Adam and Eve - did they have a belly button?

[mcgillcomposer]

Prometheus...

...wait a minute!!!

Does anyone else see a problem with this? 

[prometheus]

What?

[pianowelsh]

Why does noone just answer the actual question.  The question is not did adam and Eve exist.  That is presupposed in the question. The question merely asks if Adam and Eve had a belly button. Ok its a rather odd and im not sure totally fruitfull question but it is nevertheless the one in question.  Did they need a belly button?? well no as it has been rightly pointed out the were formed directly by God and were not a result of human procreation there for an umbelical chord would be superflous.  However if God had decided to create them with a belly button in his grand scheme of things..he has creators rights - im not going to argue with him. We have them now anyway.  The bible dosent go into detailed description of Adam and Eves physical condition at the time they were given life so im afraid until we see them for real we will never know.  Sorry

[ramseytheii]

Why does noone just answer the actual question.  The question is not did adam and Eve exist.  That is presupposed in the question. The question merely asks if Adam and Eve had a belly button. Ok its a rather odd and im not sure totally fruitfull question but it is nevertheless the one in question.  Did they need a belly button?? well no as it has been rightly pointed out the were formed directly by God and were not a result of human procreation there for an umbelical chord would be superflous.  However if God had decided to create them with a belly button in his grand scheme of things..he has creators rights - im not going to argue with him. We have them now anyway.  The bible dosent go into detailed description of Adam and Eves physical condition at the time they were given life so im afraid until we see them for real we will never know.  Sorry

If man is indeed created in the image of God, and Adam and Eve did not have a belly button, then God does not have a belly button, and we today are not created in the image of God.

If man is created in the image of God, and Adam and Eve did in fact have a belly button, without ever having a mother or umbilical cord, then God made a part of the body which is useless for its overall design.  Wouldn't be the first time...

Walter Ramsey

[mcgillcomposer]

What?

sigh...

...a Greek god commenting on a Biblical issue. 'Twas just a joke.

[ahinton]

sigh...

...a Greek god commenting on a Biblical issue. 'Twas just a joke.

Joke or no joke, how many such Greek gods do you suppose Susan knows?...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

Joke or no joke, how many such Greek gods do you suppose Susan knows?...

Best,

Alistair

WHen it comes to Greek gods, and many others for that matter, pianitisimo is an atheist

Walter Ramsey

[goldentone]

If man is indeed created in the image of God, and Adam and Eve did not have a belly button, then God does not have a belly button, and we today are not created in the image of God.

If man is created in the image of God, and Adam and Eve did in fact have a belly button, without ever having a mother or umbilical cord, then God made a part of the body which is useless for its overall design. Wouldn't be the first time...

Walter Ramsey

But our bodies are not just about function, but beauty as well.  The navel qualifies on the latter because it is, after all, part of our body's sexual attractiveness.

It is really a "scar" and historical record of the bond that mother and child had during pregnancy.  A signifier of connection, perhaps not just with our mother, but also of the human race with each other, and ultimately with God. 

My two cents. . .

[ahinton]

WHen it comes to Greek gods, and many others for that matter, pianitisimo is an atheist

Walter Ramsey

I daresay, but I wrote "knows", not "believes in".

And do for God's and anyone else's sake stop calling her "pianitisimo"!...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

But our bodies are not just about function, but beauty as well.  The navel qualifies on the latter because it is, after all, part of our body's sexual attractiveness.

It is really a "scar" and historical record of the bond that mother and child had during pregnancy.  A signifier of connection, perhaps not just with our mother, but also of the human race with each other, and ultimately with God. 

My two cents. . .

If it is part of sexual attractiveness, then it is doubly unlikely that God would have bestowed such a button of sin on his first-born children, since he considers sexual awareness evil.

