes me as totally illogical. You, and all Christians, so far as I can tell, accept that God is omnipotent. Now, unless Satan (or whoever you credit for the "forces of evil") is similarly omnipotent, then there is no tussle even possible. It's over before it starts.

It isn't impossible if there is a valid reason for it.....people like you apparently like to compare God to yourselves and because you can't see a valid reason for any of it, there can't possibly be one. To say you don't understand is probably an understatement.....but hey, you really don't want to know....or do you?

God is not only Omnipotent, but also Omniscient, therefore he know what we cannot, and he can see the future before it happens. He sees 'from the beginning, the finale'. (Isaiah 46:10) From that vantage point, he can see the best way to handle a situation as soon as it arises.

Look, if only one side is infinitely powerful, then let us be clear, the other side has only finite ability. And finite -- wait for it -- infinitely less powerful than infinitely powerful.

This battle is not 'God verses the Devil' because there could be no contest.....this is a battle for the hearts and minds of men....in fact it is a battle for the loyalty of all his intelligent creatures...both human and angelic. Remember that the first rebel was not human, and it was really he who wanted to be 'like God' and have the humans worship him, and do his bidding.....but first he had to separate them from their Creator by using slander and lies. He chose the woman because he knew that through her, his tactic of "divide and conquer" could work on the man......and it did.....it still does.

Created with free will, the devil used that freedom against mankind right at the outset. He called God a liar and convinced the woman that God had bad motives in claiming the TKGE for himself. She fell for those lies, but her husband did not. By her actions, he forced the man to divide his loyalties....so he chose to side with his wife rather than to remain loyal to God who up to this point had shown them nothing but loving generosity.
You see "self-interest" can conquer even an angel if his free will is abused.

We now have a written record of all that has transpired from the first rebellion, down to today, so that this failure on the part of the devil and his minions to steal worship away from the Creator will be settled for all time to come. There will never be a challenge to God's Sovereignty again. Precedents are set forever.

And if both sides are infinitely powerful, there cannot ever be a winner -- the battle must go on, futile skirmish after futile skirmish, forever.

Satan never challenged God's power......he challenged his sovereign right to set the limits of the freedom that he gave to the humans. Free will cannot be totally free because that is open to abuse, just as the devil demonstrated by stepping out of his own restricted freedom to encourage the humans to do the same.

How would God handle this rebellion and misuse of free will (supposedly a gift) and bring about the success of his purpose in the end? How did it even happen in the first place? Why did God created his intelligent creatures with free will if it could be abused?

Angels were used at times as God's representatives, who sometimes spoke for him and carried out his instructions for them. Free will gave them options to use their intelligence in ways that animals (solely programmed by instinct) could not. Humans too were to represent him here as caretakers of this planet, having dominion over all other lifeforms. They too needed this attribute to make decisions as circumstances arose to problem solve and bring about a good outcome like God himself would. Free will, used correctly, would be a wonderful gift.....but abuse turned it into a curse as the will of some dominated over the will of others, causing friction and division.

Angels never had a need to step outside of their natural position in God's scheme of things.......until there were lower intelligent lifeforms who could see a 'wannabe' as a god. Satan was in a guardianship position in the garden and saw everything that transpired there. He began to entertain wrong thoughts and plotted his move very carefully. If he approached the man first, he may well have been rebuffed, (as Adam had been well educated by God before he was provided with a mate) but satan used the woman to bait the man. He successfully divided his loyalties and the rest was the outcome that satan had hoped for.

But it seems that he underestimated God's reaction to the rebellion he had caused. i.e. eviction from the garden to a cursed wilderness outside, and denial of access to "the tree of life"...the only means they had to live forever. (Genesis 3:22-24)

It meant that death would eventually overtake the human race and satan's 'worshippers' would die and need replacing. It meant that he constantly needed recruits. His solution? False worship. By satisfying the natural inclination of man to worship, he gave them false gods who strongly resembled himself....selfish, violent and licentious.

