₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
And my insult was a reply of your insults…

Please show me my insulin that you replied to. Let's follow it up from link to link and see the aggressor.

jaephoenix:
Nope. Im not. Cant you see my chat with others? How many are vile?
If you insult me, I reply you. End of

This has never been the truth and you also know it. Did I insult you today before you did again?

Please let it rest.

jaephoenix:
Yeah, so correct yourself

What am I to correct myself about? Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying

jaephoenix:
Please refer to my very first post

Jaephoenix. Trace the discussions. I even apologized for doing you no wrong. I cannot be spending time here trying to trace insults or prove insults. I don't have that time. If you change, I'll talk well about you.

jaephoenix:
Lol. You didn't even bother to counter mine

Which yours? I didn't see it. Refer me to it. I've been offline. Just returned online today to answer numerous mentions.

jaephoenix:
Yep. So correct yourself then. Your previous statement was wrong

My previous statement is based on the confessions of AIs themselves. They claim they're no sentient beings and therefore cannot believe or disbelieve. That doesn't mean they cannot argue according to the knowledge fed into them.

jaephoenix:
That was my first post on this thread. What thread are you talking about?

And you had a first aggression that started from previous threads.

Can't you see my discussions with others! Do you see me insulting people for no reason? Even today again you have insulted me again. What's wrong with you? Among all atheists here, you're the vilest.

jaephoenix:
In the post I replied, you virtually insulted me. Look at the screenshots. You throw insults around and when same insult gets thrown back at you, uh pretend to be a saint

Even from the post, it is clear that it was a response I gave to your insult.

jaephoenix:
Where is the proof

I think you should go back to where I put screenshots and links.

Gabrielshow24:
I beg to differ. A simple example are newborn babies; they are naked but they do not know and in fact are not ashamed which portrays innocence. This is just a clever way to explain a simple narrative with exuberance and splendour, as usual of men to emphasis their importance(pride)

But Adam and Eve were not babies. Perhaps, you don't know that the opposite of Glory is shame, and the opposite of shame is glory. Why were they ashamed? They were not blind my brother. The saw for the first time their own unclothedness which they did not see before. They didn't know they were naked simply because they didn't see the unclothedness until what covered the unclothedness departed. The spiritual implication today in our lives is that, in the absence of God's glory, a man's life would be full of shame and reproach.

Am sure Moses was not blind, he hath seen Angels covered with Glory; he even saw the glory of God hence he would have known if man was covered by His Glory or not and would have reported it. Leave it as it is, they were naked- simple

When you read the Original Hebrew Bible and listen to Jewish traditions and take a study of the Jewish Kabbalah, you'll understand that there are many things known to the Jews about the Bible that are not known to you. You're saying leave it as it is just because that's the limit of your knowledge. Most of the arguments we have would be unnecessary if we know what the Jews know. Even the argument about creationism would cease because these things are very clear in the Original Hebrew Bible.

Wilgrea7:
Apologies for the late response. It's been a busy week/weekend.

No worries my friend. We all have busy schedules.

I disagree with you. I think the purpose of nairaland was simply to make the creator money.

You should complete it. The purpose of Nairaland is to make the creator money through socialization which attracts ad revenues. But still, Nairaland has a purpose anyway. And that is just the point.

I change my mind. I think the purpose of nairaland was to have a platform where you could create as many threads as possible. Now do you get my point?

Whatever the purpose is. Nairaland has a purpose and therefore emanated from a mind. You cannot consider all the complex codes and the intricate libraries that work harmoniously on Nairaland to fulfil that purpose, and then conclude that Nairaland has no creator. The mind is the source of everything you see on Nairaland.

In what sense? How exactly?

In any sense and any how. Purpose is not the reason for the existence of things.

So a short recap so we don't go around in circles.

You believe things can exist without a purpose. You also believe the creator of a thing determines the purpose. Then without knowledge of the creator of a thing, how are you sure that something fulfils the purpose for which it was intended (by the creator)?

