Who's booty you kissing?

Amazing Frank! And all you did was take the passages straight out from the Bible. It's written there in black and white, yet people still call the Serpent a liar.

I'm sure the apologists can always defend God by saying that he meant we are doomed to die from the day we eat the fruit, but that's the modern translation, isn't it?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The next item on my agenda is: Who was closer to telling the truth to Adam and Eve...the god...or the serpent?

And I guess I should start by getting this out of the way: Most people consider the serpent to be Satan. I will make that assumption in my remarks...but if you feel it is inappropriate, please disregard that notion. My comments work whether we have a talking serpent or a fallen angel disguised as a serpent.

At Genesis 2:17, the god tells Adam and Eve:

Jewish Bible: "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

Protestent Bible: "...for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

Catholic Bible (modern language): "...the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

At Genesis 3:4, the serpent tells Eve:

Jewish Bible: "...Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Protestent Bible: "...Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Catholic Bible (modern language): "...You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."

They ate of the fruit.

They did not die.

Their "eyes were opened" and they knew what was "good" and what was "evil."

They became like gods.

The god of the Bible acknowledges this last point, in a passage at Genesis 3:23 that raises other questions.

Jewish Bible: "...Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."

Protestent Bible: "...Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."

Catholic Bible (modern language): "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever."

So...as I see it, the answer to my question: "Who was closer to telling the truth to Adam and Eve...the god...or the serpent?"...is...the serpent.

Satan was truthful with Adam and Eve...the god of the Bible was less than truthful.

Come on Frank just say it. Go ahead. Call God a liar. You know you want to. Razz

LOL

Call satan whatever you would like Frank. Nothing like that offends me.

I still say:

...It is very clearly stated in Genesis why Adam was told not to eat of the tree... because if he ate of it he would die. What died exactly when they ate of that tree? It's obvious they didn't die physically. So did God lie then? It was their innocence that died. For the first time since being created Adam felt fear when he heard God's voice. Why? Because he had the knowledge of good and evil. Prior to doing that Adam and Eve didn't even know what fear was. So I say it was not that God was trying to prevent them from knowing good and evil, but rather He was protecting them from the outcome of knowing good and evil.

0 Replies

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MORNING INTERMISSION>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Well, it seems as Act II has finished up and Act III is already in swing! Let's talk to some of those in the audience and get their reactions.

Let's talk to this interesting looking person over here. Hmmm. I'm not sure if it's a man or a woman, as they are wearing a hood and it's covering their face. Excuse me, may I talk to you for a moment about the film? Please tell us your name, please?"

<<<Momma Angel thinking; rats! I still can't see the face!>>>> A quiet voice (can't tell if it's male or female though) says, "Hello, my name is Ashers. What would you like to ask me?"

"Uh, (a little uncomfortable because I don't know how to address, male/female? Oh well, adlib, you're a professional, remember that) are you enjoying the film?"

"Oh yes. The relationship people have with God is the most fascinating type of relationship to think about in many ways. This is a good performance between Hephzibah and Frank though so I'll leave it at that and enjoy the show."

"Well, thank you Ashers for those comments." <<<<<Note to self: Be sure to find out if Ashers is a male or female so he/she can be addressed correctly if interviewed in the future.>>>>>

There are a few milling around the lobby this morning. Seems to be rather quiet. Let's see if we can talk to this interesting looking gentleman. "Sir, we'd love to get your thoughts on the film this morning so far. Please tell us your name?"

"Good Morning, Momma Angel. I'm Neo. I believe you know my friend, Joe Sixpack?"

"Ah yes, I do! So nice to meet you, Neo! Joe has told me so much about you. So, Neo, how do you see Frank's performance in the beginning of the third act."

"Well, I think Frank gives a good performance; however, I do feel that he hasn't quite captured the true meaning of some of the dialog as of yet. I think he is wrong about part of his scene. "

"You do? And what would that be, Neo?"

"Well, the tree represented mankind's acceptance or rejection of God's sovereignty according to free will. If the choice had not been there, we would be automatons. But, that is how some would have it. I am hoping that while working with Hephzibah he may come to a deeper understanding of this and incorporate it into his performance."

"Well, thank you Neo and it was nice to meet you."

"Oh, there's someone I recognize! It's Wolf_O'Donnell! Perhaps Wolf can give us his impressions on Hephzibah's performance this morning. Wolfie! Wolfie! (Show people always call people named Wolf, Wolfie BTW). Darling, how are you? It's so good to see you. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on Hephzibah's performance in the Third Act?"

