On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:03:10 +0200, "Brandon" <sales@firersa.com>
wrote:

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:gi8d025dd4db9c3jau50jmqc2tcusqhm20@4ax.com...

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 22:55:10 +0200, "Brandon" <sales@firersa.com>
wrote:

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:v9sb02hffofde3ffq96nf0qsh1s3svsif3@4ax.com...

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:07:13 +0200, "Brandon" <sales@firersa.com>
wrote:

"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2702062158380001@192.168.1.101...

In article <dtvo5o$37i$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, "Brandon"
<sales@firersa.com> wrote:

snip

++++Somewhere along this thread somebody said that God was wicked to
allow
death
and suffering. I was pointing out that the god of the system in which
death
and suffering rule
is satan?

I thought Christians believed in only one god and that he was
all-powerful.

+++Well obviously that is just thought. Now a Christian tells you that
Gods
word speaks of
other gods, like baal, like satan, and Jesus indicated that men where even
considered to be gods!
So on the basis of the bible a christian is told of the existence of many
gods. I believe in one
Creator of the universe, a creator of man, and believe him to be the
supreme
God.

In that case "the god of the system in which death and suffering rule"
would not be Satan but the supreme god you say you believe in.

+++Can you explain your reasoning a little more. Just Because God created
the universe , he is not responsible
for the prostitution going on in the corner brothel. Just because chevrolet
made that suv, doesn't make them responsible
for the drunk, driving at an excessive speed, and running down a child with
the SUV.

Just because god is described as omnipotent and Chevrolet obviously is
not omnipotent your analogy does not even come close to working.

You so positively imagine that to be the case?

It is quite clear that if god is omnipotent it is responsible for
everything.

snip

(Revelation 12:9) 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original
serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire
inhabited earth; . . .

Clear reference to Satan being the serpent that misled eve in the Garden.!

Written long after Genesis. The Genesis story does not in any manner
indicate that the serpent was anything other than a serpent, unless,
of course, you think Satan moved around on his stomach or even had a
stomach.

+++So you imagine that serpents where able to speak back then........?

How could you possibly think that I believe any of it? No, I do not
believe in talking serpents,

or fruit that gives people the knowledge
of good and evil,

first man,

or that the world was made in six days.

that the serpent talked and that the serpent was an animal.

There was no mention of anybody rejecting god's soverignty

in favor of Satan or of any other being.

+++from the above it follows: Perhaps i need to put it in other words for
you.

Man disobeyed the ruler of the universe, at the instigation of a rebel
angel. I guess -when
one rebels against the government of a land, that reflects a rejection of
the sovereignity of that
ruler.

Once again you add to the story.

+++Ok, lets just leave it at the fact that they chose to disobey God and
listen to the talking
serpent then.......if you imagine that means anything different.

No I don't think it does.

just another creation myth with details copied from other myths. I am
not the one trying to change it, nor do I have any reason to do so.

There was mention, however,

of two people who were totally innocent and who had no idea about good
or evil.

++++You keep omitting (purposefully i suspect) the reference to "the
serpent". That was surely mentioned in
the account.

Yes, a serpent was mentioned. The story also claims to explain why
serpents crawl on their bellies. I have not ignored anything. I
pointed out that Satan was not mentioned; a serpent was.

+++Yes a talking serpent, who you now add - walked upright as well.......!

I said nothing about how it walked; I only pointed out what the story
said. If you are implying that the story is silly, I agree with you.
I never said it was not silly.

As regards your claim that they where innocent , with no idea
of good or evil, -

(1 Timothy 2:14) 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was
thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.

Adam transgressed while not being deceived - certainly indicates an
awareness of good and evil.

It clearly indicates a logical contradiction in the story. Clearly I
am not the one ignoring things. They did not know good and evil
before they ate of the fruit, therefore they were as innocent as
babies and incapable of knowing what sin was or consciously doing
anything wrong.

They would have been as capable of sinning as a baby one

week old. Your interpretation adds details not in the story; the
story itself makes no sense.

+++Of course it wouldn't, given the liberal "snipping" of content.

Feel free to point out what content I snipped. The story says they
were innocent. The story says they ate of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil and only then knew good and evil. It would be nice
if you could stick to the subject at hand and drop the rather silly
personal insults.

+++There is a personal insult here? If one excludes the rest of scripture
other parts
logically will not make sense.

Timothy does not resolve the contradiction. He does not even try to
explain how people ignorant of good or evil could consciously commit
evil.

Then reflect on the meaning of the word
"know" in the
bible. As in Adam knew his wife and they bore a child......You see it has an
element
of partaking in. By partaking in evil they had now come to know it.

I see, you agree they knew nothing about it before.