Are you talking about my sig? You mean that little tidbit that shows how much god is afraid of man superseding him and achieving ascendance without him? Aw man! Whats wrong about it? God is supposed to be a parent to us. Any parent that doesn't want their child to grow to become greater than them, and also uses unfair, quit literally supernatural cheating to sabotage their development is a really screwed up, terrible parent with a complex. You could almost say... a god complex...
So do you actually believe then that man could remove God from his thrown and take his place under any circumstances even barring "unfair, supernatural sabotage"? Now I call THAT a "god complex". I'm not shocked by the proposal however because there are lots of notable people who share it with, for example Carl Sagan. I don't mean to pick on an atheist who called himself a "Jew", it just happened to be the first example that sprung to mind without a seconds delay. I won't attempt to delve into the proper exegesis of that particular bit of scripture on a thread which is supposed to deal with the Pacific theater of WWii, but I will say that the supernatural assist which the serpent of the Garden of Eden gave Adam and Eve with that purpose in mind didn't prove to be very beneficial for the rest of mankind even though it was offered by a being who was once alleged to be second only to God himself. If he failed in the attempt to oust God from his throne I don't see what chance that you, a mere mortal would have of succeeding at that other than simply giving him the finger. That's something which any high school delinquent is capable of doing. And it seldom profits them when they do.
Probably not, but obviously god was nervous enough about our potential to wield his magic bullcrap hammer and beat our species over the head with it multiple times. (Stay down insects!) Also, the serpent didn't assist in an attempt to overthrow god. He (theoretically Satan) did it to mess with gods little ant farm he had so meticulously set up. And while were on the subject of that... As I read through scripture, I was confronted with story after story that demonstrated, to me, the behavior of an all-powerful kindergartener, not a loving deity. I realized that in the case of the Garden, assuming it's true, we were set up to fail. We were held accountable, as a species, for believing a lie. Humans, according to scripture, had never been subject to deception before. Literally, before the serpent, 100% of what Adam and Eve had heard was true. There was no reason to doubt the serpent, because skepticism comes with knowledge. Then there was the fact that humans were punished, for "sinning." I had two problems with that. If they hadn't eaten from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," then by definition they didn't know right from wrong. It's irreconcilable. And punishing someone for a crime they didn't understand isn't gracious. If Eve, by eating the fruit, introduced Original Sin into the world, then there's a whole mess of other problems. For instance, that means that the serpent lying and tempting wasn't a sin. If the serpent lying and tempting wasn't a sin, then Lucifer rebelling against God in the first place wasn't a sin. If rebelling against God wasn't a sin, then questioning and doubting God wasn't a sin. And if questioning and doubting God wasn't a sin, then salvation is unnecessary. Then there's the image of God as a father figure. I like to make an analogy in this case. If you had a two year old kid, then there's a pretty good chance that they don't fully understand right and wrong yet. That's a pretty good comparison for Adam and Eve, being as they hadn't yet eaten from the tree of knowledge. Now, as a responsible parent, you tell the kid not to touch the stove, which is on. You tell them that touching it will burn them, and it will hurt. You step out to make a call, and leave the stove on. This is a fair comparison for leaving the tree in the garden unattended. Enter me. I'll be the serpent in this one. I go to your kid, and tell them that touching the stove won't actually hurt. You were mistaken. I say to touch the stove. You know what the kid does? They touch the stove. They are inclined to believe me. Here's the part where humanity surpassed God in grace. You know what you do when your kid burns themselves? You bandage them. You kiss their boo-boo. You explain that there are people out there who you mustn't believe, and tell them to learn from the experience. You know what you don't do? You don't kick them out. You don't cut off their college fund, or subject them to the horrors of working in the adult world. You don't curse them. You yell at me. I'm the one responsible for your child's injuries, not the child. If God were a parent worth having, he would have done the same. Instead, he did everything on the "don't" list, times a hundred.