"Hi Momma Angel and how are you? I would love to give you my comments, though, you know that you and I don't always agree but I've always been honest about how I feel."

"Wolfie, I wouldn't have it any other way! So, what do you think"

First, let me make a comment about Frank. I don't understand how some just can't seem to grasp Frank's performance. And all he did was take the script as it was written and yet, it seems some still can't see his perspective. He put it out there in black and white, yet people still can't quite grasp it."

"Well, folks, it appears that Hephzibah has already started her scene again in the Third Act. Looks like our Intermission Commentary ran a little long. We'd love to hear your comments about the show. All viewpoints are welcome. PM and posting lines to Momma Angel at WA2K-F are open! You can remain anonymous if you wish to.

Also, we are still looking for a Co-Anchor person for the rest of the film! Please submit your application to Momma Angel!"

We now join our program already in progress.

0 Replies

Male

Keep up the good work...

0 Replies

Thanx, Asher. I appreciate the compliment! Glad you are enjoying our film...........................

0 Replies

Hey! Momma! I never agreed to take part in an interview! I'm suing you for libel! Laughing

You know what I think Frank would say in response to Heph's argument? It's very obvious. God never said anything about a part of them dying if they ate the fruit. He clearly said, "you would die", not your innocence, but you.

If I were to tell you that you would die in X hours if you were to eat rat poison, what do you think that means?

Your innocence would die?

Furthermore, what is innocence? Does knowing what evil is make you not innocent? There are children out there, who you would think of as innocent and they would know that some things are right and some things are wrong. Does that mean they're not really innocent?

0 Replies

MA,

Frank would probably say this is still the beginning of Act I.

Hephzibah is doing good. (I myself would have been intimidated by how detailed Frank is.)

0 Replies

Wolfie darling! <<<<<<smooching Wolfie>>>>>>> You know I love you, darling. Can I get your signature on this little ole release here? Seems I totally let it slip my mind that I needed to have it to publish your interview. Oh, and did I tell you how wonderful you are looking today? Oh my, Wolfie! Have you lost weight? Cut your hair? What?! Why darling! There is an absolute glow about you! Tell me, what IS your secret?

<<<<<Momma Angel sweating out the lawsuit threat

http://www.smileys.ws/smls/yahoo/00000015.gif

>>>>>>>>>>>

wandeljw,

You may be right. Frank may think first act. I'm kind of dividing acts up as Intermission being when Hephzibah is at work and there's a lull. Oh, would you mind being interviewed for our next intermission. If yes, please sign this release.

I hereby give Momma Angel and WA2K-F my permission to use my comments in an online live interview.

Signed:
Dated:

Wolfie, darling? Please? For Momma?

http://www.smileys.ws/smls/yahoo/00000051.gif

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Come on Frank just say it. Go ahead. Call God a liar. You know you want to. LOL

I'll leave it that the god was less than truthful. In fact, I am willing to leave it at "the serpent was closer to the full truth than the god."

Quote:

I still say:

...It is very clearly stated in Genesis why Adam was told not to eat of the tree... because if he ate of it he would die. What died exactly when they ate of that tree? It's obvious they didn't die physically. So did God lie then? It was their innocence that died.

But the god, as I said earlier and as Wolf just said, DID NOT SAY their innocence would die. The god specifically said they would die. "...For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

Saying that their innocence died...is a rationalization, because you simply do not want to acknowledge the defects in this (what I consider an) allegory.

In any case, you are right. The did not die. And the serpent told them that they would not die...but that the would gain the knowledge of right and wrong. And they did.

Everything the serpent told them was correct and true.

Everything the god told them was wrong.

Quote:

For the first time since being created Adam felt fear when he heard God's voice. Why? Because he had the knowledge of good and evil. Prior to doing that Adam and Eve didn't even know what fear was. So I say it was not that God was trying to prevent them from knowing good and evil, but rather He was protecting them from the outcome of knowing good and evil.

But that is not what the god said...and what we are discussing here is what the god said.

By the way..."the outcome" of knowing good and evil...according to both the god and the serpent...

...was to become like gods.

If your god did not want them to gain the knowledge of good and evil...the only rational way to interpret that is that the god did not want them to become like gods...not that the god was protecting them from the outcome.

