dduckwessel Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 But, there was no deceit by Lucifer, Lucifer told Eve the truth, that she would not die if she touched the fruit. Lucifer told a half truth, which is tantamount to a lie...a part of them died, their supernatural self as they could no longer remain in the supernatural garden because they became mortal God had the option to send Jesus to Lucifer so that he could suffer for all eternity so that humans would know that God loves them and come to accept Jesus as their savior, but God refused because he loves his Son more than he loves humans. Again, God sacrificed himself: "God was manifest in the flesh..." (1 Tim. 3:16) It's noble to sacrifice yourself but cowardly to ask someone else to do it! The approach God took 2000+ years ago to convince humans that he loves them was a near complete failure. I agree, it does not appear successful but Satan is continuously working against God to keep people in spiritual darkness. We only need look to the history of human evil actions against other humans for the past 2000+ years, mans inhumanity to man. The vast majority of humans do not believe that there was any true sacrifice by God, his Son remains by his side. But, thank God, it is easy for God to correct the situation. God can send a message to earth that Jesus has been sent to suffer with Lucifer for all eternity as a sign of Gods love for ALL humans on the earth, and that all humans that believe this message to be true will have every lasting life in heaven. There is a possibility that this will be the message God will send at the end time event that will occur December 21, 2012... Satan is called a liar and 'the father of lies'...why would you even want to appease someone like that? Completely a false statement from the mouth of God directly, thus we read....Genesis 3:23...."And the Lord God said, behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...lest he...take ALSO FROM THE TREE OF LIFE, and eat, and live for ever...3:25...so he drove out the man" He drove out the man for the man's sake. False. John 3:16 clearly states that God sacrificed his SON, not himself. You have accepted a false interpretation, you cannot change the text of John 3:16, written by God who guided the hand holding a pen of a man named John, to meet your false personal philosophy. Please then tell me why Jesus referred to himself this way:"I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Rev. 22:13) and this way:"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hi Pamela! As participators in this thread we are supposed to assume that John 3:16 correctly interpretes what God was trying to say about life and death for humans... Hopefully i will be excused for trying to determine the consequences of doing so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 ...we are supposed to assume that John 3:16 correctly interpretes what God was trying to say about life and death for humans.Not really, we're supposed to discuss what the writer meant by it, regardless of whether there was someone else whispering into his head, guiding his thoughts or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Here are (I think) the beginning assumptions of the thread: A we assume the Bible verse is a correct interpretation of what God was trying to say about life and death for humans. B we use the following Kings James translation of John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". C let's start with: 1. Did God really give his Son away? To the above my reaction was: If God gave his only begotten son away in a legally and logically binding manner then they must share the same y chromosome. Or Jesus is an adopted son. Since the constitution of a god probably doesnt include chromosomes I draw the conclusionthat God did , at most, give away an adopted son! Well then, I think I have violated no rules... But if I may step outside the assumptions, then it seems to me that john 3:16 contradicts itself unless one is a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hi Pamela! As participators in this thread we are supposed to assume that John 3:16 correctly interpretes what God was trying to say about life and death for humans... Hopefully i will be excused for trying to determine the consequences of doing so!Hello SigurdV, welcome to Hypography :) Qfwfq pretty much covered it hereNot really, we're supposed to discuss what the writer meant by it, regardless of whether there was someone else whispering into his head, guiding his thoughts or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Here are (I think) the beginning assumptions of the thread: A we assume the Bible verse is a correct interpretation of what God was trying to say about life and death for humans. B we use the following Kings James translation of John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". C let's start with: 1. Did God really give his Son away? To the above my reaction was: If God gave his only begotten son away in a legally and logically binding manner then they must share the same y chromosome. Or Jesus is an adopted son. Since the constitution of a god probably doesnt include chromosomes I draw the conclusionthat God did , at most, give away an adopted son! Well then, I think I have violated no rules... But if I may step outside the assumptions, then it seems to me that john 3:16 contradicts itself unless one is a Christian.You seem to be humanising God , when infact God is light.Lets try it this way. Lets view what man is deemed by scriptures. He is comprised of 3 parts; spirit, soul and body. God in the same fashion is this. Spirit= Holy Spirit, Soul = Godhead which is light, and body= God in the flesh which represents Jesus.Based upon that,are there chromosomes in what I think or feel? of course not, only in the chemical make up of the flesh.Therefore trying to go the route you are taking here, doesn't seem to be applicable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hi again Pamela :) Initially I was somewhat miffed, perhaps because I wasnt really aware that I had entered the Theology Channel.Religions I classify among harmful mental diseases, but the infected should be treated with love and respect so excuse me if I tread on some toes in here. Theology , on the other hand, I think might be a respectable activity unless its only poorly disguised propaganda for some religion.Top concepts like "Absolute", "God" and "Reality" is surely in need of clarification and I always look out for sober discussions about them. That said, a quick look at the thread reminds me more of a Tolkien Society discussing the affairs of Mordor than a set of proper theologicians doing their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Ahem... (One point at the time sigurd) (And watch your temper... smile: :) You say "god is light" I take it you mean that God is quantized and obeys the laws of Physics... Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hi again Pamela :) Initially I was somewhat miffed, perhaps because I wasnt really aware that I had entered the Theology Channel.Religions I classify among harmful mental diseases, but the infected should be treated with love and respect so excuse me if I tread on some toes in here. I think it important to read the context of the thread and not assume it is a venue for proselytising. Religion itself, is not a disease.Since early times, mankind has sought an answer to the what and the how and to what end is portended for the almighty "I". Theology , on the other hand, I think might be a respectable activity unless its only poorly disguised propaganda for some religion.we do try to spot that quickly if possible, after all,the majority of us here are logically minded people and we like to deal in empirical data in a science forum :PTop concepts like "Absolute", "God" and "Reality" is surely in need of clarification and I always look out for sober discussions about them. That said, a quick look at the thread reminds me more of a Tolkien Society discussing the affairs of Mordor than a set of proper theologicians doing their business.oh man, start a thread on that- it would rock!!! major tolkien fan here :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Ahem... (One point at the time sigurd) (And watch your temper... smile: :)me temper? lol! never really, once you see a few more of my posts you will think differently.I am easy going but do not like to see people offended. A good argument can be had, without degrading or demoralising people, so i just try to keep things in check :)You say "god is light" I take it you mean that God is quantized and obeys the laws of Physics... Right?lets clarify, it is not that I say, but I am referring to what is in the Bible.God is light and in Him there is no darkness. But God created light as well in reference to separating night from day.So two kinds of light really, one that is viewed and one that is known Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 lets clarify, it is not that I say, but I am referring to what is in the Bible.God is light and in Him there is no darkness. But God created light as well in reference to separating night from day.So two kinds of light really, one that is viewed and one that is known Hmmm... God cant be light since it has no inside that could be lighted up. The "light" inside God must then be a metaphor... meaning what? That Jahve is honest and has no hidden intentions? (Ha!) Before I go on trying to understand your quotations I should point out that Im not humanizing God, its Johns own doing... All I do is drawing conclusions from statements: John said that God is the father of Jesus. If it is as he says then God is humanized! (So he is wrong.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hmmm... God cant be light since it has no inside that could be lighted up. The "light" inside God must then be a metaphor... meaning what? That Jahve is honest and has no hidden intentions? (Ha!)you are giving God form here and light has no form- i think you are missing the point Before I go on trying to understand your quotations I should point out that Im not humanizing God, its Johns own doing... all I do is drawing conclusions from statements: John said that God is the father of jesus. If he is correct then God is humanized! (So he is wrong.)I reckon I can understand your confusion, since you most likely have not dissected the Bible. There are many references to the nature of the being of God in the Bible.Thse are drawn collectively to represent the image of God.Not too disimilar to a puzzle, where there are a few pieces missing. But since no man has seen God and lived, one can only surmise from those references an incomplete concept of God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Aha! Not complete, but also self contradictory and grossly missleading picture of God!Is your knowledge of God only gotten from the bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 you are giving God form here and light has no form- i think you are missing the pointThe form of light is a wave, Ive heard... No scientist claims light to be a formless thing :)Also: It was not me saying God has an inside without darkness!I dont think its that Im missing the point... I suspect there is no point to miss, words used religiously lacks meaning and truth in many cases. PS Some theologicians and prophets claim that there is no proper description of God, that all we can reach is approximations but that doesnt mean we should be satisfied with ridiculous approximations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Sigurd, you are intentionally disrupting this thread. You are making points outside the purpose of the OP and you are also making provocatory remarks. This is not welcome. :naughty: pamela 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Sigurd, you are intentionally disrupting this thread. You are making points outside the purpose of the OP and you are also making provocatory remarks. This is not welcome. :naughty:I am?That was not intended.I will leave immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 interpret this... Rules for the Theology Forum This is not the place to discuss Bible verses, ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts