Generally this line of thought reveals a state of mind corrupted by religion, I'd call it a classic case of stockholm syndrome, except ofcourse that this supposed angry god is just imaginary. I'll just assume that you're putting these points up for argument's sake, and don't actually believe this yourself. Because if you do actually believe any of this you've automatically disqualified yourself from any intelligent discussion or debate.
Besides, it's not much of a choice for adam and eve since the very framework they needed to actually REALIZE eating the apple is bad instead of just hearing the word "bad" but not understanding the implications. They didn't, so they didn't really know that eating the apple and going against god's wishes was "bad", and thus were so easily influenced by the talking snake.
But let's leave that aside for the moment, what's even worse about this is that the very concept of original sin is that WE'RE actually paying for the wrongdoings of long gone and non-existant ancestors. Because, after all, WE weren't the ones that ate from the apple. The whole mob-boss analogy while very accurate is just icing on the cake in this case.
Because MOST people even the religious realize exactly how big a pile of bullshit those "points" are. And everyone seriously using them basically disqualify themselves from any kind of intelligent discussion or debate as I said before in addition to revealing themselves as morally inferior. Faith is unwarranted absolute belief in something without any proof or even just cause to make an assumption.
And to have "faith" is in and of itself, illogical. Religion starts where you assume without reason or cause, and assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. Here's one way to look at it: Humans are not imperfect because of their design. We are imperfect because we do not automatically default to making one choice - i.
The amazing thing about our species is the depth of our choice palette; the very fact that so many people on this single post alone have varying views on a single topic demonstrates that. It allows us to experience life uniquely by our own volition, and part of that experience is deciding whether or not you put your faith in that which cannot be readily seen.
But like I had mentioned in my previous post, one of the main issues seems to be the literal acceptance of what the words in any given translation of the Bible say. So even if you say "MANY mistakes have been made by god," you cannot definitively say that because 1 you, nor I, nor anyone else can truly attest to that fact and 2 the definition of a mistake is too fluid. I would address your other points against YS but I want to hear your thoughts first. But we are more or less wired as far as choices are concerned, our actions and choices are "predetermined", we act- and react to things the way we do because we are who we are influenced by both the circumstances of the situation and things we've seen, done, went through, and otherwise experienced.
If we made different decisions we wouldn't be ourselves, but someone else entirely. So even if you say "MANY mistakes have been made by god," you cannot definitively say that because 1 you, nor I, nor anyone else can truly attest to that fact" True, the bible is a book that has been re-translated and re-written far too often and no-one can say that what the bible says is how things actually happened, or even assume that it is inspired by god I find it hard to believe that a god's best attempt at communication is a corrupted book.
I was just addressing what the book itself says, as there are illogical and even immoral parts in there. And while there are some people who are a bit more open minded, alot of people take the bible at least partially literally. Then there's biblical law, there are truly unreasonable and even immoral laws in the bible.
Some of which involving sacrifice, murder, thought crime, self- mutilation, discrimination, rape and slavery. Yet this is the same book that is claimed to have been inspired by god, I don't buy it, those laws could not have come from a god. No ammount of good excuses the ammount of bad that is in there, and the hand of man is far too evident in this book to take it as anything short of a mockery.
These things just don't make sense unless the biblical god lacks the qualities by admission of the very same bible it claims god has, in which case we're not talking about a god, but a fraud. I numbered my responses according to the quotes you responded to. I would think that the single most important aspect of our lives is the fact that we can shape them as we will, regardless of how anyone else - ethereal or otherwise - wants us to live. As for your "predetermined" argument, you are for the most part correct. People do indeed live according to their experience and their inherent qualities they are born with.
But again, no person is a slave to their circumstance. Even if two people are subjected to the same hardships, those two people are still capable of choosing for themselves how they wish to live. THAT, in my opinion, is what identifies us uniquely: While you are right that Bible thumpers and the like may take it literally, I honestly think that the purpose of the Bible is a literary piece like Shakespeare and other great writers and historians: However you wish to take it is obviously up to you.
One thing I can't understand though is how you determine morality. To claim that certain acts of God are immoral makes me wonder what your basis for that claim is. I'd like to hear your take on that. If an all-knowing, ever-present being exists, then how would you comprehend it? We can hardly comprehend the distance from the Earth to the Sun - and that's a limited distance. If there is anything remotely close to infinite in this universe, can we truly quantify or understand it? I have never seen anything outside of the Milky Way personally, and I'm assuming you haven't either.
But scientists that do research and look out into the cosmos present beautiful and amazing pieces from the stars in photographs for the rest of us to appreciate; if you did not witness it yourself, does that mean you immediately discount it? You may surely doubt it, as would I. But simply not witnessing something for yourself does not discredit it. In regards to God, even if you don't buy any of the fluff or facts pushed in front of you, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," as they say right? If there is a God that is anywhere remotely close to how He is described in a "corrupted book," then we still have no argument.
Because ultimately, our life spans are limited to about 80 years or so, and we have no idea who originally wrote anything outside of our immediate scopes or lifetimes. And we are - as you say - limited by our experiences. Many things we do are based on the faith we put in others. Ehm, I'll just assume you missed the point of that bit entirely I believe I had that covered with "because you are who you are". Add to that biblical law of which I previously gave examples and you've already got the first part of your answer.
Everyone who reads the bible can clearly read the atrocities supposedly ordered and condoned by god, also including disgusting mind games such as abraham being told to sacrifice his son as a "test of faith". Ofcourse we know none of this actually happened, but as always I'm addressing the biblical god as is the point of this blog itself and the biblical account of history.
I also spotted an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Steve, I only saw half my post come up, and since I've sometimes seen this happen on other sites due to bugs I'm reposting the 2nd part, feel free to disregard this if the original part 2 was posted "I have never seen anything outside of the Milky Way personally, and I'm assuming you haven't either. And in case of the picture I would actually be able consider I'd have access to the equipment needed see it for myself.
But as they also say: But I do see yet another argument from ignorance. Faith is absolute belief in something regardless of and often even in spite of reason and evidence. Have you ever considered WHY these people died because God made it so? Misael What makes you think he hasn't read the whole stories? See Steve's other site: While I think you're correct in describing the way we instinctively seem to be able to identify things which are designed, it would be a mistake the conclude that we are doing anything other than comparing what we see with what we've already seen.
Buildings, watches, airplanes, paintings - these are all things for which we have widely held explanations and clearly defined creators. If you find a watch in the desert, or even some machine of unknown origin, you assume design because man-made things all have a signature that is unmistakable. Common components will recur if the device makes use of electronics, plastic is easily identified, etc.
We're not assessing the relative complexity of each hypothetical artifact we come across - we're just checking our memory for enough close matches to conclude someone designed it. Note that there are all kinds of incredibly complex things that occur without our intervention - at every order of magnitude in size examples are everywhere. Snowflakes, crystals forming in mineral rich lakes. At a lower level there's water, which minus external energy will freeze, going from a state of high entropy to a lower one, both putting to rest the simplistic notion that disorder is the only thing that happens without divine or human intervention and providing yet another example of something which is surely complex enough that someone might confuse it for having been designed.
- Tell The Truth: Honesty Is Your Most Powerful Marketing Tool?
- Hughs Three Good Things.
- The Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 13: Revelation-Stock (With Active Table of Contents);
- 100 Spiritual Drops.
- Skaði - Wikipedia.
Not because these things aren't complex, but because we have plenty of experience to fall back on. We know what stuff we design looks like. We've only ever seen this one universe, this one planet. What would a non-designed universe look like, next to a designed one? Here our complete lack of experience makes it impossible to take anything more than a wait and see attitude towards whether or not the thing that contains us and our planet was designed or came about some other way.
Son of God
Luckily science does its best not to jump to conclusions that are unwarranted, no matter how much people might want those conclusions to be true. If there's one thing I think I can state unequivocally about Christians without risk of contradiction, it's that the way they think the universe works is also the way they hope it works. Not true for the rest of us. A benevolent creator and a cushy afterlife would be awesome. Sadly, the evidence doesn't point towards that. So it's integrity that keeps me on the side of reason, science, and logically consistent morality.
To revert to what I see as a more primitive state, cringing whenever loud noises come from on high and walking around on eggshells trying to follow rules that nobody understands, let alone agrees upon - to do that would mean jettisoning the bits of me that religious types would describe as "god given. You do bring up a good point that we do tend to base our understanding of the world upon that which we can compare. And to be honest, I can't really see us functioning any other way. Even now, we are forced to rely on the experiences of others around us for knowledge we have yet or may never attain without outside help.
I don't see anything wrong with that; the various sciences are designed to be built upon the previous works of generations past, while continuously being questioned and refined for holes in understanding. As for your comment, "Luckily science does its best not to jump to conclusions that are unwarranted," I would say that inherently, you are correct. The nature of how science works is that it is an art of observation.
However, just like anything else, data can be skewed or presented for whatever agenda one is trying to present. So when you say "the way [Christians] think the universe works is also the way they hope it works," you can say that about nearly anybody. And just as there are a variety of scientists with a variety of viewpoints, so are there a variety of believers in any faith who will have different stances on different issues.
The outrageous number of denominations under the Christian banner. As for scientific evidence of the nature of God, that idea is ludicrous. Science cannot observe that which cannot be observed empirically, so anyone suggesting that idea cannot stand behind it. The nature of God can be explored through historical texts and the like, but in reality, this isn't "data.
There is information that lines up with events in history, and prophecies that line up with documents outside of the Text, but other than that, it's merely a Book. That alone is not enough. I ask this of people often when it comes to this, what is the nature or purpose of science? Is it to explain the "why" or the "how"? I'd also like to hear your stance on "logically-consistent morality. If you could create people or restore them why would it matter if you killed them after they decided to try it their way? You forgot the billions that will be killed in Revelations as only , will go to heaven.
