From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:40:32 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<adams.714348184@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><adams.713716004@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>><adams.713105930@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>But not in the first example.  Also, can you tell me who god was talking
>>>>to when Adam and Eve heard him coming?  
>>>The NIV says that they 'heard the sound of the Lord'...not heard him
>>>talking.  I suspect God would have heavy footsteps...;-)
>>I'd expect so, but my translation says "voice of god".
>NRSV says 'sound', also, and it tends to be a good literal translation.
>So, the quesiton is, who speaks Hebrew and can tell us? ;-)

Not me.

>>>Anyhow, my own personal opinion differs massively.  It has to do with my
>>>own understanding of Gen 1:1-2:4 and Gen 2:5ff.  Basically, on day 6 of
>>>creation (Gen 1:27ff) God creates man and woman.  THEN He rests on day 7.
>>>Then, in Gen 2:4 He plants a garden and creates Adam.  God brings all of
>>>the animals to Adam in search for a 'helper', and they are all rejected.
>>>After this, God creates Eve, etc.
>>>
>>>Basically, when Cain is banished from the area around Eden, he marries one
>>>of the 'Day 6' people...
>>Doesn't follow - Gen 2:5 says that "there was no man to cultivate the
>>ground".  So much for your theory. ;-)
>Well, of course, since we're talking about the area where Eden was, there
>were no people specifically there...;-)

According to my translation, Gen 2:5 is speaking of *EARTH* (as in
'created the heavens and the earth') not just Eden.

>>>God's goal, in my opinion, (and if I can speak to this, which is quite an
>>>presumption on my part) was freely given love and freely ordained worship.
>
>>If it was freely given and freely ordained (how can you really have "free
>>worship"?) then why were there rules and regulations?  And penalties for
>>breaking them?
>There was but one rule...and that had nothing to do with worship of God,
>IMHO, but was set out so as to show that God was sovereign.

Steve, you say your god gave his love freely.  But he didn't, the second
there was disobedience he kicked Adam and Eve out and cursed them.  They
were punished with inevetible *death*.

>>>God, in order to gain this, had to allow for the possibility of evil.  
>
>>"had to"?  You mean an omnipotent being was incapable of creating free
>>will without evil?
>
>Poor choice of words...in order to acheive his goal, he set his parameters,
>which included the creation of evil.

Right, it didn't *have* to include evil though.

...
>>>Jesus gave up some of his divine powers so that He could truly suffer as a
>>>man.
>
>>It doesn't follow that he wouldn't kow *why* it was done?  And when did he
>>give up these powers?  Just before he was nailed to a tree?  I ask this
>>because up to that time he was walking on water and killing fig trees
>>without any problem.
>
>No, it was before then.  Although he had retained some of the divine
>powers, he did not retain all of them.  Specifically, he could, as a man,
>suffer pain, injury and death.
>
>I do believe that he knew what the point was...

Then why did he ask, "Why have you forsaken me?".

...
>>>One of the unavoidable aspects of creation was evil.  
>
>>This doesn't jive with the concept of a truly omnipotent being.  Nothing
>>should be unavoidable for him.
>
>'Unavoidable' from the standpoint the the parameters God set forth when he
>decided to create.

God can do anything, even change the conditions in midstream.  He did that
a lot throughout the bible.  The coming of Jesus was a change of
conditions, was it not? Your god could have changed these 'unavoidable'
parameters at any time after seeing how much pain and suffering they
caused.

...
>>I've seen these examples of yours before where "your love for god is so
>>great that your love for other must appear as hate" and now this one.  I
>>don't believe that this is a reasonable premise.  For example, my love for
>>my wife is the greatest love I could possibly have for a woman.  That
>>doesn't mean that I hate my mother, or that I hate other women.
>
>No, but if you look at the scale :
>
>|----------+----------|
>^                     ^
>|                     |
>+-Absolute Hate       +-Absolute Love
>
>Then your emotion towards Jesus is to be so close to Absolute that any
>other 'love' on the continuum seems like hate...

I understand your words, but I don't buy it.  To love the way you describe
means to become a mindless automoton.  Even though I love my wife far more
than any other person in the world, if I found her to be with another man
I would rethink my devotion.

...

Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion