Spiritual Warfare

Excelsior

MOGSA wrote:

The point is, is that spiritual covering requests to Jehovah are honoured by Him and, if requested, it is doubtful that one would be placed in a position to have to deny Him. He would not allow you to be placed in such a situation without a solution.

MOGSA wrote:

Please explain (in detail, for I am a layman) how you best describe my practices as unbiblical christianity and the conclusion that it is, at worst, fairyland hocus pocus (an occult term probably deliberately used?).

Firstly, please accept my apologies for the tone I took last night. It was arrogant and dismissive in a very unfair way. If I could I would take every word of it back because it was over-the-top nonsense.

I too am a layman but I will explain my reservations with your assertions as clearly as I can. If spiritual covering requests are honoured by our God, how come the Apostles died under brutal persecution? How come the Old Testament is littered with stories like the 7 sons of Macabbees who honoured and were faithful to God and still died?

See I agree to a large degree that humans are spiritual beings. I like to phrase that in the terms of CS Lewis and say that every human being has been made for eternity. It is arising directly out of that soul-potential that the writers of the letters of the New Testament could assure the persecuted 1st Century Christians that even if their lives would pass away, God was still with them.

When I overstated my case and called this position "at worse fairyland hocus pocus" what I was trying to argue was that this (I believe faulty) convinction that God will protect you from bodily harm as a rule can easily lead to the cheapening of human life and the kind of blasé embrace of violence that I don't think we are encouraged towards in the New Testament. The Christian has no fear in death but that should not become a disregard for this life.

MOGSA

Excelsior replied to my request for further detail.

Hi ... you have been forgiven. I said in other posts that I was deliberately going to be controversial thus no offence was taken.

However, it was your 'shut out' statement that determined that I needed to converge our understandings from the various perspectives.

You didnt respond : 'It might assist me in 'putting you in a box' too if I knew what your religious 'positioning statement' was.'

"fairyland hocus pocus"
There a many good christians that neither accept nor teach spiritual warfare and/or covering - typically from the traditional churches. To many, my claims would sound like "fairyland hocus pocus" - until you have been thru deliverance and understood the occult.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever had was to keep my eyes on Jesus. But God showed me that if I dont know who the enemy is (and in what form) how will I be able to discern them? Satan's demons are as rampant here as everywhere else.

Remember that many christians come out of the occult after horrendous experiences and the need for spiritual covering is very real to them.

Where do you stand on these issues?

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."


Covering position
My positioning on this covering is that there is God's normal environment for your life (long levity, joy, abundance and other blessings). Then there His plan for you which might include taking you home earlier.

Several christians I know were told (prophetically) that they were to die and some had time to prepare. Others ignored the warnings which we all knew about and died instantly in car accidents for example.

So my prayers always revolve around His plan, covering for the family and blessings for others. Thus, in the same way, the disciples and certainly Moses, new of their fates beforehand and how God would use them.

The trick is to obey God's ruling not to 'test him'. When I've run out of petrol (at a known point on the gauge) I've asked for His help, not just a few times.
When I tested him (I was lazy), the car stopped at the normal empty point on the gauge to my great inconvenience - SA is big with huge gaps between stations at places.
When I had no money on me or the petrol stations were too far, even to turn back, I have travelled for dozens of miles to my destination on an empty tank.

If you are not testing Him and its not part of His plan for you to physically die at that point, He will cover you - you can stand on that!


I have many other questions of you later because of the need to structure them properly so that I maximise benefit from your knowledge.

The above two would be nice to start with

MOGSA

hairyheretic wrote:

I know I'm going OT here, but I'd like to reply to this

Firstly, thank you for your opinions. Secondly, please Mr Moderator, split off one or more of these issues so we can continue the debate.

No, he is pointing out that this man is not an expert in evolution as you claimed.

Perhaps it was too broad a claim, not knowing that the subject had already been ridiculed elsewhere. However, when you discuss issues one to one with Walter they certainly made sense, especially where he had been and what he had experienced. This did not come out at all on the earlier investigations on who and what he was. There was certainly not enough information to make that claim on your side.

Why dont you email him and ask him directly what qualifies him? He is an honest and ethical man.


Funny, christianity did exactly the same thing as it spread. The gods of any other people encountered were turned into demons, their holy places destroyed, or churches built over the top of them. Those who held to their ancestors beliefs were discriminated against or killed.

Of course, if you have the correct, all-powerful creator with you, you can only kick butt! The people that turned to Satan instead of Him certainly felt the sharp end. He was just re-establishing part of His kingdom as foretold.
A part of the world was de-contaminated from Satan's influence, demons and off-spring (thru the fallen angels). Even real-world squatters feel the pressure when the owner re-appears.

We now head to the end times, so things will get worse and deteriorate completely as per Revelations.

Educating people about others beliefs means you're better able to understand them. Removing centuries of propaganda and brainwashing would be a good thing.

I doubt this was what you meant though.

No ..... you are quite correct. Understanding how, what and why about Satan would only be used to combat his deceptive practices, not to embrace him. There is a master plan behind all of this after all.

Oh, please. What on earth has Star Trek to do with witchcraft?

And for that matter, what do you know of witchcraft? Do you know any wiccans, or have any personal experiences with them, or are you simply regurgitating tired old cliches?

I merely expounded upon how the environment is being prepared for Satan's rule. All of my utterings are based on personal understanding, not necessarily well structured or properly thought-out, but there, nevertheless!

If you operated in the spirit world as an asatruar, using your rune magic, then you would already know the answer to the question on my personal experiences.

Please surf the web for info on christianity/aliens etc - in fact go to the 'Cutting Edge' site for some good background from a christian perspective. Try David Icke (a non-christian) books and web-sites - he provides phenominal insight into these types of things from a non-christian point of view.

So are you trying to claim that those who call themselves christians are in fact satanists? Who are the 'real' christians then?

I repeat, those that dont choose the God of Abraham, choose Satan either deliberately or by default. I am not going to expound sensationally on what a christian is or isnt (I dont believe, rather I know, that I am not qualified to do this justice) - but what I can tell you is what I know:

• A christian is one who purposefully follows the teaching of Christ
• A christian is one who models his life around the Bible and God's requirement of them
• A christian is on a narrow, bumpy road, often falling off but always gets back on - a commitment to Jesus to follow Him.
• A christian is not superior in secular terms to any of God's non-christian children

There are many who claim to be christians, even attend church once a week, but do not commit themselves spiritually or in their behaviour to following His teachings - these are the counterfeit christians - you will find them everywhere! A 'real' christian is one who is just on that narrow, bumpy road, either at the start of their walk with the Lord or more developed in terms of their personal relationship with Him.

To become a christian, just get on the road and commit to staying there! The end prize is to keep ownership of your soul so that one can sit at the feet of Jesus one day. Who owns your soul? If you are into rune magic or wicca then you definitely dont!

Your belief is one amongst many. The fact that you believe something to be true does make it so.

When you become a christian, one dies to the world and embraces what is in God's Word ie the Bible as well as what's in His plan for you as an individual, through Jesus.
My beliefs are one among many of the same, probably billions at the last count - I have no individual beliefs other than allowed within God's Word. If these beliefs are from God, then they will be true, despite what you have to say about them.

It is past time for another 'Elijah' moment (with the 'prophets of Baal') from the Boss .... the God of Abraham! Think of the technology used in the event!

If they're so terrible, why do you read them? And how are you being directly affected by people choosing to dress up and have fun?

Firstly these magazines contain useful information about the industry I work in. I made the remark because of dominant position of these themes in such magazines and the fact that the people that celebrate Halloween, often are professing christians who actually attend church. Hence my observation about 'real' christians as only God directly affects what I do.

Please do, or have one of the mods split this off. I can't wait to see your thoughts on how Star Trek leads to satanism

Beam me up to the satanic environment eh Scotty?

BrianCalgary

We have had a couple of threads go in this direction. I am moving the posts to this thread so the topic of spiritual warfare can be discussed.

Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience

MOGSA

Michael G wrote:

I think Excelsior and I would probably agree on our reactions to that post — but that would only confirm MOGSA's suspicions.

This was in response to a long post ranting on about the RCC and the latin mass.