And since most of us are not Jewish we will all go to hell. Might as well we sin. So in 6, years, God only killed a quarter of what atheists killed million in the last years. Best Value, How does your comment at all encourage discussion? You're practically dangling raw meat before a pack of wolves, expecting not to be bitten. Best value misses a point. If any atheists killed anyone, and God actually existed, then God has instigated or allowed these killings. God is guilty by actively or passively having people killed.
Furthermore, Steve has only mentioned biblical killings. That does not include the millions that have died through crusades, jihads and various and numerous religiously inspired wars and conquests. Steve, I think you missed that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and as a result of this act mankind would not live an eternal life. In other words the entire human race - billions of us - would die because these two people ate some fruit.
Seems a pathetically vile god to me. Some live as parasites, and with assumptions they cut the cord on life at the moment of the passing body unlike God who blesses more than one lifetime in the hope people learn from their mistakes.. Save the judgement for yourself, bad interpretations and one sided views without overall conclusions lack factual framework ,you can come back at this with a smart answer but in the end the justification for these deaths will be revealed and you my dear friend will look as foolish as your scribblings ,for somebody who apparently does not exist you sure have a hard on for God..
Shelb, I guess that you not only believe in an unprovable God, but that you also believe in unprovable angels and Satan as well as an unprovable heaven and hell. You certainly seem to also believe in an unprovable after life that your ilk aspires to go to after an unspecified time. Some of you think that this will happen pretty much after you die, whilst others of you think it will happen on the Day of Judgement.
Your tone would suggest that you will be very happy for a person like me to go to the unprovable hell, as nasty as it might be, simply because the god that you espouse can't prove itself to me. So you think that I should suffer because of its incompetence. I dont hope nor pray for you to go to the Hell you insist cant be proven; on the contrary I pray that you get a revelation of the God who is revealing himself to me Arent we glad that all those things happened when mankind was at enmity with God and not today Find me and "In-box" me at facebook if you'd like to learn how to get in on it-- Keith Burrow, Scroggins Texas Im the one wearing the red ball-cap.
One more thing for Moral Movement: The "Pathetically vile" comment Dont let the truth make you reluctant Those people are as lost as a goose in a snowstorm and I have to pray for them more than anyone, because when someone THINKS they know something they dont know The point in probability where "Possibility" ceases to exist is somewhere around 10 to the 10th power to one Keith Burrow, it is interesting that you get onto a website like this, that allows you to babble on, yet a religious website would bar someone like me.
What type of God would kill the firstborn of Egypt?
Regarding Adam and Eve. Why would you believe primitive stories that are 2, 3, years old. Why would you believe primitive stories about gods, angels, ghosts, devils, heaven, hell and an after-life, none of which has any proof? You speak out against blood sacrifices, and indeed it is stated that your make-believe god thought that this was a bad idea. Yet, guess what your god did? We are led to believe that he sacrificed his only son. And guess why he did this? Because he was so incompetent with his human creation that his human creation would not grovel to him as much as he desired.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It tells exactly how your God was created. I would like to see a list of whom the "Christians" have murdered. Custer fancied himself a good Christian. Y la cantidad de muertos supera mas de Dios no va hacer contigo lo que los malvados han hecho en el transcurso de la historia por lo que Dios los ha reprendido. Cristo a ti te ama y te quiere salvar.
Jeirlen Padilla Molina amigoyey hotmail. Wow - interesting debate. I'm sorry I missed it. I'm a Goddess worshiper so I usually straddle the two sides - I demand that religion agree with science but I also have experienced perfectly natural phenomena that most people would define as "supernatural. We've had 6, years of an unnatural social order because of these moldy old scrolls, and it's time we put an end to "his" reign of terror.
Thanks so much for all your work!
I'm so glad you've created this blog as well as your annotated Skeptic's texts. Your argument is basically nonsense. God is the creator of everything in existence. Therefore, human beings are subject to His will and His judgement. God is just in every action He takes. The penalty for sin is death. Therefore, all of the people that you think were innocent that God killed were not innocent at all.
They were guilty of sin and therefore, the just punishment is death. Also, killing a criminal is not murder. Killing a criminal is just punishment. In that aspect, shouldn't God kill you for your sins? In answer to that, yes He should. I am completely at His mercy. But He is also and dare I say, more predominately love. He has an obligation to obliterate sin. Sadly, all of his beloved race of humans have chosen to embrace it and thus attach themselves to the problem.
But no, He had mercy enough to let one sinner and his family live, and the problem persists. Now, through Jesus, God has invented a way to separate sin and sinner so that sin can be aptly obliterated and love can prevail. But since all of us have free choice, we can still choose to love sin and that's what breaks God's heart. So your great omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God got it wrong the first time, didn't he!
