Justify this.

[T00ts]

You mention the interpretation of God's word by people in the churches who have gone before. I am not really a believer of course, but starting from an assumption that the word of God was real and known in the time of Christ, and taking on board the Christian certainty that all humans are fallible and potential sinners - and there have definitely been some sinful popes in the past - isn't it possible that the true Christian message has been distorted from it's original form over time? As for the catholic notion of papal infallibility, I don't think that any human on the planet - not even the pope - is intrinsically infallible. The notion of infallibility in effect can create new doctrine that becomes set in stone based upon the possible human errors or opinions of a pope.

Absolutely which is why it is very important in my view to be very careful what we accept as truth. 

[srb7677]

I am so relieved that my belief in God sees Him as so much more forgiving. I just wonder where it says that repentance must be before earthly death. Is that in the Bible? Or is it the interpretation made by those who have gone before us in the many Churches organised since Christ's Ascension? Another thing to investigate.

You mention the interpretation of God's word by people in the churches who have gone before. I am not really a believer of course, but starting from an assumption that the word of God was real and known in the time of Christ, and taking on board the Christian certainty that all humans are fallible and potential sinners - and there have definitely been some sinful popes in the past - isn't it possible that the true Christian message has been distorted from it's original form over time? As for the catholic notion of papal infallibility, I don't think that any human on the planet - not even the pope - is intrinsically infallible. The notion of infallibility in effect can create new doctrine that becomes set in stone based upon the possible human errors or opinions of a pope.

[T00ts]

I've read it. None of their conjecture is backed in scripture.

And in Luke 13 Jesus himself said, "but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

There is nothing in scripture that says this can be done after death. In fact, I think that when we preach the gospel to others we have to make it clear that without repentance, there is no eternal life. If we give the impression that people can wait until after they have died before and go to the grave in sin, we could be held guilty of their spiritual death.

Anyway, Nick, when Stephen Fry creates his own universe, he can also make it more to his liking with his own rules, more perfect in his very tiny mind, but until then he either accepts the terms of the Creator, or goes to hell. That's God's rules.

I am so relieved that my belief in God sees Him as so much more forgiving. I just wonder where it says that repentance must be before earthly death. Is that in the Bible? Or is it the interpretation made by those who have gone before us in the many Churches organised since Christ's Ascension? Another thing to investigate.

[Barry]

I've read it. None of their conjecture is backed in scripture.

And in Luke 13 Jesus himself said, "but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

There is nothing in scripture that says this can be done after death. In fact, I think that when we preach the gospel to others we have to make it clear that without repentance, there is no eternal life. If we give the impression that people can wait until after they have died before and go to the grave in sin, we could be held guilty of their spiritual death.

Anyway, Nick, when Stephen Fry creates his own universe, he can also make it more to his liking with his own rules, more perfect in his very tiny mind, but until then he either accepts the terms of the Creator, or goes to hell. That's God's rules.

[T00ts]

I explained that eating from and touching that tree was forbidden, you said you didn't agree.
Now, unless I'm misunderstanding you, you don't agree with the plain English which said it was forbidden.
It's twice you've written it now.

I can't explain what you are asking. My take is always to return to the scriptures. Your take is to do your own interpretation.
Which I have seen many times before. Especially with your stance on post death salvation, which is not in any biblical scripture.

I'm flattered that you think I have the ability to make my own interpretation. That is far from the truth. I study hard to try and understand the deep imagery that God uses to reach us and put forward explanations that have meant something to me. I don't expect anyone to agree with me necessarily but I hope that sometimes there are those prepared to open their minds enough to make it an interesting discussion. My mistake.

In ref to your comment on those who have died without knowledge of Christ perhaps you might read this article. Why would a loving God exclude His Sons and Daughters who have never heard of His Only Begotten? I have never thought Him elitist.

 https://lifehopeandtruth.com/life/life-after-death/what-is-hell/christ-didnt-condemn-non-christians-to-hell/

[Barry]

Then you explain why would God command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply on the one hand but forbid them the knowledge of how to do that by forbidding the apple? Look for the logic. Please don't accuse me of such a thing as writing my own Bible. I can't believe that you would write that.