To be able to shake you (generic 'you') out of lethargy and comfort zones, is indeed difficult. Those that operate in the spirit world against Jesus have wide grins on their faces as they watch pious people perpertuating (say that again, fast? ) witchcraft in the name of Jesus.

Has this no context for you?

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

The difference between a prayer and a spell, are the words and the environment!

What I need is someone to take up the challenge presented by that post and query each statement, rather than saying the lot has no substance, or 'I cant' relate!'

Comfort zones are no excuse, unless you are part of the problem!

Asiaprod

MOGSA wrote:

Comfort zones are no excuse, unless you are part of the problem!

"There is only God and Satan", your own words I believe.
Is that not a comfort zone? Does that therefore not make you also part of the problem?

Nevyn

Psst

MOGSA

Asiaprod wrote:

"There is only God and Satan", your own words I believe.
Is that not a comfort zone? Does that therefore not make you also part of the problem?

If you wander thru the world not recognising either of them and think that because you undertake good deeds, it will be sufficient to satisfy your understanding of what life requires of you, then such a person would part of the problem.

If one operated in the occult, equally so.

Being a Christian is hardly a comfort zone, being the target for Satan's constant attacks. I could have abdicated and chosen the neutral or occult path - either way I would then have to follow his way - but I chose not to.

Mine is a very bumpy path indeed. No Asiaprod, I am part of the drive to get people to think differently but not in a comfort zone whatsoever.

Asiaprod

MOGSA wrote:

If you wander thru the world not recognising either of them and think that because you undertake good deeds, it will be sufficient to satisfy your understanding of what life requires of you, then such a person would part of the problem.

Ah, then I must take it that I too am part of the problem. Thank you for pointing that out. We live and learn.

If one operated in the occult, equally so.

Phew, escaped that one at least. No occult where I come from.

Being a Christian is hardly a comfort zone, being the target for Satan's constant attacks. I could have abdicated and chosen the neutral or occult path - either way I would then have to follow his way - but I chose not to.

Well I do respect you for your commitment. It must indeed be tough having to deal with these constant attacks. But you are surviving and thats good

Mine is a very bumpy path indeed. No Asiaprod, I am part of the drive to get people to think differently but not in a comfort zone whatsoever.

Yes, reading what you have written does show me that you are indeed traveling a very bumpy path. But then aren't we all.

Zombrex

All this talk about the correct path and the corruption of Satan makes me very glad I don't believe in Satan or "evil" as a material substance.

It must be quite a stressful (for lack of a better word) to be constantly worried about a fallen angel trying to corrupt your soul left right and centre.

I would imagine it would be like being a hypochondriac, constantly worried that a rash or cut or cold is going to kill them.

Dades

MOGSA wrote:

If you wander thru the world not recognising either of them and think that because you undertake good deeds, it will be sufficient to satisfy your understanding of what life requires of you, then such a person would part of the problem.

Whose problem, exactly?

Only yours, and perhaps the few that subscribe to your extreme good versus evil beliefs. That problem as you put it, seems to me to be non-existant for the rest of us.

Nevyn

well there is a context that may explain it, we are 'the other people'.
http://pagan.flindersclubs.asn.au/humour/otherpeople.html

We Are the Other People*
by Oberon (Otter) Zell

"Ding-dong!" goes the doorbell. Is it Avon calling? Or perhaps Ed McMahon with my three million dollars? No, it's Yahweh's Witlesses again, just wanting to have a nice little chat about the Bible... Boy, did they ever come to the wrong house! So we invite them in: "Enter freely and of your own will..." (Hey, it's Sunday morning, nothing much going on, why not have a little entertainment?) Diane and I amuse ourselves watching their expressions as they check out the living room: great horned owl on the back of my chair; ceremonial masks and medicine skulls of dragons and unicorns on the wall; crystals, wands, staffs, swords; lots of Goddess figures and several altars; boa constrictors draped in amorous embrace over the elkhorn; white doves sitting in the hanging planters; cats and weasels underfoot; iron dragon snorting steam atop the wood stove; posters and paintings of wizards and dinosaurs and witchy women, some proudly naked; sculptures of mythological beasties and lots more dinosaurs; warp six on the star-filled viewscreen of my computer; a five-foot model of the USS Enterprise and the skeleton of a plesiosaur hanging from the ceiling; very, very many books, most of them dealing with obviously weird subjects... To say nothing of the great horned owl perched on the back of my chair and the Unicorn grazing in the front yard. You know; early Addams Family decor. And then, of course, it being late in the morning, you can expect Morning Glory to come wandering out naked, looking for her wake-up cup of tea. Morning Glory naked is a truly impressive sight, and the Witlesses look as if she'd set titties on stun as they stand immobilised, hands clasped over their genitals. With the stage set and all the actors in place, the show is ready to begin.