It is time for humanity to sever the umbilical cord with this so-called God and surgically excise the remaining belly button.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

ramseytheii, i think you are misled on this one.  why would God use the word 'cleave.'  was he suggesting hacking up spouses?  if he tells them to 'cleave' to one another - and he doesn't favor sexual union - why would He tell them to 'be fruitful and multiply?'  gen. 1:27 '....male and female He created them.  and God blessed them; and God said to them, 'be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it....'

adam and eve were only aware of their nakedness after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  before that - they could have had sex three times at least and not even known they were naked.

perhaps God's initial goal was to let them be naked and enjoy it.  after all, the first words from God to them after they ate the apple was : 'who told you that you were naked?'

[prometheus]

WHen it comes to Greek gods, and many others for that matter, pianitisimo is an atheist

But, is her position exactly the same on those she has heard of and those she hasn't heard of?



Anyway, some friends a few days ago wondered in what way the ancient Greeks really believed in their gods. Their stories are absolutely crazy. So then you try to compare them with modern day Christians.

Of course they all see the point: "Greek gods and mythology was accepted and mainstream then, Christianity and its mythology is mainstream and accepted today." but still they find it very hard to understand how people can actually believe the utter absurd stories from the Greek mythology. Didn't they just view these stories as myth?

The amazing thing is that we can believe that people can honestly believe Christian mythology. People do not realise how strange and absurd they are.

[pianistimo]

ok.  prometheus (interesting name here) - tell us about a greek god who has the power to manifest himself in human form (as an actual proven living/walking/breathing God-being) - and to experience what we do and save us from death.  usually the greek gods were 'above' and had only limited contact with the human realm.  preferring instead to fight among themselves.  really only imitating what satan and the demons do.  stories indicate they have no peaceful thoughts and do not dwell in harmony.

a bit about prometheus stealing fire from zeus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

if the spirit world were not real - we would not witness 'crazies' who shoot up places like virginia tech.  do you think these people are in 'the real world?'  i don't think so.  to kill people one does not even know.  this type of anger stretches beyond reason into spiritual depravity (delusion).  people don't know they are deluded with anger, malice, etc.  - but the bible says that the way to mental stability is actually through seeking God and His Holy Spirit.  it is peaceful, first of all.

[ramseytheii]

ok.  prometheus (interesting name here) - tell us about a greek god who has the power to manifest himself in human form (as an actual proven living/walking/breathing God-being) - and to experience what we do and save us from death.  usually the greek gods were 'above' and had only limited contact with the human realm.  preferring instead to fight among themselves.  really only imitating what satan and the demons do.  stories indicate they have no peaceful thoughts and do not dwell in harmony.

a bit about prometheus stealing fire from zeus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

if the spirit world were not real - we would not witness 'crazies' who shoot up places like virginia tech.  do you think these people are in 'the real world?'  i don't think so.  to kill people one does not even know.  this type of anger stretches beyond reason into spiritual depravity (delusion).  people don't know they are deluded with anger, malice, etc.  - but the bible says that the way to mental stability is actually through seeking God and His Holy Spirit.  it is peaceful, first of all.

I think Zeus came down to earth all the time.  And he also saved people from death: his boy-toy Ganymede he took up into his bosom to have ever-lasting happiness and companionship.

And the in-fighting of the ancient Greek gods is nothing compared to the in-fighting amongst today's modern believers, whether it is Christians v Christians, Christians v Muslims, Muslims v Muslims, Muslims v Jews, or Jews v Muslims.  According to your definition of Satanic practice, it would seem that today's religious are the most satanic of all.  One is always told in rebuke to this, that many will come in His name who are false.  I think that is only half true: all who come in His name are false.  Watch it be the Christians who respond, yes, but those are not true Christians, because we are.  If God so came to the world in human form to deliver his message of ultimate redemption and eternal life, at least he could have done it in such a way that people could understand.  The very existence of the thousands upon thousands of Christian sects proves that it is being invented every day, ten times over.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

ramseytheii, i think you are quite sincere in your expression of doubts.  and, with good reason.  but, remember - adam and eve took from the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil'  thereby circumventing asking God what his thoughts were on the matter.  so yes!  many religions ARE inventions. 

back 2000+ years - acts 19:35 mentions that the ephesians believed that 'artemis' guarded the city of the ephesians.  artemis supposed father was zeus. 

and before that - in acts 17 - paul explained that there was a God who even had an altar in their temple dedicated to 'the unknown God.'  paul explained that they were worshipping false gods and this God was the true God.  'the God who made the world and all the things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His offspring.'