I explained that eating from and touching that tree was forbidden, you said you didn't agree.
Now, unless I'm misunderstanding you, you don't agree with the plain English which said it was forbidden.
It's twice you've written it now.

I can't explain what you are asking. My take is always to return to the scriptures. Your take is to do your own interpretation.
Which I have seen many times before. Especially with your stance on post death salvation, which is not in any biblical scripture.

[T00ts]

As is so often, you are writing your own Bible. Don't argue with me, argue with the written word!

Then you explain why would God command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply on the one hand but forbid them the knowledge of how to do that by forbidding the apple? Look for the logic. Please don't accuse me of such a thing as writing my own Bible. I can't believe that you would write that.

[Barry]

As is so often, you are writing your own Bible. Don't argue with me, argue with the written word!

[T00ts]

The tree of knowledge was certainly forbidden:

Genesis 3:3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

No I really don't agree. He knew that to obey His commandment to multiply would involve gaining the knowledge. It would also involve them taking upon themselves free will and recognising the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. God set it up that way because in the end His will will be fulfilled. As a result both Adam and Eve realised the consequences involved in disobeying God but God's work was begun. God will not force anyone to obey and that included Adam. He had to have free will and choose to succumb to evil through Satan. The command only told them what would happen. He did forbid that they eat of the Tree of Life and once Adam was banished actually protected it to keep them away. He never protected the knowledge tree.

[Barry]

Just out of interest the Tree of Knowledge was not forbidden in the sense that they must not but simply the explanation that they would surely die. 

The tree of knowledge was certainly forbidden:

Genesis 3:3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

[T00ts]

I don't think so. Genesis 2 and 3 deal with the business of Eve persuading Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge which was banned to them, but only after we hear of that does the subject of the Tree of LIFE come up, whose fruit apparently promises immortality.

Its just a wierd quirk of biology, animals and plants that have no haploid cell stage do not have this wierd lack of death through old age...

Just out of interest the Tree of Knowledge was not forbidden in the sense that they must not but simply the explanation that they would surely die. This death was spiritual and physical as I understand it but for God's plan to come to fruition they had to gain the knowledge to procreate which is, I believe, why Eve realised that she had to eat the apple. This then set in motion Jesus' role of Saviour. Without Eve eating the apple both she and Adam would still be in the Garden of Eden and none of us would have been born.
That links with your comment about cells since at the point of them being banished they needed to change physically to enable death. Procreation would be perhaps the catalyst of that cell change. All very interesting.

[johnofgwent]

Interesting - so does that explain the - 'if you eat of the tree of knowledge you will die'?

I don't think so. Genesis 2 and 3 deal with the business of Eve persuading Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge which was banned to them, but only after we hear of that does the subject of the Tree of LIFE come up, whose fruit apparently promises immortality.

Its just a wierd quirk of biology, animals and plants that have no haploid cell stage do not have this wierd lack of death through old age... 

[T00ts]

From a biological perspective gametes are immortal.

Now I'm going to have to explain that pretty quick.

Immortality in biological terms in this sense is not what you would expect. Sperm and Egg cells do not die of old age as other cells do. They certainly can and do die of lack of food source,lack of oxygen, heat, fire or physical damage but they do not age and die as somatic cells do. But the zygote cells formed from their union do

In biological terms, the wages of sexual joining is death. Which kind of explains the church's distate for it, the teenage me worked out.

Interesting - so does that explain the - 'if you eat of the tree of knowledge you will die'?

[johnofgwent]

From a biological perspective gametes are immortal.

Now I'm going to have to explain that pretty quick.

Immortality in biological terms in this sense is not what you would expect. Sperm and Egg cells do not die of old age as other cells do. They certainly can and do die of lack of food source,lack of oxygen, heat, fire or physical damage but they do not age and die as somatic cells do. But the zygote cells formed from their union do

In biological terms, the wages of sexual joining is death. Which kind of explains the church's distate for it, the teenage me worked out.

[Borchester]

I am 100% sure there is no God, the science just doesn't support it, and I've never had anything in my life I can contribute to a higher being.
It's only when people I know have joined religious groups that they say they have felt God, mainly due to the group pointing out and attributing everyday events to God.
No higher being would allow the atrocities of today to happen and there is no justification that you can bring to the table. 

To quote Heinlein,

Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.