So why didn't God just destroy the rebels and start again? Because the issues raised in Eden had to be settled once and for all, or else another "satan" could emerge from the ranks and start it up all over again. God chose to step back and allow the rebels all the freedom they desired because he wanted them to see first hand where that course of independence would take them.....look at our history of self rule and tell us when there has ever been a truly successful world ruler who was not corrupted by their power over others? Satan is the power behind "all the Kingdoms of the world". (Luke 4:5-8; 1 John 5:19)

This is an object lesson of mammoth proportions because ALL of God's intelligent creation are on trial. There are two sides and we have to choose who's side we are on. At the end of the day, there are only "sheep" and "goats"....we place ourselves in either one category or the other by our own free willed choices. There is no fence to sit on, and those who despise God will not be forced to live in his Kingdom, which will eliminate all satanically inspired human rulership and replace them as man's only government. (Daniel 2:44) The devil and his hordes will go into a prison-like abyss for 1,000 years until the Kingdom of God in the hands of his Christ has eliminated sin from the world forever.....then after one final test, all opposers of God and his kingdom will simply disappear....never to be seen again.

Then God can get on with whatever plans he has for the rest of this vast Universe.....unconstrained by time, he may well end up populating the whole Universe....? Who knows?

All you've done is tell me how imaginative you are, since every claim you make is made in the total absence of evidence for its veracity. You may live your fiction as you like, I will carry on living my reality.

If you "know" scripture, rather than "think" you know it, then the big picture has been there all along...it was just lost between the lines, ready to be revealed in the end times.....and here we are.

Where are you?

 

[Trailblazer]

Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can:

I AM GUILTY OF NOBODY'S WRONGDOING BUT MY OWN.

Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can: I fully agree!
Regarding Adam and Eve and Original Sin:

“Observe that if, according to the suppositions of the People of the Book, 7 the meaning were taken in its exoteric sense, it would be absolute injustice and complete predestination. If Adam sinned by going near the forbidden tree, what was the sin of the glorious Abraham, and what was the error of Moses the Interlocutor? What was the crime of Noah the Prophet? What was the transgression of Joseph the Truthful? What was the iniquity of the Prophets of God, and what was the trespass of John the Chaste? Would the justice of God have allowed these enlightened Manifestations, on account of the sin of Adam, to find torment in hell until Christ came and by the sacrifice of Himself saved them from excruciating tortures? Such an idea is beyond every law and rule and cannot be accepted by any intelligent person.” Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 125-126

 

[MonkeyFire]

Jesus's sacrafice wasnt crucifixion it was coming to earth to suffer as a human being.

 

[thomas t]

Merry Christmas (in case you celebrate anything)

Which is irrelevant to the injustice of us not having a real choice in the first place.

you do have a choice about how you deal with your nature.
Very much in the way that you do have a choice whether or not to drive a car when you are in no position to drive it safely... and very much in the way Shell did have a choice to use the broken pipeline for their own financial benefit or to not use it.
You have all sorts of choices.

These are actual, concious, living humans. If god discards them as if they were just lifeless sculptures, then it is an evil monster.

He treats them as his piece of arts. Every artist has the rights to do whatever he wants with his piece of arts, so God should not be treated differently here, I think. No special pleading to the detriment of God, please.
He is no evil monster.

dreadful way to provide evidence.

as dreadful as you ever may call it, adopting the form of a human and coming to earth was the way God delivered evidence of his existence last time, according to the Bible. When they kill him, it's a reason to not come back. Of course he had the power to prevent himself from being killed.
But coming into an environment in which everyone wants to kill is an unpleasant experience in and of itself.

Let me compare it to the experiences a close contact of mine made when she travelled to a very conservative country. Once she showed up in normal beach attire, almost all men started to stare at her breasts.
Be sure, they couldn't rape her because her boy friend was with her.
And yet, after three days, all the staring simply got on her nerves.
It was not pleasant for her, she said.
Same with God when he wants to come to an environment in which half or more of all people want to kill him, I think.

Oh right, so because you can look at pretty landscapes, you shouldn't worry that you're dying in agony[...]
The lack of even basic human empathy here is palpable.