'being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by art and the thought of man.  therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead....'

this all seems silly to us today - because we don't worship greek gods in temples - but, what do we worship?  anything that comes between our relationship with our creator is a 'god.'  something that we value or hold to have sufficient value to fill our minds with that knowledge.  even music!  the 'muses' were thought to be converged - science, arts, etc. - all together - in greek times.  people gleaned information from these 'sciences' and held it to be 'knowledge.'  but, paul explains that some of this 'knowledge' is merely guesswork on a very base plane (human plane).  what if we had access to the mind of God?  the Holy Spirit.  it is said to guide us into 'all truth.'  what is truth?  the bible says 'thy Word is truth.'  so - now christians have a basis for measuring the weights of truth and untruth - and religion and false religion.  does it match the Word of God?

[ahinton]

ramseytheii, i think you are misled on this one.  why would God use the word 'cleave.'  was he suggesting hacking up spouses?  if he tells them to 'cleave' to one another - and he doesn't favor sexual union - why would He tell them to 'be fruitful and multiply?'  gen. 1:27 '....male and female He created them.  and God blessed them; and God said to them, 'be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it....'

adam and eve were only aware of their nakedness after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  before that - they could have had sex three times at least and not even known they were naked.

perhaps God's initial goal was to let them be naked and enjoy it.  after all, the first words from God to them after they ate the apple was : 'who told you that you were naked?'

I don't want to interfere with  - still less undermine - any legitimate argument here, but I really do not, in general terms, like apples, whatever I may or may not be wearing at the time. What that says about me or about anything else (if indeed it says anything at all) I have no idea - except, perhaps, that, had I been around at the time of Adam, I'd have made a pretty useless Adam...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

but the bible says that the way to mental stability is actually through seeking God and His Holy Spirit.  it is peaceful, first of all.

You must surely be joking on both counts.

Thousands upon thousands of people have been killed in the name of God and continue to be so. Fanatics of any religion are the most unbalanced people on the planet.

Those "seeking God" are probably the most delusional of all.

Thal

[prometheus]

Pianistimo, yes indeed. Some traits of Jesus were taken from Prometheus. He also had to be tortured for making a sacrifice for the sake of humanity.

If humans didn't make up Prometheus then Christ wouldn't exist.


And unlike Jesus Christ, Prometheus actually makes sense in it's mythological context.

[pianogeek_cz]

another name for artemis was zeus. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA And another name for Christ is Metatron?

why would God use the word 'cleave.'

*takes a blood pressure lowering pill* Let's get this straight, pianistimo, you're arguing semantics when what you're using as a basis for your claims is - as has been already noted - a translation from ancient Hebrew? I know very, very little about Hebrew, but what I'm pretty much sure about is that the original version of the Bible taken literally would say something vastly different than the version you're using. That alone is an argument why it's ridiculous to take the Bible literally. There's just NO WAY to translate the texts without distorting the meaning; English is way younger than Hebrew and just doesn't carry the associations, connotations and shades of meaning Hebrew had (and has).

The translations of the Bible which are being copied over and over have been, perhaps out of sheer helplessness with the original language, translated as literally as possible and pretty much haven't been adapted ever since (which is another gross mistake...). For instance, the rationalist all-time favorite Bad Bible! argument, that God is against knowledge when he forbade the man to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, comes from sheer ignorance - had they bothered to ask a (preferrably Sephardic) rabbi, they would find out that the Hebrew meaning of "to know" here (off the top of my head, I remember two others, both depend heavily on the semantical context, and there are probably many more) is in fact closer to "to determine":

Gen 3:6 "for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil."

"knowing" is originally yod-ei, where the noun is יֶדַע [yedaa] - which also means know-how, expertise. Combined with "ye shall be as God", I think it is clear that "being as God" means "determining what is good and what is evil", so the order not to eat from the tree is an order not to try and make oneself equal to God.

https://www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/A_World_of_Broccoli_and_Pizza_Serpents_of_Desire3_Part_7.asp
This is also quite an interesting article.