Their mission, of course, is to save our heathen souls by turning us on to "The Word of the Lord"- their Bible. I guess they figure some of us just haven't heard about it yet, and we're all eagerly awaiting their joyous tidings of personal salvation through giving our rational faculties to Jesus. Every time they come around, I look forward to trying out a new riposte. Sure, it may be cruel and sadistic of me, but hey, I didn't call them up and ask them to come over; they entered at their own risk! This time should be pretty good. After letting them run off their basic rap while lovely Morning Glory serves us all hot herb tea, I innocently remark: "But none of that applies to us. We have no need for salvation because we don't have original sin. We are the Other People."

"Hunh? What?" they reply eloquently. It's clear they've never heard this one before. "

Right," I say. "It's all in your Bible." And I proceed to tell them the story, using their own book for reference: (Genesis 1:26) The [Elohim] said, "Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth." Elohim is a plural word, including male and female, and should properly be translated "Gods" or "Pantheon." (1: 27) The Gods created humanity in the image of themselves, In the image of the Gods they created them, Male and female they created them. (1:28) The Gods blessed them, saying to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth."

Now clearly, here we are talking about the original creation of the human species: male and female. All the animals, plants, etc. have all been created in previous verses. This is before the Garden of Eden, and Yahweh is not mentioned as the creator of these people.

The next chapter talks about how Yahweh, an individual member of the Pantheon, goes about assembling his own special little botanical and zoological Garden in Eden, and making his own little man to inhabit it: (Gen 2:7) Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a living being. (2:8) Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned. (2:9) Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden. (2:15) Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it. Now this next is crucial: note Yahweh's precise words: (2:16) Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden. (2:17) Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." Fateful words, those. We will refer back to this admonition later.

Then Yahweh decides to make a woman to go with the man. Now, don't forget that the Pantheon had earlier created a whole population of people, "male and female," who are presumably doing just fine somewhere "outside the gates of Eden." But this set-up in Eden is Yahweh's own little experiment, and will unfold to its own separate destiny. (2:21) So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. And while he slept, he took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh. (2:22) Yahweh God built the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. Right. Man gives birth to woman. Sure he does. But that's the way the story is told here. (2:25) Now both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame in front of each other. Well, of course not! Why should they? But take careful note of those words, as they also will prove to be significant...

Now this next part is where it starts to get interesting. Enter the Serpent: (Gen. 3:1) The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, "Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" (3:2) The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. (3:3) "But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death." (3:4) Then the serpent said to the woman, "No! You will not die! (3:5) "God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

What a remarkable statement! "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." The Serpent directly contradicts Yahweh. Obviously, one of them has to be lying. Which one, do you suppose? And, if the serpent speaks true, wouldn't you wish to eat of the magic fruit? Wouldn't it be a good thing, to become "like gods, knowing good and evil"?

Or is it preferable to remain in ignorance?

(Gen. 3:6) The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She gave some also to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. (3:7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realised that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths. The author makes an interesting assumption here: that if you realise you are naked you will automatically want to cover yourself. Further implications will unfold shortly...

(Gen. 3:8) The man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden. (3:9) But Yahweh God called to the man. "Where are you?" he asked. (3:10) "I heard the sound of you in the garden," he replied. "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid." (3:11) "Who told you that you were naked?" he asked. "Have you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat?"

And so the sign of the Fall becomes modesty. Take note of this. The descendants of Adam and Eve will be distinguished throughout history from virtually all other peoples by their obsessive modesty taboos, wherein they will feel ashamed of being naked. It follows that those who feel no shame in being naked are, by definition, not carriers of this spiritual disease of original sin!

Nevyn

part the second

So that's it for the Fall. But the story of Adam and Eve doesn't end there. (Gen 4:1) The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain... (4:2) She gave birth to a second child, Abel, the brother of Cain. Now Abel became a shepherd and kept flocks, while Cain tilled the soil. (4:3) Time passed and Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering for Yahweh, (4:4) while Abel, for his part, brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well. Yahweh looked with favour on Abel and his offering. But he did not look with favour on Cain and his offering, and Cain was very angry and downcast. Well, why shouldn't he be? Both brothers had brought forth their first fruits as offerings, but Yahveh rejected the vegetables and only accepted the blood sacrifice. This was to set a gruesome precedent: (4:8) Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out;" and while they were in the open country, Cain set on his brother Abel and killed him.

Accursed and marked for fratricide, (4:16) Cain left the presence of Yahweh and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. We can assume that the phrase "left the presence of Yahweh" implies that Yahweh is a local deity, and not omnipresent. Now Eden, according to (Gen. 2:14-15), was situated at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, apparently right where Lake Van is now, in Turkey. "East of Eden," therefore, would probably be along the shores of the Caspian Sea, right in the Indo-European heartland. Cain settled in there, among the people of Nod, and married one of the women of that country. Here, for the first time, is specifically mentioned the "other people" who are not of the lineage of Adam and Eve. i.e: the Pagans.

So let's look at this story from another viewpoint: There we were, around six thousand years ago, living in our little farming communities around the Caspian Sea, in the land of Nod, when this dude with a terrible scar comes stumbling in out of the sunset. He tells us this bizarre story, about how his mother and father had been created by some god named Jahweh, and put in charge of a beautiful garden somewhere out west, and how they had gotten thrown out for disobedience after eating some of the landlord's forbidden magic fruit of enlightenment. He tells us of murdering his brother, as the god of his parents would only accept blood sacrifice, and of receiving that scar as a mark so that all would know him as a fratricide.

The poor guy is really a mess psychologically, obsessed with guilt. He is also obsessively modest, insisting on wearing clothes even in the hottest summer, and he has a hard time with our penchant for skinny-dipping in the warm inland sea. He seems to believe that he is tainted by the "sin" of his parent's disobedience; that it is in his blood, somehow, and will continue to contaminate his children and his children's children. One of our healing women takes pity on the poor sucker, and marries him... (4:17) Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. He became the builder of a town, and he gave the town the name of his son Enoch.

With both of their first sons not turning out very well, Adam and Eve decided to try again: (4:25) Adam had intercourse with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she named Seth... (4:26) A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. This man was the first to invoke the name of Yahweh. Now it doesn't mention here where Seth's wife came from. Another woman from Nod, possibly, or maybe someone from another neolithic community downstream in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. But her folks also, cannot be of the lineage of Adam and Eve, and must also be counted among "the other people." But whatever happened to Adam? After all, way back there in chapter Gen. 2:17, warning Adam about the magic fruit of knowlege, Jahweh had told him that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." So, when did Adam die? (Gen. 5:4) Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and he became the father of sons and daughters. (5:5) In all, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years; then he died. Hey, that's pretty good! Nine hundred and some odd years isn't bad for a man who's been told he's gonna die the next day!

Well, the story goes on, and maybe next time the Witlesses come to visit I'll tell more of it. But suffice it to say that those of us who are not of Semitic descent (i.e., not of the lineage of Adam and Eve) cannot share in the Original Sin that comes with that lineage. Being that the Bible is the story of that lineage, of Adam and Eve's descendants and their special relationship with their particular god, Yahweh, it follows that this is not the story of the rest of us. We may have been Cain's wife's people, or Seth's wife's people, or some other people over the hill and far away, but whichever people the rest of us are, as far as the Bible is concerned, we are the Other People, and so we are continually referred to throughout.