I don't lack human empathy.
My point was about evidence yes or no. And the beauty of the landscape is still evidence, since people with leukaemia also can enjoy it.
I didn't claim that since there is a God everything is just so perfectly nice.
I didn't claim that I don't care when someone has leukaemia, either.


I stay with my opinion, the Bible is not myths there are no contradictions within this book, as I see it.
I stay with my opinion, here too: God is perfectly just and I also think there is no reason to believe he is not.

 

[thomas t]

God sent Hebrews to Egypt.

no, you don't have a BIble verse to show this.
In my opinion, God merely foresaw that they would end up in Egypt.

He always blamed others for His actions.

I don't agree.

I shouldn’t be charged if the bill was paid.

The bill was paid for you, too, the moment you accept the gift - and believe him.
John 3:16.

 

[ratiocinator]

you do have a choice about how you deal with your nature.

Nothing you say can take away the fact that giving people a sinful nature is unjust and unfair. Full stop, end of story.

He treats them as his piece of arts. Every artist has the rights to do whatever he wants with his piece of arts, so God should not be treated differently here, I think. No special pleading to the detriment of God, please.

It is you who are special pleading here. Being cruel to conscious beings is monstrous and evil. Arguably more so if you created them knowing (omniscience) what you were going to do to them.

as dreadful as you ever may call it, adopting the form of a human and coming to earth was the way God delivered evidence of his existence last time, according to the Bible.

Yes I know that's what the bible says, that's yet another reason to think it's nonsense.

But coming into an environment in which everyone wants to kill is an unpleasant experience in and of itself.

If god revealed itself to everybody in a clear and unambiguous way (rather than disguised as a human and interacting with only a small number of people), why do you think anybody would want to kill it, or even think they could?

I don't lack human empathy.

I believe you - and that's why I find your faith so chilling. Despite the fact that you are (I assume) a perfectly moral and caring human, you are prepared to defend the indefensible when it comes to the bible and your god. I see this over and over again with Christians and it's just bizarre. I don't understand the incredible amount of doublethink that must be involved.

My point was about evidence yes or no. And the beauty of the landscape is still evidence, since people with leukaemia also can enjoy it.

But it simply isn't evidence. In what possible way do you imagine that humans finding some things nice to look at, is evidence for any god, let alone your specific one? Even if I accept the 'good' things in life as evidence, then, in order to be consistent, I'd have to accept that all the bad things are evidence against god.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It isn't impossible if there is a valid reason for it.....people like you apparently like to compare God to yourselves and because you can't see a valid reason for any of it, there can't possibly be one. To say you don't understand is probably an understatement.....but hey, you really don't want to know....or do you?

God is not only Omnipotent, but also Omniscient, therefore he know what we cannot, and he can see the future before it happens. He sees 'from the beginning, the finale'. (Isaiah 46:10) From that vantage point, he can see the best way to handle a situation as soon as it arises.



This battle is not 'God verses the Devil' because there could be no contest.....this is a battle for the hearts and minds of men....in fact it is a battle for the loyalty of all his intelligent creatures...both human and angelic. Remember that the first rebel was not human, and it was really he who wanted to be 'like God' and have the humans worship him, and do his bidding.....but first he had to separate them from their Creator by using slander and lies. He chose the woman because he knew that through her, his tactic of "divide and conquer" could work on the man......and it did.....it still does.

Created with free will, the devil used that freedom against mankind right at the outset. He called God a liar and convinced the woman that God had bad motives in claiming the TKGE for himself. She fell for those lies, but her husband did not. By her actions, he forced the man to divide his loyalties....so he chose to side with his wife rather than to remain loyal to God who up to this point had shown them nothing but loving generosity.
You see "self-interest" can conquer even an angel if his free will is abused.

We now have a written record of all that has transpired from the first rebellion, down to today, so that this failure on the part of the devil and his minions to steal worship away from the Creator will be settled for all time to come. There will never be a challenge to God's Sovereignty again. Precedents are set forever.