This is just a very small example of the least that should be done before attempting to quote the Bible.

The Bible, and the Torah more than anything else, needs not only to be read, but to be studied, too. I don't want to pretend that I have done so very thoroughly, I have just some basics and basically know that just reading the Bible can be very, very misleading.

Pianistimo, yes indeed. Some traits of Jesus were taken from Prometheus. He also had to be tortured for making a sacrifice for the sake of humanity.

Okay, I'm not -that- familiar with the Prometheus legend and haven't studied it in-depth, but wasn't his ordeal with his liver a punishment which Prometheus wanted to END and never wanted to start in the first place? And his punishment was also for eternity - pretty much a hopeless situation. That would be, as far as I know, rather different from Christ, who sacrificed himself knowingly to save others from eternity - gave sinners and everyone a hope for redemption.

Plus, Christ makes sense in his mythological context as a follower of the Prophets and in historical context of messianism, Shabbatai Zevi and such, I think.

[pianistimo]

in no way was Christ set into a mythological construct.  He always existed.  we can't understand that.  therefore, mankind makes up gods in the images of demons who never get along.  have you heard of any peaceful greek gods.  ones who are not tempted by the same desires that humans have for sin?  no.  that is the difference between demons and good angels.  you will find their traits in the bible.  demons wish for power.  the same power as Christ has.  but, they will not find it.  God is ALL powerful.  the ONLY one who saves.  this is in no way mythological.

death is real.  so, life must be real.  eternity.  God is the alpha and omega.  we cannot understand this beginning and end and yet without beginning or end.  a circle - perhaps.  but, endless.  no death.  that is biblical. not mythological.

artemis was supposedly a daughter of zeus.  but, the ephesians worshipped both zeus and artemis (considering she was his daughter).  the point of my message was that the ephesians were worshipping a greek god/goddess that had no power to save them at all.

[ramseytheii]

death is real.  so, life must be real.  eternity.  God is the alpha and omega.  we cannot understand this beginning and end and yet without beginning or end.  a circle - perhaps.  but, endless.  no death.  that is biblical. not mythological.

Bah, save it for Jerry Falwell, who croaked on the pitiful floor of his office, and who wet and soiled his trousers when he went just like everybody else.

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

I don't want to interfere with  - still less undermine - any legitimate argument here, but I really do not, in general terms, like apples, whatever I may or may not be wearing at the time. What that says about me or about anything else (if indeed it says anything at all) I have no idea - except, perhaps, that, had I been around at the time of Adam, I'd have made a pretty useless Adam...

Careful... your sentences are getting dangerously close to becoming as complex as Susan's... 

[prometheus]

I thought Christians thought that death is false.



Actually, when people are confronted with their own mortality they become less compassionate towards strangers. Interesting to know this and see how leaders and organizations abuse this.

[prometheus]

Okay, I'm not -that- familiar with the Prometheus legend and haven't studied it in-depth, but wasn't his ordeal with his liver a punishment which Prometheus wanted to END and never wanted to start in the first place?

First of all, I never claimed that Prometheus is Jesus or something like that. Jesus is a typical mythological figure and is thus similar to many earlier mythological figures.

Second, Prometheus did know he would be punished for what he did. And Jesus also never wanted to be nailed to the cross. Neither wanted to experience that what they did, according o the story, but both carried on nonetheless.

And his punishment was also for eternity - pretty much a hopeless situation. That would be, as far as I know, rather different from Christ, who sacrificed himself knowingly to save others from eternity - gave sinners and everyone a hope for redemption.

I am a little rusty on biblical details, but I don't remember god explaining to Jesus why he had to die at the cross.

Plus, Christ makes sense in his mythological context as a follower of the Prophets and in historical context of messianism, Shabbatai Zevi and such, I think.

So ignoring the absurdity of the creation of original sin, why did god have to reincarnate himself as a human and commit suicide at the cross to cancel out this original sin he himself decided to create in the first place?
Why this blood sacrifice? It's almost as if God needs to do this ritual sacrifice to invoke the great magical powers needed to break the curse of original sin.