Should that concern me? I'm only concerned that it is fulfilling a purpose because it was made to do so by the one who designed it so. If it is not fulfilling a purpose, it would be very easy for you to argue that it has no creator. Isn't it? The argument against a creator is hard simply because you yourself know that only a mind can create things that fulfil specific purposes as could be observed in our universe.

Basically.. do you think your observation (as NOT the creator) of a thing could be wrong?

Also... I want you to answer my question regarding how something purposeless can just "exist" but something purposeful can't. I'm very very curious to know.

You'll need to point me to something purposeful in our world that has no creator. Afterwards, I'll answer your question.

jaephoenix:
So calling someone a liar, deceitful, shameless etc isn't insult, when in fact, the person in question didn’t lie?

I actually proved the person lied.

Wilgrea7:
Enough in what sense? I literally talked about systems and how things aren't always the same outside a system as they are inside.

Enough because you cannot prove that there's something outside of this system.

You atheists say you believe only what you can see and be proven. Now, because you've met a superior argument, you want to start arguing based on what you cannot see and cannot be proven. We have no knowledge of any outside system. We cannot base our conclusions on what no one has ever claimed to exist.

I feel like this is pretty self explanatory. We are talking about a possible creator of the universe... where else are we supposed to look? If you're trying to find out who made a pencil.. do you search inside the pencil?

The argument has a very obvious imbalance. It is not always true that you must be outside of a thing before you create that thing.

You're the one trying to posit the existence of some external super-mind. We don't know what exists outside our universe. You're using the idea of what we've observed to try to describe what could exist outside it. I'm just pointing out that it's faulty logic.

The bolded is exactly what science does. The Creator is not necessarily outside of our universe. We can use what we observe to determine the possibility of an existence of a Creator. And that's perfectly normal. It becomes abnormal when you start doing mental gymnastics to say you don't believe in the existence of a Creator simply because the rules of an imaginary outer universe could be different. Who reasons like that? Scientists or Artists? Tell me.

[quote]The person who observes that things fall down when you toss them up is 100% correct if he applies his logic to the boundaries of the system, being earth.

We're do not need to apply the logic of an imaginary universe. That's mental gymnastics.

No one is negating our observations here so far. Observations within the system do not necessarily translate to the reality outside the system. That was my point all along.

You need to first prove to us that there's a reality outside the system.

You've lost me... what do you mean?
You talk of a mind able to create purpose.... is that not something about the nature of said creator?

Yeah, if you limit it within the context of a mind only. Not trying to make it look as though I'm talking about the Creator's nature in the broader sense of the word. My position is that there is a mind. That mind can also be a creator without assuming the nature of anyone. We cannot talk about nature until we agree that there's a mind.

Before the house was created, there was no "inside" or "outside".. there was just the environment. The creation of the house and living in it doesn't negate the fact that the builders of the house were in the area that would now be considered "outside" before the house was created.

Let me give a very clear example.

A plot of land is bought in a field... A house is built there.. fields have discernable properties, as do houses. When we talk of the creation of the house, we're talking of the time when the house, and the properties that define the house did not exist. The properties that defined the field are what existed on that plot of land.

When we talk of the creation of the house, we are referring to the activities and processes that took place outside what you refer to as the house.. because at the time, the properties that defined the house did not exist in that area.

To sum it all up... It is impossible to talk about the creation of a thing without making reference to what conditions existed before it was created.

Also... if you're trying to imply that the creator may be inside said universe, then the floor is yours to prove it.

Your analogy of a house does not do justice to the point you raised. I have provided better examples to prove that a creator can actually be within what he created. You obviously ignored those and decided on a soft point.

I don't need to prove that the Creator was within the universe He created because I never said so. This is what I said, "The Creator must not necessarily be outside the universe to create it." He could be within or without because we have evidence within our own world that a Creator could be within or without his creation.

Remember, you believe the creator is a super-mind capable of creating purpose. I'm curious to see how you define what a mind is, and how exactly the said mind would be clearly identified as existing within the system and not outside it.