Did you ever think that maybe Satan lied, that humans in all truth weren't capable of being "God"? I mean, not being God in the first place and all. Well. At least you understand that Satan didn't have the best interest of the little ants on the farm at heart any more than he wished God well in the first place. I don't know why he would be up to this trick if he hadn't been booted out of heaven in the first place. That might explain the verse where Christ said, "I saw Satan fall like lightening." If he wasn't up to no good in the first place, I don't know why he would be thrown down so fast. You talk as though you believed it was. If not, why are you so preoccupied with DeBunking it when there are so many other things in the world that need DeBunking just as bad? Either way I don't know how you could assume that we were set up to fail unless you could know God's intention. People lie all the time on this planet and just about as many people fall for their lies when they do. It's a nasty mess isn't it? Have you ever lied? Or do you think it's an objectionable practice that should be avoided? It wasn't just for BELIEVING a lie however that they were booted out. It was for failing to heed a WARNING about the consequences of doing something they were told not to. They were instructed that if they did, that something very bad would happen as a result. It's sort of like when Little Red Riding Hood's Mother told her to go straight to Grandma's House and she listened to the wolf instead. Lucky for her and Grandma both that the hunter came along when he did. I guess you might say that they were cast out for NOT believing though, because they did not take God at his word, choosing rather to believe in a passing snake instead. You have to admit that sometimes bad consequences can happen as a result of failure to heed warnings and follow rules, such as to stop at red lights, treat all guns as though they are loaded, and pull the main breaker before you mess with wiring. No. Allowing the laws of nature and of the spirit to follow their natural course without producing a miracle every time someone fails to heed them wouldn't exactly constitute a lack of grace as much as it would be to provide a universe in which objective laws cannot be violated without consequences. Otherwise we would all be stuck in our private fantasy lands where anything that pops into our imaginations can become an immutable law in itself. What would you do then if it turned out that you had created your own nightmare? Could you call out to God to save you from it and return you to a REAL world where imaginary beasts don't pop into existence every time you go to sleep on a belly full of sauer kraut or something? Then some people might accuse God of meddling or even of not providing a world in which everyone could count on having predictable consequences for the actions they take which are not subject to the caprice of an overactive, corrupt, or paranoid imagination. No thanks. I prefer to take my chances in a place where the outcomes of actions are more dependable. At least that way when things go wrong I stand a reasonable chance of understanding why they did so I can avoid them. You don't believe that lying or tempting other people is not wrong?? How do you figure that? How can someone with a belief like that be trusted? And how could they ever pass judgement on someone else if they were to get suckered or enticed into some sort of trouble by them? I suppose angels in heaven had a choice whether to remain with God or not. It's a mystery why they wouldn't. But apparently one of the major differences between angels and mortal man is that once they've made that decision there's no turning back. I'd rather be a man as far as that goes. At least I've been granted the opportunity to shed myself of my iniquities. On the other hand angels don't have to run the gauntlet down here like we do. I find it strange that some people act as though they don't believe they have any "iniquities" themselves, but they nevertheless are always able to express the idea that others can, even to the extent of attributing them to God almighty! Weird. I can't really say that. If it was true that they were left unattended then God might not have known that Adam was lying when he pretended like nothing had happened. I'm persuaded that God, being omnipresent, was able to see the whole affair go down. The real question is why he didn't step in and step on the snake or suddenly pop out of nowhere like a Cheshire Cat and holler stop. I guess he could have. But what then? Wouldn't they just do the same thing again as soon as they thought his back was turned? Or would it be necessary for God to put them both in a straight jacket to keep them from it? No. I sort of think that once God decided to create man, he also decided to create them so that they would have their own minds with which they could make these decisions themselves. Don't ask me how he did THAT because to me it's one of the most sublime mysteries of all. For me to believe that I was God would be the worst nightmare of all! What kind of a snake in the grass would you have to be to entice an ignorant kid to touch a hot stove?! Evidently there ARE people like that. But thank God I'm not one of them and I pray I never will be! The kind of providence that would LEAD ME AWAY FROM THAT TEMPTATION is what I would call grace. That's a pretty reasonable analogy you created there. The apple was the hot stove and the serpent was the deviant sadist child molester who got off on seeing him touch it. Now between the tempting snake and the admonishing parent, I would choose the later as being more compassionate. That is if you want to equate compassion to grace. If you didn't then you would not pretend as though getting burned on the stove was a bad thing and that anyone who would encourage such a thing would be lacking in compassion and hence grace. Speaking of which, sometime AFTER this tragedy occurred there appeared on earth as was foretold in prophecy a child who was destined to become the Savior of the world who would then kiss all our boo boos and provide access to the much sought after balm which was spoken of in the Old Testament. He not only has provided the means for us to obtain forgiveness for the way we treat others (AND ourselves) , but along with it is the promise that our injuries will be healed altogether PROVIDED that we CHOOSE to accept this......shall we say?...........grace. In this world a parent who fails to inform their child, as you mentioned previously, of the dangers of the world and the fact that there are many deceivers in the world who cannot be trusted, is not a good parent. I would add that a parent who fails to administer discipline to an "ignorant", naive, and unsuspecting child in such a way as he can avoid those dangers, such as playing around with poisonous snakes ( leave that to experts who know what they are doing and willing to take the risk) would bring, and so that he will be equipped to cope with the world as it really is and not as one might imagine Candy Land to be, would be a poor parent who probably shouldn't be bringing kids into the world in the first place. Are you married? Do you intend to have kids? What kind of explanation are you prepared to give them as to why you would bring them into such a place which exposes them to all these hazards whose only guarantee in the end is death? How do you intend to shield them from every possible instance where things could go wrong? And what would you tell them if they did, which they are most certainly bound to? Are you prepared to exonerate yourself of all responsibility at that time of whatever grief or pain they may be expected to suffer? Will YOU be a parent worth having? How do you propose ensuring that you will be? Will you seek out the advice and guidance of the first snake that crossed your path selling some sort of magic elixir that's supposed to cure all your ills, or will you do like many do and simply pass the buck to "God" and say "It ain't my fault, kid. What? Do you thing that I created the universe or made the world into such a lousy place to live? If there was a God in the first place then he'd take care of all those things wouldn't he? So since he apparently doesn't then that must mean that he doesn't exist. So you'll just have to go your on and lie down in whatever bed you make for yourself, that is if someone else doesn't set fire to it."