Maybe this is why the bible doesn't have a passage of god explaining to Jesus why he needs to be sacrificed for the original sin, an absurd idea in itself, to be ended.

To try would seem to be folly.

[jlh]

First of all, I never claimed that Prometheus is Jesus or something like that. Jesus is a typical mythological figure and is thus similar to many earlier mythological figures.

Second, Prometheus did know he would be punished for what he did. And Jesus also never wanted to be nailed to the cross. Neither wanted to experience that what they did, according o the story, but both carried on nonetheless.

I am a little rusty on biblical details, but I don't remember god explaining to Jesus why he had to die at the cross.


So ignoring the absurdity of the creation of original sin, why did god have to reincarnate himself as a human and commit suicide at the cross to cancel out this original sin he himself decided to create in the first place?
Why this blood sacrifice? It's almost as if God needs to do this ritual sacrifice to invoke the great magical powers needed to break the curse of original sin.


Maybe this is why the bible doesn't have a passage of god explaining to Jesus why he needs to be sacrificed for the original sin, an absurd idea in itself, to be ended.

To try would seem to be folly.

You apparently don't know much of the content of the bible then.  According to the bible, god did not 'create' original sin.  Sin entered because god's most powerful angel (lucifer) decided he would become greater than god, and that was the original sin.  Since then, that angel has deceived people into thinking the same thing he thought -- that they could become like gods.  According to the bible, god created people with the ability to choose good or evil, and the moment they chose evil, they could no longer be with god. God allowed sacrifices of spotless animals as a sort of "band-aid" to attone for their sins, but this was not enough.  The bible says that he made jesus come and live a sinless life that he could be the final sacrifice and attone for everyone's sins, provided they turn to jesus and stop their wicked ways and repent.  The reason this was needed is because god is just -- wickedness is punishable, and we can't come to him unless we are clean.  So you say that it was a ritual sacrifice to invoke some magical power... well it was, and according to the bible jesus was god in the flesh, so that's why god didn't have to explain himself to jesus.

Hope this clarifies.  I'd hate for this to turn ugly because of misinformation.

[jlh]

Oh, and Adam didn't have a belly button, but Eve did...

I asked god and he told me.

[goldentone]

From Walter:

If it is part of sexual attractiveness, then it is doubly unlikely that God would have bestowed such a button of sin on his first-born children, since he considers sexual awareness evil.

It is time for humanity to sever the umbilical cord with this so-called God and surgically excise the remaining belly button.




Did I strike a nerve? I was surprised at your response.

Self-awareness or self-consciousness was their problem, actually, the result of taking the fruit.  Do you believe that the Bible considers sexuality a bad thing?  If so, that is an unbiblical idea. 

[thalbergmad]

in no way was Christ set into a mythological construct. 

Of course he was, and he wasn't even unique.

Thal

[counterpoint]

You apparently don't know much of the content of the bible then.  According to the bible, god did not 'create' original sin.  Sin entered because god's most powerful angel (lucifer) decided he would become greater than god, and that was the original sin. 

I know the story about the angel turning in satan. But it does not make much sense to me, because of the time, when this should have happened. Satan was already there (in form of the snake) when Adam and Eve where totally innocent in their first hours/days(?) in the paradise. So the angels did already exist before the creation of the world?

Okay, I will make a new thread about this... 

[ahinton]

Careful... your sentences are getting dangerously close to becoming as complex as Susan's... 

Oh, come on - those are pretty straightforward, really - at least that have a discernible construction...

Best,

Alistair

[jlh]

Oh, come on - those are pretty straightforward, really - at least that have a discernible construction...

Best,

Alistair

HAHA ya I know... 

[jlh]

I know the story about the angel turning in satan. But it does not make much sense to me, because of the time, when this should have happened. Satan was already there (in form of the snake) when Adam and Eve where totally innocent in their first hours/days(?) in the paradise. So the angels did already exist before the creation of the world?

Okay, I will make a new thread about this... 

