CautionSin Wrote:Thanks for splitting the words up and giving me dictionary definitions. I was actually looking for the specific person who had said it beliefs and practices, not arguing semantics with you. Religion. Non-religious Christian. Spiritual. Proving...

Hazzy Wrote:I saw this quote somewhere and it makes a good point, but I am an atheist and I have never read the Bible. Perhaps some SouthPerrian could offer a different perspective on this?

Religion threads have a bad habit of going down the drain. If we really try, I think we can prevent that.

yoosergio Wrote:Back to the original post.
I think it's part of God's plan. God knew they would obviously eat from the apple. It was part of his plan to give mankind the freedom to choose. Then, he sent Jesus to guide mankind to the path of God, so we can get to Heaven and such things. God gave us the freedom to either go with Jesus or not.

Erebus Wrote:I hate censorship as the next guy and the fact we already have to tip toe around/within religious based threads is annoying.

Eosian Wrote:Maybe you didn't notice I changed that rule.

Eosian Wrote:That wasn't the dictionary definition, that was the general definition given to me by several people who've made the same claim.
If you can't respect other user's attempting to answer your questions you should consider not posting. This is a public forum. If you want a specific person to answer a specific question, PM it to them.

Erebus Wrote:The problems with the interpretation depends on how you determine the properties of God.

Omnipresent, omniscient, omni-etc. Is he benevolent, non caring. Basically you'd have to answer Epicurus quote.

One thing that should be asked is as i said in a previous post "Why put the tree there in the first place?"... if he knew they were going to eat from it and he ALWAYS knew they would eat from it, "why put it there?", or for that matter if he knows everything, why not prevent the "devil/talking snake" from tricking Eve in the first place.

Actually when you give properties to God, like he's all knowing, there's a lot of "plot holes" that come up.

And can we keep this on topic please. I hate censorship as the next guy and the fact we already have to tip toe around/within religious based threads is annoying.

Erebus Wrote:"Why put the tree there in the first place?"

CautionSin Wrote:Ok, in that case, let the semantic argument begin.
Religion is a set of beliefs.
Non-religious Christian is an oxymoron.

DustBunny Wrote:I find it funny how most people don't ever consider that, the teachings of god, havent been corrupted by a human ego.

Eosian Wrote:The standard response to that is that the word of God is incorruptible and/or that he preserves his message.

Both of which are rather BS answers because if it were true you wouldn't have six Abrahamic divisions and Christianity itself wouldn't have some 40 odd divisions.

octopusprime Wrote:Without the tree you're a fleshy robot.

Your choices are: A. Obey gods will because you want to. B. Obey gods will because you can't not obey.

Boy, what an interesting and fullfulling creation the almighty hath giveth us this day.

Theology dawg, it has some thoughts to it.

DustBunny Wrote:I find it funny how most people don't ever consider that, the teachings of god, havent been corrupted by a human ego. Not implying any poster in this thread is ignorant of that just a general statement. Though this is how I view the religion aspect: -snip-

Eosian Wrote:The standard response to that is that the word of God is incorruptible and/or that he preserves his message.

Both of which are rather BS answers because if it were true you wouldn't have six Abrahamic divisions and Christianity itself wouldn't have some 40 odd divisions.

Erebus Wrote:Yeah that doesn't really explain WHY it is there.

CautionSin Wrote:Ok, in that case, let the semantic argument begin.
Religion is a set of beliefs.
Non-religious Christian is an oxymoron.

Proving is the very thing that has KILLED GOD.

Eosian Wrote:If you truly want to argue semantics I can point blank say you're mistaken. Spirituality is a subset of Religious, just look at the dictionary.com explanation of both.
Religion repeatedly emphasizes belief and practices (most clearly in "the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."). Spirituality on the other hand only emphasizes belief.

Your own understanding of the meaning of words may differ substantially from their real scope based on the limited context you've experienced them in.

Erebus Wrote:Not to be a son of a peach but according to Pip that's supposed to be an environmental message not a religious one.

DustBunny Wrote:I'm aware but you can't really ignore that perspective of the message, or ironically in this case "interpretation".

octopusprime Wrote:Strangely, perhaps, it struck me as more of a philosophical message than anything. The environmental one seems the most outlandish with only one line that was "just environmental."

Also the voice just bothers me and reminds me of the Knifes cop voice. I can't accept that being the voice of god.

Knife voice here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u44vOpr5PE

DustBunny Wrote:You can't have such shallow things ruin your taste on such a message! But yeah I agree, I would say it was probably intentionally phylosophically religious upon writing, but it's such a touchy topic.

After the whole Pope incident though, with the admittance of molesting or such, it seems a lot, and I mean a lot of support for any church is weakening substantionally.

octopusprime Wrote:No, it is one of the most accepted theological answers actually. Is it the right one? That remains uncertain as we aren't sure if that whole god thing is furreals. And the may or may not be real creator of everything didn't leave us a sticky note.

Again along the same theological vein, humanity was not lacking anything intially. they were just as of yet uncorrorpted and as a result not apart from god.

It really seems like you totally missed the crux of this line of thinking but responded anyway.

Erebus Wrote:Being an ex-theologian that is in fact not the common or accepted answer. In most instances it's considered an unknown or excused as "God working in mysterious ways". What I am asking is WHY was the tree placed in the garden, not asking why God allowed them to eat from it. Or for the fact of simplification put it into an analogy: "Why put a butchers knife into a baby's play pen?" with God being the parent, adam and eve being babies, and the Garden of Eden being the playpen... then ask yourself why would a parent/God put something they know will cause pain (knife/tree) into their babies/adam & eve playpen/Eden?

@DustBunny
I'm aware of interpretations but it seemed like you we're making the claim that song was suppose to have a religious meaning.