Later books of the Bible are filled with admonitions to the followers of Jahweh to "learn not the ways of the Pagans..." (Jer 10:2) with detailed descriptions of exactly what it is we do, such as erect standing stones and sacred poles, worship in sacred groves and practice divination and magic. And worship the sun, moon, stars and the "Queen of Heaven." "You must not behave as they do in Egypt where once you lived; you must not behave as they do in Canaan where I am taking you. You must not follow their laws." (Lev 18:3) For Yahweh, as he so clearly emphasises, is not the god of the Pagans. We have our own lineage and our own heritage, and our tale is not told in the Bible. We were not "made" like clay figurines by a male deity out of "dust from the soil." We were born of our Mother the Earth, and have evolved over aeons in Her nurturing embrace. All of us, in our many and diverse tribes, have creation myths and legends of our origins and history; some of these tales may even be actually true.

Like the descendants of Adam and Eve, many of us also have stories of great floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other cataclysms that wiped out whole communities of our people, wherein "I alone survived to tell the tale." Nearly all of our ancestral tribes (and especially those of us who today are reclaiming our own Pagan heritage) lack that peculiar obsessive body modesty that seems to be a hallmark of the original sin alluded to in the story of the Fall. We can be naked and unashamed! Why, our Goddess even tells us, "as a sign that you are truly free, you shall be naked in your rites." Not being born into sin, we have no need of salvation, and no need of a Messiah to redeem our sinful souls.

Neither heaven nor hell is our destination in the afterlife; we have our own various arrangements with our own various deities. The Bible is not our story; we have our own stories to tell, and they are many and diverse. In a long life, you may get to hear many of them... May you live long and prosper!

Asiaprod

Thaedydal wrote:

well there is a context that may explain it, we are 'the other people

Don't feed the Troll! That was a banquet. Also a very nice story.:)

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod wrote:

Don't feed the Troll! That was a banquet. Also a very nice story.:)

Excellent story. The theology is out to lunch. But a fun read anyway.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Excellent story. The theology is out to lunch. But a fun read anyway.

Bit of a limp response, BC. Do you disagree that Genesis can be read to suggest that Adam and Eve were not the first and only people on Earth? (And don't cut-and-paste something from Answers in Genesis, for the love of God )

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

Bit of a limp response, BC. Do you disagree that Genesis can be read to suggest that Adam and Eve were not the first and only people on Earth? (And don't cut-and-paste something from Answers in Genesis, for the love of God )

At this time of year I don't have time to go through all the theology on a story like that to deeply (soccer 6 days a week).

I believe that the first chapters of Genesis are historically accurate based on Peter talking about Adam as an actual figure of history. Is it necessary to match my understanding for salvation? No.

Can Genesis be read to suggest that Adam and Eve were not the first and only people on Earth? Yes.

This doesn't count as an issue to die for. Is Jesus God and the only way for salvation? Yes, that is worth dying for.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Can Genesis be read to suggest that Adam and Eve were not the first and only people on Earth? Yes.

This doesn't count as an issue to die for. Is Jesus God and the only way for salvation? Yes, that is worth dying for.

But therein lies the theology, no? Those who are not decended from Adam and Eve have no need of salvation.

robindch

> Those who are not decended from Adam and Eve have no need of salvation.

Moving one step sideways: if one believes that the notion of "original sin" is meaningless, then isn't "salvation" equally pointless too?

Sapien

robindch wrote:

> Those who are not decended from Adam and Eve have no need of salvation.

Moving one step sideways: if one believes that the notion of "original sin" is meaningless, then isn't "salvation" equally pointless too?

Are there many people who believe that they are descended from Adam and Eve but are not bothered about original sin?

robindch

> Are there many people who believe that they are descended
> from Adam and Eve but are not bothered about original sin?

No idea, but probably few. I was looking at it from the opposite point of view -- of all those good folks who don't believe that they're descended from Adam and Eve, but still insist on there being a nebulous guilt-inducing something out there called "original sin", still infecting each human being until "salvation"'s guilt-eroding acid can dissolve it.

One wonders why god wouldn't somehow be petitioned to dissolve "original sin" for once and for all. Like, all that stuff about apple-eating and being kicked out of Eden is supposed to have happened 6,000 years ago -- when's god going to kick back and ease off and set us a more challenging task, rather than the pointless one of insisting that everybody apologizes for the sins of one's alleged ancestors?