Satan never challenged God's power......he challenged his sovereign right to set the limits of the freedom that he gave to the humans. Free will cannot be totally free because that is open to abuse, just as the devil demonstrated by stepping out of his own restricted freedom to encourage the humans to do the same.

How would God handle this rebellion and misuse of free will (supposedly a gift) and bring about the success of his purpose in the end? How did it even happen in the first place? Why did God created his intelligent creatures with free will if it could be abused?

Angels were used at times as God's representatives, who sometimes spoke for him and carried out his instructions for them. Free will gave them options to use their intelligence in ways that animals (solely programmed by instinct) could not. Humans too were to represent him here as caretakers of this planet, having dominion over all other lifeforms. They too needed this attribute to make decisions as circumstances arose to problem solve and bring about a good outcome like God himself would. Free will, used correctly, would be a wonderful gift.....but abuse turned it into a curse as the will of some dominated over the will of others, causing friction and division.

Angels never had a need to step outside of their natural position in God's scheme of things.......until there were lower intelligent lifeforms who could see a 'wannabe' as a god. Satan was in a guardianship position in the garden and saw everything that transpired there. He began to entertain wrong thoughts and plotted his move very carefully. If he approached the man first, he may well have been rebuffed, (as Adam had been well educated by God before he was provided with a mate) but satan used the woman to bait the man. He successfully divided his loyalties and the rest was the outcome that satan had hoped for.

But it seems that he underestimated God's reaction to the rebellion he had caused. i.e. eviction from the garden to a cursed wilderness outside, and denial of access to "the tree of life"...the only means they had to live forever. (Genesis 3:22-24)

It meant that death would eventually overtake the human race and satan's 'worshippers' would die and need replacing. It meant that he constantly needed recruits. His solution? False worship. By satisfying the natural inclination of man to worship, he gave them false gods who strongly resembled himself....selfish, violent and licentious.

So why didn't God just destroy the rebels and start again? Because the issues raised in Eden had to be settled once and for all, or else another "satan" could emerge from the ranks and start it up all over again. God chose to step back and allow the rebels all the freedom they desired because he wanted them to see first hand where that course of independence would take them.....look at our history of self rule and tell us when there has ever been a truly successful world ruler who was not corrupted by their power over others? Satan is the power behind "all the Kingdoms of the world". (Luke 4:5-8; 1 John 5:19)

This is an object lesson of mammoth proportions because ALL of God's intelligent creation are on trial. There are two sides and we have to choose who's side we are on. At the end of the day, there are only "sheep" and "goats"....we place ourselves in either one category or the other by our own free willed choices. There is no fence to sit on, and those who despise God will not be forced to live in his Kingdom, which will eliminate all satanically inspired human rulership and replace them as man's only government. (Daniel 2:44) The devil and his hordes will go into a prison-like abyss for 1,000 years until the Kingdom of God in the hands of his Christ has eliminated sin from the world forever.....then after one final test, all opposers of God and his kingdom will simply disappear....never to be seen again.

Then God can get on with whatever plans he has for the rest of this vast Universe.....unconstrained by time, he may well end up populating the whole Universe....? Who knows?



If you "know" scripture, rather than "think" you know it, then the big picture has been there all along...it was just lost between the lines, ready to be revealed in the end times.....and here we are.

Where are you?

Let's start with this:

"..but hey, you really don't want to know....or do you?"

Yes, actually, I do. But I also know this -- I will never learn anything that is true by reading Genesis as if it were settled history. There was no garden, no Adam, no Eve, no serpent-aka-Satan, etc.

And this:

"it was really he [Satan] who wanted to be 'like God' and have the humans worship him, and do his bidding.....but first he had to separate them from their Creator by using slander and lies. He chose the woman because he knew that through her, his tactic of "divide and conquer" could work on the man"

Yes, the obligatory misogyny...

And then:

"We now have a written record of all that has transpired from the first rebellion, down to today, so that this failure on the part of the devil and his aminions to steal worship away from the Creator will be settled for all time to come."

This is what I meant by reading the allegory, and often blatent invention, of scripture as if it were settled history. It isn't.

But then:

"Where are you?"

Right here, in the real world, where I've always been.