Like a real Middle Eastern dictator, like the people who edited and re-invented their tribal stories about this out-of-date, contradictory killing machine. Although this doesn't seem like much when you look at Satan's whopping killstreak of All of Job's children. Can someone make a count of how many deaths and how much misery, blood, guts and suffering has been caused by evolution survival of the fittest over millions of years?
How many people did the leaders of athiestic 'survival of the fittest' regimes Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc torture and murder? Actually, more than anyone else in the rest of history. These men were great admirers of Darwin. Human life had no more worth to them than that of cattle, which made sense from their perspective since we are just rearanged pond scum, as per evolutionary teaching. But far from being insane they thought they were doing good by taking evolution to its logical conclusion and getting rid of all the physically and phychologically damaged, and 'racially inferior' human 'parasites', and thereby creating a better humanity.
So the real question is, which is more cruel, God or evolution? Bob- First, They did not kill in the name of atheism, however, many religious zealots did their killing in the name of the lord. That is no small thing there. They killed because of religion, because of God. Second, Hitler was a self-professed Christian. Third you ascribe philosophies and motivations on people that you have no way of knowing. I have never understood the passion of those who believe we are all just a cosmic accident. As though things matter like truth and justice. Where do these concepts come from? So a fairytale book says a fairytale creator killed some fairytale people.
If there is no meaning and purpose behind our creation and therefore no meaning in our existence, why do you care enough to argue with passion against what is not real? Death occurs by the millions everyday in our world. People die, plants die, bugs die. This is meaningless chaos. Unless it is not. Maybe there is intention and meaning behind our creation.
What caused the big bang? What was before the big bang? The science you so rely on proves that something cannot be created by nothing - cause and effect. The only thing that can begin it would have to be beyond our natural world that we can measure with science because it breaks the law of cause and effect. It causes out of nothing just as the Bible teaches. The Bible also proves itself through hundreds and hundreds of predictions that have come to pass which would be mathematically impossible to predict. Thank God for science.
Jferrin- First, they killed in the name of evolution as the ideology displayed in their public speeches records. Second, self professed Christian does not mean genuine Christian as Hitler and countless others throughout history have demonstrated. A crimminal will say anything to get his foot in the door.
Third, "For a tree is known by its fruit. Philosophies and motivations are known by the fruit they end up bearing. In Hitlers case alone, about 50 million killed as a result of the war that he instigated in the name of his Darwinian, survival of the fittest ideology. For further proof, listen to some of his speeches or read his book, 'Mien Kampf' My Struggle and his philosophy soon becomes apparent. I believe there are some things we can't possibly understand, and unlike those who believe in a man who lives in the sky, I will admit that I do not know.
But I will never believe a person who tells me that they know for sure that there is a God. Fred Good- True, there are some things we cannot understand. But we can easily understand that God exists. To prove that there is a God can be done simply by disproving the validity of the only other option for the existence of life.
That is, that everything brought itself into existence through evolution the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity. The following questions demonstrate that evolution is simply not possible. How did life originate? Evolutionist Proffessor Paul Davies admitted, "Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form.
So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters - just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink or pixels on a screen.
What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? For example, the amount of information that could be stored in a single pinhead of DNA would be equivalent to a pile of paperback novels times as high as the distance from the earth to the moon, or million times more information than a 40 gigabyte hard drive could hold on your computer.
Even if we could explain the creation of complex coded information by chance, there would be another problem. We would need at the same time to create a mechanism capable of reading and using this coded information; otherwise, the information alone is useless. A fully functional system for writing, reading, and using information is required. This is an example of "irreducible complexity. If one of these components is missing, the system won't work.
- You are here.
- Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6?;
- ;
- Indian cult kills children for goddess!
- Ich tanze so lange ich kann: Der Mut, sich einer unheilbaren Krankheit zu stellen (German Edition);
- El florecer de Mona Lisa (Pandora) (Spanish Edition).
Since life is built on a hierachy of such "irreducibly complex" machines, the idea that natural processes could have made mere chemicals into living systems is untenable] Why are the expected counless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains.
Famous Harvard paleontologist and evolutionist , Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. Christianity aren't really passionate about that at all. Are you passionate about NOT collecting stamps? We actually have lives to get on with here. I have a beautiful wife and a delightful child and two Burmese cats and two energetic Ridgebacks running around in my garden that I love to plant trees in We only get passionate about things like Christianity because it refuses to go away, it wants to indoctrinate our children, deny rights to gays, teach fairy tales instead of evolution in science classes, keep women as second-class citizens, and If Christianity goes away, or at least learns to keep to itself, we can stop all the "passion" you object to.
Besides, you paint this incredibly bleak picture of the "meaningless chaos" in which we live. Yes, bad stuff happens. But good stuff happens all the time, too. It is a miracle to be alive, haven't you noticed? What a beautiful world we live in.