And the first thing the god did after finding that they had become like gods...was to curse them and all the human beings that came after them....and then threw them out of Eden before they ate of the tree of life...which would make them even more god-like.

Heph...with all the respect in the world...the allegory is more than just defective. It is laughable.

BOTTOM LINE: Unless you have some further quotes that cast a different light on things...we should be able to agree that since...

...the god told them they would die on the day they ate of the fruit and said nothing about gaining knowledge of good and evil and becoming like gods...

...and the serpent told them they would not die and that they would gain the knowledge of good and evil and become like gods...

...and since they did not die and did gain the knowledge of good and evil and became (according to your god) like gods...

...that we agree the serpent (Satan) was more truthful and forthcoming to Adam and Eve than the god of the Bible.

Right?

0 Replies

NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be looking for an interview with our stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<Pretend this is scrolling across the bottom of your monitors please>>>>>>>>>>>>>

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
. . .

My point right along is that the tree DID NOT HAVE TO BE THERE. . . .
Wrong. The tree represented mankind's acceptance or rejection of God's sovereignty according to free will.

If the choice had not been there, we would be automatons.

But, that is how some would have it.

Thank you for your comment on that last issue, Neo.

Two things:

1) Even if the tree did represent mankind's acceptance or rejection of some god's sovereignty...IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE THERE.

There is absolutely no reason to have that particular symbol...and certainly there is no reason to have the symbol presented to two innocent people who had absolutely no idea of what was right or wrong with accepting or rejecting anything.

2) Heph has indicated that she does not consider the tree as symbolic at all. It was a real tree...in a real place. This is not, according to Heph, a metaphor or an allegory. It is a recitation of what actually happened.

0 Replies

I hereby give Momma Angel my permission to use my comments in an online live interview for this topic only.

Signed: Wolf O'Donnell
Dated: 04-03-2006

0 Replies

Wolfie darling!

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/cheekkiss.gif

You just saved Momma Angel's job! They kind of frown on lawsuits here at WA2K-F, if ya' know what I mean.

Yes, for this thread only. Thanx!

0 Replies

There is one problem I have with Neologist's argument.

If the tree had not been there, we would be automatons. What does that mean? If we had not eaten of the fruit, we would have remained automatons without free will?

But wasn't it Eve's own free will that made her partake of the fruit?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

There is one problem I have with Neologist's argument.

If the tree had not been there, we would be automatons. What does that mean? If we had not eaten of the fruit, we would have remained automatons without free will?

But wasn't it Eve's own free will that made her partake of the fruit?

With all respect for the people who have bought into this storybook...and who have invested a psychological component of their being to it...

...this particular story makes no more sense than the ones that have the sun and moon being towed across the sky in chariots...or the world resting on the shell of a tortoise.

For the theists in that position...I can only point out that we don't really know there is a "GOD" responsible for existence...but EVEN IF THERE IS A GOD AT THE CORE OF REALITY AND EXISTENCE...

...it makes no more sense to think the god of the Bible is that GOD than it does to suppose Zeus is.

There may be a GOD...and the GOD may not be a personal GOD at all...may not be concerned with anything we do or say.

It is my opinion that it is an insult to any GOD that might exist...to suppose it acts (or ever acted) the way gods like Zeus, Wodin, or the god of the Bible do.

0 Replies

There is an interesting paradox in the views expressed by Frank and Hephzibah. Only Hephzibah considers the story to be literally true. Yet her interpretation is emotional, as if she is responding to poetry. Frank, on the other hand, is dissecting the story in a very literal way even though he considers it to be myth or allegory.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is my opinion that it is an insult to any GOD that might exist...to suppose it acts (or ever acted) the way gods like Zeus, Wodin, or the god of the Bible do.

It's anthropomorphic hubris to suggest we could insult a god.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'll leave it that the god was less than truthful. In fact, I am willing to leave it at "the serpent was closer to the full truth than the god."

LOL I was just kidding Frank. Goading you just bit for fun.

Quote:

But the god, as I said earlier and as Wolf just said, DID NOT SAY their innocence would die. The god specifically said they would die. "...For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

Saying that their innocence died...is a rationalization, because you simply do not want to acknowledge the defects in this (what I consider an) allegory.

In any case, you are right. The did not die. And the serpent told them that they would not die...but that the would gain the knowledge of right and wrong. And they did.

Everything the serpent told them was correct and true.