I don't think we should be defining a mind since we all have one. Whatever you think a mind is, it is the only known source of purpose. We all know what a mind is. We don't need to know how the said mind would be clearly identified. We're not here to discuss that. We're here to establish that the results we see in our universe are a product of a mind.

Gabrielshow24:
Even the bible records of "some that have encountered Angels unaware", the angels sent to lot; what form do you think they assumed? Don't be childish

Assuming a form does does not mean they're actually in that form.

You don't even understand spiritual things. We're talking about stateliness. Not transformation.

So, if a witch takes the form of a cat, it means she has a Carly state as part of its creation? Why are you do obdurate in ignorance?

GorillaApp:
so Jesus told your so called Daddy G.O to cover the whole world abi? as if there are no other competent humans in other countries to work in Gods vineyard over there. you are just a piece of garbage no need talking to you

My dear. What did Jesus command?

"And he said unto them, GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but that believeth not shall be damned."

It surprises me when ignorant people also think they can contribute! They'll be talking nonesense and still think they're sensible.

jaephoenix:
Oga, you said your post isn't about intelligent design. Now I have proved that your post was actually about intelligent design. Now you're screaming I should have added other posts. How do I cram all your posts in one screenshot? How do you think it would fit? Are you always dense 24/7?

It's not about intelligent design. I have clarified this to you in a latter post.

You see again another fresh insult from you at the bolded. Even after I apologized for doing you absolutely nothing. I might start ignoring you. I consider you a very immature kid worthy of no response.

You will still lie that you never insulted me or that I was the first. Are you not even ashamed of yourself? Well, people like you don't actually have self worth.

jaephoenix:
https://www.nairaland.com/8193100/completely-destroys-atheism-renders-atheists#131647987

Above is my first mention of you. Where did I insult you this mo.. ron?
Also which insults did I crop out?

Trace the post. The moment I proved that I truly floored you, what was your response?

jaephoenix:
You ignore posts you can't counter. Oya counter that one

Every post have been countered.

jaephoenix:
I thought said AI argues against creationism. Now youre saying it doesn't believe or disbelieve anything. LMAO

That it can argue doesn't mean it can believe. It's argument is knowledge based. Not because it believes anything.

DaddyCoool:
I'm just amazed you don't realize how CONVOLUTED you sound. You and that other guy saying Christ was a Roman invention.

Like I've said, people with "super intelligence" know they're naked when they are, and know the difference between good and bad!

Soo God wants to know that man was obedient (don't confuse with Peter Obi follower😁), and of all the millions of ways He could test it, it was a way that would irretrievably destroy man's innocence and immortality! And it wasn't that the tree was hard to reach. And it wasn't that they were left alone to see if they'll obey - nooo, extremely wise Satan whom they were "rulling over" was introduced to tempt them - not Adam who was given the commandment o, but Eve who wasn't even created yet! I wonder what Eve said to Adam b4 he also ate the fruit. Must have been something like "Adam, you slowpoke, you're naked!"😆

As for tree of life, God gave Adam and Eve characteristics of fruits they were to eat. There is no proof life fruit meet those characteristics. And it was in the middle of the garden right next to knowledge fruit for a reason. Anyway, people who spent their lives studying the Bible and pondering these things have concluded they did NOT eat it. Who are you?? And, no, they're NOT adding to the Bible - their conclusion is the conclusion any reasonable person will reach from the words.

As for immortality, please know the difference between extremely long life and immortality. God said they would die if they ate, but Adam lived about 1000 years. Maybe if they didn't eat they'd live to a million. But the question you haven't answered: what was the life tree doing there if they were created immortal?

What were your questions I didn't answer?

I don't think I'll like to drag this any further because you don't seem to grasp anything I said.