Actually, let me correct my statement... "original sin" is usually attributed to the "fall of man", the garden of eden incident.  The Lucifer incident would have happened earlier, and is seperate from the "fall of man" since he was an angel and not a man.

Now, it's interesting that the bible says this about the creation of man:

Gen 1:26 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..."

OUR... not ME or MY...  This seems to suggest that the angels were there before the creation of the world, as you said.  I don't see another explanation.


Besides... the number of years required for evolution to make an angel would be much greater than the number of years required to make a man... lol  Maybe the angels were evolved on another planet and god is also responsible for that world?  [enter "Twilight Zone" theme music]  Just kidding... 

[prometheus]

Like Counterpoint pointed out, your comment makes no sense.

I do know that part of the bible pretty well. And any way you turn and twist it, you can not get around the fact that god was responsible.


And even if it was satan why did god need to have a human sacrifice before he could undo satan's work?

[wishful thinker]

OUR... not ME or MY... 

Spreaking in the 1st person plural is usual of Kings and high dignatories in English.  It does not imply that there is more than one.

[counterpoint]

Like Counterpoint pointed out, your comment makes no sense.

I would not say that.

jih wrote

Actually, let me correct my statement... "original sin" is usually attributed to the "fall of man", the garden of eden incident.  The Lucifer incident would have happened earlier, and is seperate from the "fall of man" since he was an angel and not a man.

He agrees with me, that the "Lucifer incident" must have happened earlier.

The whole story is a little illogical...   

[jlh]

Like Counterpoint pointed out, your comment makes no sense.

I do know that part of the bible pretty well. And any way you turn and twist it, you can not get around the fact that god was responsible.


And even if it was satan why did god need to have a human sacrifice before he could undo satan's work?

Why did kids of royalty need "spanking boys" a hundred years ago?  Because their actions required discipline, but their parents didn't want their kids to be hurt, so they had the spanking boys spanked for them.

According to the bible, our actions require discipline, but jesus stepped in for us.  he was our "spanking boy"... 

[jlh]

Spreaking in the 1st person plural is usual of Kings and high dignatories in English.  It does not imply that there is more than one.

This commentary on that verse was taken from: https://realmealministries.org/WordPress/?p=158

"God speaks the words of creation with an added element. All previous created actions have employed a command: “let there be ” or “let the _.” In v. 26, God says, “Let us…” Interpreters have pondered the meaning of the plural us ever since. Isaiah 6:8 uses a similar construction: “Whom shall we send? Who will go for us?” The various proposals may be summarized briefly. First, it is often suggested that we find the earliest witness to God’s Trinitarian nature. In other words, “let us” is God speaking as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although this proposal was popular among early Christian interpreters and remains a common one, it is simply unlikely that an ancient Israelite author would have intended to convey this idea. Nor would the Trinity have made sense to the original audience of Genesis. Second, some commentators argue that “let us” is a special grammatical form called a plural of majesty. The idea is that God is so awesome that a plural form “let us” is used to emphasize God’s power and prestige. That is, “us” is substituted for “me.” This proposal is possible, but our final alternative makes the best sense of the evidence. Last, many scholars believe that “let us” portrays God as a Great King who is addressing the heavenly court, i.e., the angels (see for example Job 1)."



Take what you want from that.   

[jlh]

I do know that part of the bible pretty well. And any way you turn and twist it, you can not get around the fact that god was responsible.

What's your point then? 

[prometheus]

That god created original sin, then he refused or could not remove it, and then he could but only by reincarnating himself into Jesus and sacrificing his son/himself.

Makes no sense to me.

[counterpoint]

As I think about it now...


could it be possible, that we are all actors in a gigantic soap opera... ?     

[jlh]

That god created original sin, then he refused or could not remove it, and then he could but only by reincarnating himself into Jesus and sacrificing his son/himself.

Makes no sense to me.

You're not understanding then.  God did not create sin.  Sin by definition cannot come from God.  Sin is a term for actions made by beings with the ability to obey or not obey.  God does not have a superior, thus he cannot sin.  Therefore sin can only come from those below him.