At least when bad stuff happens, I know there's nothing "behind" it - shit just happens. But when bad stuff happens and you're a Christian, well, YOU are the one with a lot of explaining to do I don't know if someone has already asked this, so sorry if it is a repetition. I've noticed that the estimate of populations often differ from the bible versus scientific data. Have you considered having two separate estimates for the cases where the exact number of people killed isn't clearly stated in the bible?
One based on scientific data of populations and one based on what the bible says? Great blog by the way. Very concise, informative and often times amusing. SamEdge, I try to give the biblical number of victims when numbers are given in the text, and estimates when no numbers are provided. Of course, it's hard to give reasonable estimates to imaginary events, but I do what I can.
I apologize for not reading all of the comments, and if the following points have previously been raised, I apologize. God created a perfect world, with but one restriction, and gave us the opportunity to live in it. We abused that privilege. Hence, for defying the Creator, we all deserve death and damnation.
Navigation menu
The fact that God has only directly killed this few is a measure of His mercy and forgiveness. Furthermore, so as not to go against His perfect justice, He provided His Son as a payment for the debt our sins require. Bob i am sorry but you are an idiot,they did not kill in the name of evolution , they killed in the name of their own egos,besides hitler hated athiests and banned teaching evolution in Germany Besides how come racists are more likely to be creationists than evoltuionists I mean, He did introduce 'death' when He banished Adam from the Garden of Eden, so without that, death wouldn't exist.
So there you have it: Bob There is one very important thing you need to understand. Just because you say Hitler wasn't a real Christian doesn't make it so. With denominations of Christians one has to wonder who in this day and age is a real Christian? And i can do you one better.
A false Christian as you described Hitler doesn't make him an atheist. In fact let me spell yhis out for you since you don't really seem to get it. Now if you take into context all religious wars crusades, inquisition, jihads, etc all of them fit into the first tho Christian examples. All of your atheistic examples, and MOST examples existing in the world today go into the third atheist example.
Stalin was an atheist but he didn't kill for atheism. He killed to gain power and maintain his dictatorship. Hitler on the other hand conducted the Jew extermination on both political and religious reasons no matter how misguided they were. It doesn't really matter if someone does murder in the name of religion but he is not a true believer, or he interpreted the religion wrong.
He still did the murder and if religion was not there to guide him he may not have done it in the first place. Also, please keep in mind that all religious people believe they have it right. So even though you may call him a loon his convictions are strong. Looking forward to the new edition of "Drunk with Blood", Steve! Thanks for re-posting this thread. I've scanned over it and, once again, am amazed at the number of folks who aren't taking their medications.
Blogger josue jumalon said I don't feel justice has been served unless I see others getting killed. Guys, take your meds. I would say that God has actually killed everyone there ever was, except for the people still around today Blessings to all of you I just want to preach a bit here, if you'll bear with me God kills everyone, probably including me someday. Does this keep me from getting killed? But god loves me.
What should I give him a chance to do? Stephen, I appreciate your work. I returned after months of combat a broken man, who hated what I saw, did, and experienced in Vietnam. I hated my government for for being the ''greatest purveyor of violence in the world'' MLK and still do. And yes, the majority of soldiers and military chaplains were convinced that god was on our side, i. And the vast majority of ''christians'' have no idea what it means to ''love your enemy and turn the other cheek. When I see the evil that we humans do to each other, and the destruction we inflict on our planet, I figure the sooner our species eliminates itself, the better for what's left on the planet.
If all humans did their best to Act justly, Love others with mercy and kindness, Walk Humbly with their god, feed the hungry shelter the homeless care for the sick visit those in prison then I think we humans would merit the title of good. But alas, our 50, year old genetic structure will not allow for a religion of love. Am I the only one that thinks the pigs should be included. That was a horrific killing Mark 5: When Jesus climbed out of the boat, a man possessed by an evilb spirit came out from a cemetery to meet him. This man lived among the burial caves and could no longer be restrained, even with a chain.
Whenever he was put into chains and shackles—as he often was—he snapped the chains from his wrists and smashed the shackles.
Indian cult kills children for goddess | World news | The Guardian
No one was strong enough to subdue him. Day and night he wandered among the burial caves and in the hills, howling and cutting himself with sharp stones. When Jesus was still some distance away, the man saw him, ran to meet him, and bowed low before him. There happened to be a large herd of pigs feeding on the hillside nearby.
The evil spirits came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd of about 2, pigs plunged down the steep hillside into the lake and drowned in the water. The herdsmen fled to the nearby town and the surrounding countryside, spreading the news as they ran. People rushed out to see what had happened. A crowd soon gathered around Jesus, and they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons. He was sitting there fully clothed and perfectly sane, and they were all afraid.
Then those who had seen what happened told the others about the demon-possessed man and the pigs. And the crowd began pleading with Jesus to go away and leave them alone. Recalling some of the livestock plagues in Exodus and I'm sure you know of plenty of more examples. Animal, plant, and human-killing God. If only people were aware of this Atrocious Figurine. Shit, I'd even add a section for all the mass extinction events despite no mention in the bible because they were so scientifically and historically illiterate.