1. Adam was not naked! He was covered with God's glory. When he became naked after the glory departed, he knew it.

2. Being super intelligence does not mean you must know about the existence of evil.

3. Please tell the reason why God placed a forbidden tree in the garden if you have Devine revelation.

4. Give me proof that Adam didn't eat of the tree of life. No need to argue.


Man, I have been studying the Bible for over 30yrs. I am not a conventional Bible student who takes whatever I'm told without examining the facts.

If you think you have anything you want to say about the Bible contrary to what we can see in the Bible, then, let's begin.

DaddyCoool:
I edited my post. See it below. Try not to respond with stupid human logic. Adam did not know he was naked, probably did not know he had a body, what a wise man!
>>>>>>>>>>>

You read the Bible with no revelation. Adam was not naked because he was covered with God's glory. When the glory departed, he found himself naked. In place of the glory, God gave him animal skins for garments. How can you be so ignorant?

I take it you have accepted that mindless Adam and Eve, without even self-awareness, cannot rule over anything, talkless of knowledgeable Satan.
Also, Satan and other angels had knowledge of good and evil yet could live forever.
So QED on those ones.

The knowledge of good and evil only made man unstable to live on earth. Man still lives forever. Man can never die. His glorious body became a death-prone body but his spirit within him is eternal. His immortality in the cosmos was not affected. Only his ability to retain himself on earth. To live on earth he herd that glorious body. The body is just a clothe. Are you this ignorant. The putting off of that cloth does not mean man is no longer immortal. When that clothes is put off, he can no longer abide in this world. But he'll be transported to another world where his spirit can abide forever. In the new earth, Jesus would restore that glorious body back to man. This glorious body would enable us to live eternally on the new earth. I can't believe I still have to explain these things to someone given the depth of truth and revelation now available to the body of Christ. I see you as someone who eats the letters without encountering the Spirit of the Word. I will provide you full Scriptural teachings regarding these things if you oblige.

As for the life fruit, I told you these things are beyond human logic! Also, I hope you know you shouldn't be adding words to the Bible. Here's what God told them in Genesis 1:29: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food". We don’t know if the life fruit had seed in it. But nowhere does it say the life fruit was their normal food, and the consensus of SCHOLARS is that they never ate of it.
Hence the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
You have to be really insincere to read that statement and conclude it says they were already eating the fruit. We don’t know if their BODIES were immortal or to what extent. If it were physical death then Christ's work would have corrected it but it doesn't - what it corrects is spiritual death.

Man, why don't you answer the pertinent questions I asked you? You refused to answer them because you know clearly that in their answers lies the answers you're seeking to hide away from. Don't deceive yourself. Answer the questions. If you don't know the basis of the eternal life we're promised in Christ Jesus. If you don't know what Christ has come to restore to us. If you don't know the dominion that was stolen from you. If you don't know your place in communion and fellowship with the Father, you'll never realize the full benefits of Christ's death and resurrection. Who is Satan than you're so much giving credence to? He was an illegal entity in our world until Adam gave him legality.

Those of us who are in Christ Jesus exercise authority over Satan and his horses of filthy demons today. Our authority will be fully restored when the Lord Jesus finally restitutes all things.

Adam was not a mere being. God didn't create man in HIS IMAGE and likeness so that he'll live and die! Think about it. Open your heart and let the Holy Ghost illuminate you when you're reading the scriptures. Man was in God's likeness:

1. In immortality
2. In Dominion: God was in dominion in Heaven. Man was in dominion on earth.

Tell me how man was in God's likeness apart from those 2 above. Or you still carry the childish notion of man being in God's likeness in terms of physical resemblance? Lol. Physical resemblance was not the likeness God was talking about. God is spirit. God is not physical! Therefore man cannot have any physical resemblance or likeness of God because God has none.

But beyond all these, using human logic, why would God put the knowledge tree in the garden in the first place?? Who can resist eating it for ETERNITY (assuming physical immortality)? Not only that, He also allowed Satan around to tempt the woman who wasn't around when the commandment was issued! It was Adam alone He gave the commandment, before Eve was created. (And when Eve ate the fruit Adam could see clearly she did not die😁). Not only that, once they ate the fruit why couldn't omnipotent God wipe their memory and restore them to mindlessness - the way He liked them?? Or destroy them and create new ones, minus tree?