God cannot just "remove" sin.  That would make him an unjust god. 

[prometheus]

You have a different opinion that many other theists.


So please explain yourself. Why do you say what you say? If god didn't create sin then who did? Doesn't the bible say that god created both good and evil?


And god would be unjust? Isn't the definition of 'unjust' that what god does not do? Is god really to be judged by your definition of what is just and unjust?


Also, I don't understand this at all. God didn't create sin. But if he had taken away it would have been unjust. So if god counters the work of satan he is unjust?

And how did sacrificing his own son make it suddenly just? Or how does sacrificing your own son take away a sin?



Seems you are making things up along the way. Please reevaluate your position.

[jlh]

So please explain yourself. Why do you say what you say? If god didn't create sin then who did? Doesn't the bible say that god created both good and evil?

Even an omnipotent God cannot make a morally free person who is incapable of choosing to sin. Thus, when we were created the potential to sin existed.

Yet, that does not mean God made evil. Yes, God made every *thing* in the created universe and when he made people morally free persons, the potential for them to sin existed.

But evil is not a *thing* or a substance; it is a *privation* or *lack* in things, just as blindness is lack of sight.

Therefore God did not create evil.

[jlh]

And god would be unjust? Isn't the definition of 'unjust' that what god does not do? Is god really to be judged by your definition of what is just and unjust?

And how did sacrificing his own son make it suddenly just? Or how does sacrificing your own son take away a sin?

Rom 3:25,26  "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—  he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. "

[jlh]

Also, I don't understand this at all. God didn't create sin. But if he had taken away it would have been unjust. So if god counters the work of satan he is unjust?

Satan is not the only one that sins... as I pointed out in my other post.  If sin were just "taken away" without consequence, then free will would also need to be tossed aside.  Then what is the point of living?  When draining the bathtub, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

[prometheus]

As I said, according to the bible god created evil:

“I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, who does all these things” (Isa. 45:5-7).



Secondly, ignoring the fact that you ignored all my questions, you seem unaware of what original sin is.

Original sin is the sin I was born in(according to Christian dogma), regardless of my choices in life, which I have inherited because of Adam and Eve. Regardless of what I do with my free will, or what for allows me to do with my free will, I am born in sin because of original sin.



So please before you go into a discussion like this be sure you know what you are talking about.

[prometheus]

Again, this has nothing to do with our choice to do what god would not like us to do.


It has to do with us being punished by God to burn in eternal pain in hell forever because of what Adam and Eve did.

[jlh]

As I said, according to the bible god created evil:

“I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, who does all these things” (Isa. 45:5-7).

GAH!  Are you really going to make me explain this?  Why can't you just interpret something the way it was intended, by going back to the original language and doing a little research?  This is pathetic...  You CANNOT always rely on a translated text as being infallible.

First of all, the Hebrew word for evil "rah" (translated 'evil' in the verse you quoted) is used in many different ways in the Bible.  In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times.  431 times it is translated as "evil."  The other 232 times it is translated "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow",  "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble."  So the word does not require that it be translated as "evil."  This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently.  It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV;
    
Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena -- things like calamity, distress, etc.  It is not talking about moral evil contextually.  


So let me say the same thing to you:

Please before you go into a discussion like this be sure you know what you are talking about.

[jlh]

Secondly, ignoring the fact that you ignored all my questions, you seem unaware of what original sin is.

Original sin is the sin I was born in(according to Christian dogma), regardless of my choices in life, which I have inherited because of Adam and Eve. Regardless of what I do with my free will, or what for allows me to do with my free will, I am born in sin because of original sin.

I did not ignore your questions.  I answered them.

Your definition of original sin is largely based on catholicism, of which I do not especially subscribe.  There is much history of this topic that is not stated in the bible.  you should know that.

[prometheus]

So you are presenting the Jewish version? I still do not understand.


And you did not go into my questions. Why does god have to punish us for what we didn't even do? And why does sacrificing Jesus cancel that? And why only that?




I also don't see how god killing people through natural disasters isn't evil when they cause the death of tens of thousands of people.