They literally lived in the darkness considering electricity is a modern day discovery. But even he was severely flawed in certain areas age of earth and alchemy. Such a practice was so widespread that everyone reading this passage in ancient times would immediately understand what was meant.
He is using the term in the oriental sense. However, he did not mean that they were actually divine, only that they were adherents of another religious system. On the other hand, believers were not called by this term in the Old Testament. By this simple literary stroke the author at once caught the spirit of ancient paganism and suggested darkly the satanic shapes that formed the background of the human revolt against the King of Kings.
The Ziggurat at Ur. Likely this latter is the sense in which it is used since it describes well the practices of the ancient Near East. A very early example of this is the epic hero Gilgamesh. The men of his city, Uruk, raged at him for ravishing their wives and daughters. Abimelech of Gerar took Rachel from Jacob. Later, Esther was chosen from among the most beautiful illustrating that the ruler could have whatever women he wished. Even in Israel, the practice was picked up although not by kings claiming to be divine. David took plural wives and ended with Abigail, the fairest in the land.
Another practice from historic times may have a bearing on the meaning of this. Each city-state ensured the fertility of its own fields and the fecundity of its own people and cattle by means of a Sacred Marriage between its patron-god and one of its goddesses Roux The king represented the god, and one of the most beautiful women in the land represented the goddess.
This is the heart of the fertility cult concept. It may be difficult for 21st-century evangelicals to grasp the complete depravity of these ancient societies. Even the Apostle Paul did not want to elaborate on their shameful activities. If the practices described above follows after the pre-Flood situation, and it bears a remarkable resemblance, then it will help us to realize that this idolizing of immorality, brought on by complete rebellion against the Lord, and made the Flood necessary to cleanse the earth.
The decision has been made—obliterate them! The word niphal refers sometimes in Scripture to men of large stature. Gibborim has that meaning. We can see a revival of this rebellious way in Genesis Verse 5 refers to the total state of corruption this whole system brings on. It should not be a new paragraph in Scripture. The gods act worse than men. People caught in a culture of this kind cannot escape.
They cannot worship Yahweh there. For Abraham to do so, he had to come out of Ur and live as a nomad with his family. Lot tried to live in the city-state of Sodom, but lost his family. Sodom was dedicated to homosexuality. If believers were to worship the Lord they would have to live as nomads. That explains why He gave them a special land and told them to exterminate the inhabitants when they finally settled there. To follow their ways would bring certain destruction. And so it is to this hour. Verses 1—8 are a unit, with the conclusion that only one man found grace in the eyes of the living, true God—Noah.
They all deserved to die for their sins, including Noah. But he and his family were spared by the grace and love of God , and were used of God to reinstitute the race. Tragically, after some time, corruption again enveloped mankind and God had to tell Abraham to get out of Ur to save his own family. With Abraham—one faithful man and his family—God started over again to develop a faithful people. It is the great desire of Satan and men. They will do anything to try to attain it, even to deifying themselves while defying God.
Pre-Flood patterns were reinstituted as outlined in Genesis 10— Ham and his descendants were apparently the most responsible. The church is like an enlarged family. Scripture quotations are from the King James Version. Westminster Theological Journal University of Chicago Press. David Livingston is founder and former director of the Associates for Biblical Research. He and his wife Esther reside in Lititz, PA. Our ministry relies on the generosity of people like you, who make it possible for us to develop and publish great articles.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting ABR with a small donation or by becoming a member. Thanks for this upload. I had similar thoughts that these 'sons of god' were kings or rulers but I did not develop that thought further. I come to see what is new on your site and bam you have written on this topic. I was sceptical at first cuz I thought you will write the typical article on 'fallen angels' or the 'sethite view' and affirm one over the other but I am glad you guys brought this new view to light.
I was more of a 'fallen angels' view guy myself but this king and rulers view makes more sense because all world empires since the flood have in some form or another been ruled by men of supposed divine king status. I think this new view makes more sense. Thanks for your firm stand on scripture. Not that many people do that any more these days.
As a former athiest I just cant stand people who comprimise on the Bible especially Gen It is litteral history not alegory or some gap theory. This is surprising and disappointing for ABR. It seems to be another case of modern man attempting to demythologize the Bible. Even more, Sons of God in the Pentateuch refers to angels in every other instance, so this really seems to be special pleading. The text says they do not marry, that is all it says. Are you suggesting that unmarried folks cannot function sexually? You are also overlooking the overwhelming NT evidence for the fallen angel view.
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
It is quite apparent that both are referencing the same episode. The 2 Peter accounting unquestionably situates this sin at the time of Noah and the Flood. To deny the supernatural view of Genesis 6 puts one in the position of suggesting that Peter and Jude, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, misunderstood the passage.