Bottom line: don't reason these things with limited human reasoning!

Okay, seems I'm replying a mention I already replied.

Everything I've said so far is scripture based. Scriptures are not human logic.

DaddyCoool:
I take it you have accepted that mindless Adam and Eve, without even self-awareness, cannot rule over anything, talkless of knowledgeable Satan. So QED on that one.

The Bible says in Genesis 1:26 - 28 that God gave the Dominion to Adam. He was given rule over all things. Adam was very knowledgeable in his glorious state. He was a prince in his own domain. Can we even start to teach you about these things also. They're clearly in the Bible. Adam gave names to everything on earth in one day and still could remember the name he gave to each and everything. That's super intelligence. Such intelligence is not available to us in our fallen state. Psalm 115:16 says God gave the earth to man. Man is not what man used to be at the beginning. It would be myopic of you to see man only as he is in his fallen state. Please take your Bible for yourself and read.

Hey! Who are you to say man couldn't rule when God gave the dominion of the whole earth to man? You don't actually know the scriptures. Did you answer the questions I asked you in my previous post? Answer them please.

As for the life fruit, I told you these things are beyond human logic! Also, I hope you know you shouldn't be adding words to the Bible. Here's what God told them in Genesis 1:29: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food". We don’t know if the life fruit had seed in it. But nowhere does it say the life fruit was their normal food, and the consensus of SCHOLARS is that they never ate of it.

My friend, when Scholars said they never ate of it, were they not adding to the Bible? Did the Bible ever say they never ate of it? Yet, you believed it without examination!

Did Eve not tell the serpent that they do eat of ALL the trees in the garden except that one in the middle of the garden that was banned?

Hence the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

The bolded in that scripture is the stated reason why God said the man has become like one of them - he now knows good and evil. Simple! Even Satan told them they'll become like God 'knowing good and evil.' Immortality is what they already had. The knowledge of good and evil was what they didn't have. And that was the only addition that made them become like God.

They now could die but a taste of the tree of life would restore eternal life. O man, "Death came into the world through the forbidden fruit." It was not originally in the world. That is why God will cast death to hell at the end of time.

You have to be really insincere to read that statement and conclude it says they were already eating the fruit. We don’t know if their BODIES was immortal or to what extent. If it were physical death then Christ's work would have corrected it but it doesn't - what it corrects is spiritual death.

Eve actually told the serpent they were eating all Fruits except the forbidden one. You have to be insincere to even say they never ate of the fruit of life which was given them by God to eat. Meanwhile they left that one and ate the forbidden one. Hen? This your theology sef, e get as e be.

Go read your Bible again!

But beyond all these, using human logic, why would God put the knowledge tree in the garden in the first place?? Who can resist eating it for ETERNITY (assuming physical immortality). Not only that, He also allowed Satan around to tempt the woman who wasn't around when the commandment was issued! It was Adam alone He gave the commandment, before Eve was created (To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you..). Not only that, once they ate the fruit why couldn't omnipotent God wipe their memory and restore them to mindlessness - the way He liked them?? Or destroy them and create new ones, minus tree?

Bottom line: don't reason these things with limited human reasoning!

My friend, God put the forbidden fruit in the garden because loyalty cannot be judged until it is tested. God wants to know that the man is truly obedient when he has the opportunity to disobey but yet, chooses to obey. That means he's not a zombie and his obedience to God is genuine. That's the kind of obedience God wants. Your obedience carries no weight when you do not have the opportunity to disobey.

[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=131915797][/quote]Please which burble are you bursting?

Did you read well that "Michael fought and 'his' angels?

Do you think that all Angie in heaven are Michael's angel? Don't you know that Michael's angels are the warring angels under his command? Michael is a commander of the heavenly host. The highest ranking soldier in heaven.