Everything the god told them was wrong.

Nor did God say you will die physically. Your body will die. Or anything else of the likes. If you really want to get technical here.

Quote:

But that is not what the god said...and what we are discussing here is what the god said.

Exactly. He said you will die. NOT you will die physically.

Quote:

By the way..."the outcome" of knowing good and evil...according to both the god and the serpent...

...was to become like gods.

If your god did not want them to gain the knowledge of good and evil...the only rational way to interpret that is that the god did not want them to become like gods...not that the god was protecting them from the outcome.

Not so. The knowledge was not something they needed. It's that simple. Are you going to give the keys to your car to an eight year old and tell him to have a good time? Does he have any business driving a car? Can he even see over the steering wheel?

So Frank, let's get technical, since that's the way you seem to have gone with this. Can you show me please where God actually said, "Pssst hey, I don't want them to become like gods."?

Quote:

And the first thing the god did after finding that they had become like gods...was to curse them and all the human beings that came after them....and then threw them out of Eden before they ate of the tree of life...which would make them even more god-like.

Hmmm... sounds like the outcome of of knowing good and evil to me. Once again, can you point me to the scripture that says it would make them more God-like?

Quote:

Heph...with all the respect in the world...the allegory is more than just defective. It is laughable.

Frank, with all the respect in the world... stick it up your arse....

LOL GOTCHA! :wink:

Seriously though. It's all good. Laugh it up Frank. I can see why it is laughable to you. That is a bonus for me, to finally understand where people are coming from, and to maybe help others to see where I am coming from as well. Even if it is a laughable load of crap to them.

Quote:

BOTTOM LINE: Unless you have some further quotes that cast a different light on things...we should be able to agree that since...

There are really no further quotes to give that could put it in a different light. Unless of course you can show me the things I asked for.

Quote:

...the god told them they would die on the day they ate of the fruit and said nothing about gaining knowledge of good and evil and becoming like gods...

Yes, He didn't tell them something they had no need to know.

Quote:

...and the serpent told them they would not die and that they would gain the knowledge of good and evil and become like gods...

Yes he most certainly did.

Quote:

...and since they did not die and did gain the knowledge of good and evil and became (according to your god) like gods...

Oh... hold up... according to my God and who else?

Quote:

...that we agree the serpent (Satan) was more truthful and forthcoming to Adam and Eve than the god of the Bible.

Right?

Nope. You haven't convinced me. Sorry. However, that was quite challenging. Thank you.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Nor did God say you will die physically. Your body will die. Or anything else of the likes. If you really want to get technical here.

If you tell someone they will die, that means, they will die. For someone who takes the myth literally, you certainly do like to take poetic licence with what God says.

Therefore wandel is right.

Quote:

Exactly. He said you will die. NOT you will die physically.

You will die, means you will die. If I were to detonate a bomb right next to you, you will die. Does that mean you will die spiritually? Of course, not. If a doctor were to tell you that you would die if you keep smoking, does that mean he's saying you will die spiritually and not physically?

Yes, of course, I forget. Your God is the one that deliberately doesn't speak what's on his mind and acts as if you can read his mind.

Can you read my mind, right now and tell what I'm thinking?

Urgh... I'm getting sleepy. It's late. I'll leave the rest to Frank's more than capable mind.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you tell someone they will die, that means, they will die. For someone who takes the myth literally, you certainly do like to take poetic licence with what God says.

For someone who doesn't take what I believe literally you certainly do like to take "poetic licence" with what YOU think I'm saying.

Quote:

You will die, means you will die. If I were to detonate a bomb right next to you, you will die. Does that mean you will die spiritually? Of course, not. If a doctor were to tell you that you would die if you keep smoking, does that mean he's saying you will die spiritually and not physically?

If a person is brain dead but their body is alive, which are they, alive or dead?

Quote:

Yes, of course, I forget. Your God is the one that deliberately doesn't speak what's on his mind and acts as if you can read his mind.

Ahem... ahem... excuse me for a minute while I choke on the words you are putting in my mouth...

Ahem...

Quote:

Can you read my mind, right now and tell what I'm thinking?

Hold on let me try.... Mad

Nope.

Quote:

Urgh... I'm getting sleepy. It's late. I'll leave the rest to Frank's more than capable mind.

Rest easy wolf. We'll catch ya later.

0 Replies

Who's booty you kissing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know