Regarding the 'fallen angels' interpretation: With all due respect, I believe that Dr. Livingston has overlooked that Matthew It is the specific violation of this principle among the fallen angels the ones not in heaven, siding with God, rather than Satan that is the reason that God judged them, giving the proper explanation of Genesis 6, 1 Peter 3: This may also explain why some demons seen as fallen angels fear the abyss Luke 8: Passages that also make the distinction between angels of heaven and all angels or fallen angels, aside from Matthew A concise one page summary chart of the major positions, arguments and proponents of each position on the identification of the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 can be found here: Livingston as a proponent of the ambitious despots view.
Jesus actually explained what it means to be known as "sons of God. Jesus was quoting from Psalm I have said, 'Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. But these specifically have rejected divine knowledge and walk in darkness, i. In addition, Nephilim, or "giants" of Genesis 6: Certainly, this same behavior of "falling away" and "scoffer walking after their own lusts" will also bring about the final judgment of fire written about in 2Thessalonians 2: I too am disappointed with this interpretation of Genesis 6.
The extra-biblical book of Enoch is plan in saying that the sons of God are fallen angels and even their leader, Azazel, is mentioned as the scapegoat in Leviticus 16, to whom all sin is ascribed. The products of these unholy unions were the giants that even survived after the flood most likely in caverns and are mentioned to have been in the promised land. It should not be difficult to believe angels can assume human flesh since even the angels that appeared to Abraham and then to citizens of Sodom that they wanted to engage in sexual relations with. Although, there does exist a divine right of kings and Satan appears to have his own parallel false genealogy from Cain that the ancient mysteries and secret societies are relying on in the salvation of secret knowledge Gnostics , this should not be inserted into Gen 6.
Regarding those who defend the fallen angel interpretation, since marraige is God's requirement for procreating, and since angels never marry, then they were never intended to procreate. Humans are intended to "be fruitful and multiply" on earth, but not in heaven, as Jesus indicates. Angels don't have the earthly mission that humans have, so there is no reason to think that they would be given the equipment to carry it out.
Also, I think Calvin has a good point in his commentary on Genesis when he points out that Genesis 6 does not say that the Nephilim were giants. Their commonality with the Nephilim that the Israelites found in Canaan is that they were ruthless warriors. Elsewhere, I acknowledge, the same word denotes vastness of stature, which was formidable to those who explored the land of Canaan Numbers But Moses does not distinguish those of whom he speaks in this place, from other men, so much by the size of their bodies, as by their robberies and their lust of dominion.
Unfallen angels were called "Sons of God" Job chapt. So the "Sons of God" in Gen. So we know there was an entire Godly line through Seth,and they were called the Sons of God harking back to the Godly line called angels before their partial fall.
Subscribe To
This line broke down when they followed the daughters of Cain and married them thus leading up to the condition of mankind before the flood Gen. See man and men -everything there points to humans being evil,etc. Princes or kings are not mentioned just collective mankind. His bed was made of iron and was more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites. All the people we saw there are of great size. We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them. They destroyed the Horites from before them and settled in their place, just as Israel did in the land the LORD gave them as their possession.
You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. You know about them and have heard it said: At that time Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai, one of the descendants of the Rephaites, and the Philistines were subjugated. He also was descended from Rapha. Arba was the forefather of Anak. Arba, who was the greatest man among the Anakites.
Was Noah righteous because he was without sin? What was so special about his familial tree, he was a decendant of Seth? You mean Seth's family never sinned? Why did God say there was so much corruption he had to destroy all living creatures? I find it more plausible to think that because Satan didn't want the original prophecy to be fulfilled he tried everything he could to destroy the line of Christ.
Now what better way then to interject some strange combo of humans and fallen angels? Kind of like our scientists messing with genetics today! Ever hear of "Splicing"? Angels do not have DNA needed to reproduce "after its kind" a law of God. The Sons of God "married" females of the Cananites those that were offering the 'fruits of the ground' i. Jesus said human beings glorified as spirits Heb.
Marriage involves sex and reproduction "be frutiful and multiply. That's what marriage was about plus all of the human personal factors, of course;but Jeus is talking about marriage and the ability to produce humans as per God's command. No angel ever gets 'tired 'spirit as the angels are cannot tire only flesh or humans do. I have carefully studied angleology since I would like a proof text they get tired! Yes Jesus consumed food to show the apostles he was not a "spirit"as they thought. He was real it -was Him! Did Jesus need food no. It says in Gen. At least one of those 'men'was the Lord in a preincarnate form.
Like Jesus thousands of years later they ate food. This is not a proof text saying angels have sex organs and DNA and reproduce children! Abe said to rest it does not mean they were actualy tired! One those who dwell on earth were comanded to reproduce and God gave that ability to them not to the angels which he created a set number of in Heaven. The main stay and then salt of the earth were the descendants of Godly Seth holder of the truths of God and proper sacrifices,etc. Righteous Abel as Jesus implied when he spoke of Abel -reflects this fact.