He has other colleagues who are also archangels like himself. Those ones are not soldiers and Michael has no authority or command over them.

DaddyCoool:
This is truly laughable😅. Ok, so they were already immortal, so what was the use of the tree of life that'd make them immortal??
So God didn't want beings with knowledge to also be immortal. Have you forgotten Satan and the angels??
As to "us", wasn't God referring to immortal beings? Isn't it same as "lest they become immortal like we all are in heaven"??
Na wa 4 u o

The tree of Life was their normal food.

Ask yourself, why would God create humans that die? Why did God say if you eat the fruit, you'll die? Why did Jesus have to come and restore eternal life? Why would there be a new heaven and a new earth where immortality reigns if that wasn't God's original plan. Or you don't know that our coming immortality is simply a restoration?

Man doesn't die, we only die because of a sinful nature. Man can never die. He can only depart earth and translate. He lives forever whether in heaven or hell! Man is an eternal being.

The fact that death itself would be cast into hell is proof that death itself is a violation of in our world. Revelation 20:14.

In the beginning, God created man to live on earth forever. He had no plan of translation to heaven or hell until sin crept into our lives. The glory of God departed and we earned ourselves a dying body.

Gabrielshow24:
Angels that presents themselves before the Father, surround the throne of God, tell the Son to cast forth his sickle to reap the world, offer your prayers before God and angels that had self will to rebel does that seem like a robot. I remember scriptures saying in the Torah that the Lord will send his Angel to go before you ensure that you do not provoke him. You paint angels as robots and as a result servants as a consequence you still exhibit pride. What you are doing is appeal to emotion there is a stage you reach that you are held accountable for your deeds no matter what soever you do you will get judgement; even Moses after striking the rock did not see the promise land even after supplication to God. Don't be deceived for a man to attain something of value he needs discipline albeit a great God. If the chief of justice commits murder will any judge pardon him he is guilty of the law at which he preaches/practices but if a child commits murder you can claim ignorance what does the bible say? My people perish because of ignorance(lack of knowledge). Hence there is a certain level of knowledge you attain that you can no longer feign ignorance the judgement of God will be mete. Once again angels are spirit, man is flesh. It is the flesh that dies because the spirit moves away.

One angel came and bound the devil am pretty sure of your own will you can do that, right?
Angels also came to take Lazarus to Abraham's bosom. Of your own will can you go there? you don't even know where to go, where to turn your face?. You blaspheme against God's holy angels. You claim yourself to be something when you are not what did the Lord teach about pride as regards the parable of the wedding? You are still missing the point. You seem to forget so soon about Matthew13:47-49. You are the fish they are the fishermen sorting good from bad🤔. I wonder how many fishes must have thought they were better than those that sort them?

The 24 elders are not angels please.

Yeah, some angels can bind the devil. Strength is not superiority.

Please read your Bible. Angels doing their work which are assigned to them does not mean they're superior. Angels carrying Lazarus to heaven does not mean they're superior. Read your Bible with an open mind and get rid of humanly inspired theology. I hope you can see how God qualified man in scriptures. How God had to send His Son to die. You can see the length to which God had to go to get man back to Himself. You can see that we're going to occupy thrones beside Jesus in the world to come. You can see that we would judge Angels. Please read your Bible for yourself. Don't dwell on what someone has thought you as that person could be wrong.

[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=131915797][/quote]Does a King not send his sons and servants on errands? Why can't Jesus send us? We are sons and are also messengers. Angels are only MESSENGERS. Not sons.

Angels are spirits and can never become flesh. Only God and man can put on flesh. Man can exist in both states but not angels. That itself is not a superiority.

Hey, I'm not talking about superiority here. You're misunderstanding. I'm only talking about what God made us for. I'm not even saying we're superior to angels. Please leave the matter of superiority alone. I never said that.

Superiority in heaven is not measured the same way we measure it on earth. Man was a high being. We fell, and Christ came to restore us. Today, for us who are in Christ "We are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus " Ephesians 2:6-7.