Don't make no sense to me. Even when I thought it did, in my increasingly distant religious past.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

But therein lies the theology, no? Those who are not decended from Adam and Eve have no need of salvation.

I would disagree, since God created all and is LORD over all, He decides the rules. All of humanity has broken those rules, all humanity is in need of salvation. God provided the method through self sacrifice.

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

I would disagree, since God created all and is LORD over all, He decides the rules. All of humanity has broken those rules, all humanity is in need of salvation. God provided the method through self sacrifice.

That is your belief, but every other religion and belief has their own ideas of who created everything, and what way we should live.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

One wonders why god wouldn't somehow be petitioned to dissolve "original sin" for once and for all. Like, all that stuff about apple-eating and being kicked out of Eden is supposed to have happened 6,000 years ago -- when's god going to kick back and ease off and set us a more challenging task, rather than the pointless one of insisting that everybody apologizes for the sins of one's alleged ancestors?

Don't make no sense to me. Even when I thought it did, in my increasingly distant religious past.

All gone come judgement day. Those who have asked for their sins to be washed away will have that happen and be in Heaven. Those that have no desire to be rid of their sin get to wallow in it for eternity. You're choice, not God's decree.

He could have done it all away, but then you would be a robot without free choice. And you would hate God for that too. Now you just hate Him because He does things that go against you're standard of right and wrong. God just can't win with some folks.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

I would disagree, since God created all and is LORD over all, He decides the rules. All of humanity has broken those rules, all humanity is in need of salvation. God provided the method through self sacrifice.

But you have just conceded that Genesis can be read to mean that not all of humanity is descended from those who "broke those rules".

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

But you have just conceded that Genesis can be read to mean that not all of humanity is descended from those who "broke those rules".

Genesis is either read as history (which is how I read it) which means that Adam and Eve sinned throwing all mankind into sin.

Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Or it can be read as metaphor, which means that all man is still sinful and Adam and Eve did not exist. Under the metaphorical reading there is not one couple to be descended from.

You can not combine both methods, some metaphor some historical.

In the above passage Paul refers to Adam as being real. He is also referred to in Luke, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and Jude.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Genesis is either read as history (which is how I read it) which means that Adam and Eve sinned throwing all mankind into sin.

Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Or it can be read as metaphor, which means that all man is still sinful and Adam and Eve did not exist. Under the metaphorical reading there is not one couple to be descended from.

You can not combine both methods, some metaphor some historical.

In the above passage Paul refers to Adam as being real. He is also referred to in Luke, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and Jude.

Then, as you interpret it historically and accept that it can be read to mean that only some people are descended from Adam and Eve, you must accept that many people have not inherited original sin. How can the actions of Adam and Eve in Eden have ramified on the multitudes already living in Nod and, presumably, many other places? Of course, one can make up a reason, but from a plain (historical) reading of the text I see absolutely no reason why they would.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

Then, as you interpret it historically and accept that it can be read to mean that only some people are descended from Adam and Eve, you must accept that many people have not inherited original sin. How can the actions of Adam and Eve in Eden have ramified on the multitudes already living in Nod and, presumably, many other places? Of course, one can make up a reason, but from a plain (historical) reading of the text I see absolutely no reason why they would.

Only two ways, either all people are descended form Adam and Eve or they are a metaphor and didn't exist.

Either way we are sinful in the eyes of God and in need of salvation. I see original sin as man's nature to do what they can for their own pleasures. We all suffer from it. We either inherited it from Adam and Eve or we evolved into it once we obtained knowledge and started acting on our own thoughts and consciences as opposed to our far back ancestors who operated on instinct.

Fallen Seraph

Ok, then given the two assumptions that the bible has been correctly translated and unaltered and that Genesis should be read literally and historically who do you propose the wife of Cain was? It wasn't any child of Adam and Eve's. They hadn't even had Seth before Cain's wife was mentioned. Where did this other woman come from?

BrianCalgary

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Ok, then given the two assumptions that the bible has been correctly translated and unaltered and that Genesis should be read literally and historically who do you propose the wife of Cain was? It wasn't any child of Adam and Eve's. They hadn't even had Seth before Cain's wife was mentioned. Where did this other woman come from?