Abel in a violent manner. He tought his desendents his doctrine which his condemned in Scripture. The "way of Cain"is vilified Jude 11a. When many of the Sethites joined in unholy alliances of marriage- as did Solomon leading to his fall-with beautiful Heb. This shows us they were no longer in God's truth and holding the line of evil at bay.
They became part of it. ONLY Noah was considered' righteous in his generations. Every single reference blames the coming flood of judgment on humans not angels. The salt had lost it's savor and there was no longer light. In the last days we have growing apostasy that will culminate with the coming judgment of God. False doctrine and churches of error, etc. Jesus said when I come 'will the Son of Man find the def. All I was intending with the Gen 18 passage was to point out that angels assumed physical bodies.
So much so, that Abraham washed their feet, gave food for them to eat and the Sodomites wanted to do unspeakable things to them. They had ability over the material realm to blind the Sodomites: Even Satan has power over the material world i. Even Adam was called that, though he fell: And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten children with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those [also] do who die and perish.
John, You simply have no Biblical evidence for your position. Nothing in the Bible says that angels can have sex, and Jesus' statement about marriage is a strong presumption against it. Enoch's statement is striking in its contrast with God's word in Genesis 6, in which the blame is fully placed on "man" who is "flesh. Psalm 82 is considered a polythiestic passage by liberals, but these sons of God are being condemned for siding with the rich and powerful against the weak and poor in disputes between them. This reflects a common biblical theme of God condemning unjust human judges.
That these are human judges is the only view that makes sense. They will die like any human prince v. It's also the view of Jesus John Likewise, the sons of God of Genesis 6 are best seen as rulers. As for the Nephilim, you're simply going beyond what is written. The antedeluvian Nephilim were sons of rulers who achieved their positions through gross violence in an age dominated by violence, so it would make sense if they were big brutes, but they weren't necessarily all tall.
And even if they were, they no more needed to be the offspring of angels than the postdeluvian Nephilim were. Angels are "ministering spirits. A set number of angels were created. Only creatures of this earth were commanded, and had the ability, to reproduce-not angels. Enoch's book- so called- is not inspired. It was not recognized as canoncial and for this reason was not included in Holy Writ. Besides they could have easily received their teachings here from the Spirit free from any human Enoch book.
I can go into 'strange flesh' and 'left their first estate' in my next post in detail. It's an old worn out theory that some people find fascinating for various reasons. MAN is the reason and cause for the flood. Seth's disciples were called 'sons of God. They are no longer sons of God. Satan in the garden- man having failed to 'guard' it- tempting Eve and man fell. Then we go to Gen. I say these are the sons of Seth as given in my previous post -others say kings or leaders.
Either way they were NOT angels. Also,ONLY holy angels manifested as humans-not evil angels. But we know they were not 'men,'etc. Some believe this is the Trinity due to the wordage including 19 angel means messenger as one meaning-here it can ean Noble or powerful one,etc. They spoke as one and ate and drank as one,but this does not prove spiritual beings have sex and create off spring! A scriptual stretch that is as large as the Grand Caynon! No female angels are mentioned in the Bible. This raises an interesting question: I tend to thing we do, but I have no basis for it except for thinking the final consummation will be similar to the original paradise, except without procreation.
I have to admit that past a certain point, the book of 1 Enoch become questionable. But the first portion sounds like an apostle could have written it, and I get great encouragement from it. I encourage every Christian to read it. I find it amazing how many early Christians quoted from it to justify their positions and Jesus also did: And when the [] angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.
It is an evil place. The people there are cursed. Sumitra Bushan, 43, who lived in Barha for most of her life, certainly thought she was cursed. Her husband had long abandoned her, leaving her with debts and a life of servitude in the sugarcane fields. Her sons, Satbir, 27, and Sanjay, 23, were regarded as layabouts. Life was bad but then the nightmares and terrifying visions of Kali allegedly began, not just for Sumitra but her entire family.
She consulted a tantrik, a travelling 'holy man' who came to the village occasionally, dispensing advice and putrid medicines from the rusty amulets around his neck. His guidance to Sumitra was to slaughter a chicken at the entrance to her home and offer the blood and remains to the goddess. She did so but the nightmares continued and she began waking up screaming in the heat of the night and returned to the priest. Ten days ago Sumitra and her two sons crept to their neighbour's home and abducted three-year-old Aakash Singh as he slept. They dragged him into their home and the eldest son performed a puja ceremony, reciting a mantra and waving incense.
Sumitra smeared sandalwood paste and globules of ghee over the terrified child's body. The two men then used a knife to slice off the child's nose, ears and hands before laying him, bleeding, in front of Kali's image. In the morning Sumitra told villagers she had found Aakash's body outside her house.
But they attacked and beat her sons who allegedly confessed. All three are now in prison, having escaped lynch mob justice. The tantrik has yet to be found.