The Bible is concerned with people that have a story that is relevant to God's unfolding plan of salvation or that has a lesson contained for us.

Genesis speaks of Cain and Abel as brothers who had a tiff. It would be like me telling a story about 2 of my kids. The third need never be mentioned.

At the time both brothers were farmers, adults working the land. It stands to reason that Adam and Eve would have had many other children as well. Some had moved to Nod east of the garden. Probably had children of their own. The Bible also doesn't tell us whether or not Cain and Abel were the first children or the 7th and 8th or what age Eve was when she had them.

Cain's wife was a sister or neice who more than likely lived in Nod. If I was to tell the story of my life there would be lots left out as th eevents would be irelevant to the experiences necessary for that particular story.

As for Seth, he has no bearing on Cain and Abel. He is listed to show the line of Noah. We have no idea the birth order of Adam and Eves offspring (except that Seth was born after Cain and Abel) nor when they had them nor how many.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Only two ways, either all people are descended form Adam and Eve or they are a metaphor and didn't exist.

You refuse to recognise my question. *I will not resort to bold font* From an non-metaphorical reading of Genesis - not all people are descended from Adam and Eve.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Only two ways, either all people are descended form Adam and Eve or they are a metaphor and didn't exist.

Unless, to borrow your rather nifty sidestep, we apply "the Bible is concerned with people that have a story that is relevant to God's unfolding plan of salvation or that has a lesson contained for us" to Adam and Eve themselves - or rather to everyone else. Then there would be other people, they just wouldn't be relevant until they got involved with the Biblical story.

I am aware that this would raise some new issues...

mischievously,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

You refuse to recognise my question. *I will not resort to bold font* From an non-metaphorical reading of Genesis - not all people are descended from Adam and Eve.

In a non-metaphoriacl reading (historical reading) Adam and Eve existed and we are all descended from them.

Nevyn

Every single ones of us born of what ever insceteous couples were formed ?

Asiaprod

Thaedydal wrote:

Every single ones of us born of what ever insceteous couples were formed ?

That is one of the big ones I find hard to swallow. I always though that inbreeding ran counter to evolution. We should by now all be insane.

Nevyn

/me passes Asiaprod a glass of water to stop him choking and wonders if some
ketchup or chewing help with the swallowing

Zombrex

I must say the idea of inherited sin makes me very uncomfortable (lucky I'm an atheist )

What is the logic in saying that because of what your ancestors do you should be punished. I mean, in civil legal status we got rid of inherited debt and punishment long ago for being completely unfair system.

It seems funny that God would not agree, that all decendents of Adam & Eve deserve to be punished for what they did.

Not to offend anyone, but the Judo/Christian God seems like a bit of a vendictive God, and a bit behind the times

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

In a non-metaphoriacl reading (historical reading) Adam and Eve existed and we are all descended from them.

I give up.

MeditationMom

Genesis sets up any child beautifully to quietly doubt anything that comes after, so I love Genesis. It has helped many seekers of truth to think for themselves from a young age, maybe even Jesus?!

The idea of Original Sin - is it any different from the idea of being born with Karma to still work off over lifetimes? Seems it is a common religious idea to keep us wondering what that might mean and work on ourselves? Personally I like the idea of our inborn Goodness better, considering sinful behavior an abnormality to shed like a temporarily bad hair day.

Sin is a more loaded word for us than Karma. But Buddhist children are propably as excited about finding out that they arrived indebted as we are about Original Sin. Where does that word come from and what does it mean? Sapien, any clue? Is it from the Latin "sine" which means "without"? Actions performed "without" God or the awareness of God ? I think I read something like that at some point.

Well, Brian's "doesn't need to be part of the story" defense is a good one I hadn't heard before. Still leaves us with incest, though. In horses they inbreed to a point to improve qualities - so maybe incest in moderation worked - also we all got washed away and did it again after Noah's flood. I don't remember him taking neighbours. Taking scripture too literally leads to Jihad, witch burning, maybe even child molestation, so maybe we need to be careful.

To me Genesis is about disobedience, using my free will instead of an attitude of "Thy will be done". Now that is lots of good food for thought.

Another thing I need to find out about- didn't geneticist just trace all our DNA back to nine women?