At the end of time, we our position is restored, we would be like Christ and reign with Christ. Think about it.

Gabrielshow24:
.


In conclusion the story is about the Son and mystery of God's love upon him and he in return has reciprocated his Father's Love upon his creation, that's why you see biblical emphasis of freely have you received freely should you give, love your neighbor as your self etc and if you paid attention to the "self Isolated/ remote thought experiment" I posted earlier you will see that it's all about giving!!! He that must be the chiefest must serve all so if you are receiving service then you cannot be greater than he that is rendering service only in the matters of men is the converse true hence once again I say your argument is folly and based on Pride

Man, you do not know your Bible enough to even have said there is no where in the Bible where God referred to men as His sons.

I don't know where you see pride in all of these. You obviously don't understand that a child who knows his father is a king and that he has many servants is not necessarily a proud son.

I have shown you what the scriptures say. Infact Hebrews 1:14 says very clearly that angels are our servants. The Hebrew word translated angel in the Old testament 'Malakh' means messenger. The Greek word translated angels in the new testament is Angelos which also means messanger. You don't want to see things from God's perspective but only from what you think is right. That's not how to view scriptures. We must completely align with what the Word says and abide by it.

Did God call men sons? You ignorantly said God never did. Now, take a look at these scriptures:

Exodus 4:22-23, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord, "Israel is My son, My firstborn."'

If Israel was God's first born, where are the angels? Second born? At least angels existed before men. So, who should be the firstborn. This shows you God had no sons until He created man.

In Luke 3:38, the genealogy was traced to Adam who was referred to as "the son of God."

Should I bring you several others before you would believe?

Have you seen Hebrews 1:14?

Do you even know that the Bible says we would judge Angels? Please read your Bible and stop arguing.

DaddyCoool:
What convoluted explanation! Why not just leave things be? The Bible said "lest they ALSO eat of the tree of life"! See below.

When God said "lest they become immortal like us" , are angels not immortal? Aren't they part of the heavenly host?!

My dear. This is not sound theology.

Adam and Eve were immortal beings. The tree of life was always in the garden. The only tree they were banned from eating was the tree of knowledge and evil.

"Lest they eat and become like us." Is appropriate statement because they were no longer immortal after eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

And yes, God has the knowledge of Good and Evil but God will never do evil. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil in their previous immortal state before their fall. They could only do good.

By eating of the tree of life again, they'll become immortal again, and also have knowledge of good and evil. Thus becoming like God. The people God refered to as 'Us' is the Trinity please. Not angels.

DaddyCoool:
God not destroying the "robots" he made had nothing to do with competition with Satan.
Here's the reason:

6 And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

8 Noah, however, found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Then that answers your question.

God didn't blot out the Robots because He would not destroy on innocent man. And there are always one or two innocent men on earth at any given time.

And of course if God destroys the human race, Satan wins. There are deeper things in that scripture you quoted.

Check the scriptures, angels were called sons of God in Genesis 6 and in Job 38 by the narrator in a metaphoric manner. God never personally called them His sons.

DaddyCoool:
This is exactly what I mean. I'm not sure you're listening to yourself. How was man immortal when God drove them out lest they also eat of the fruit of life and become immortal "like us". Who do you think was the "us"?

Ha. You should listen to yourself instead. Let me explain.

1. Which tree was God driving man away from after they ate the forbidden fruit? The tree of life.

2. Why was God driving them away from the tree? Because He doesn't want them to become immortal after they've become mortal.

3. Was the tree always in the garden or it just surfaced after they ate the forbidden fruit? Yes, it was always in the garden.

4. If it was always in the garden, were they eating it? Why not?

5. If they were eating the tree or life that was always in then garden, were they immortal? Yes of course. The tree itself makes them immortal.

The truth is that man was not created to die. He was created to live forever. Death came through the fruit they ate. That's why the Bible says "By one man's sin, death came into the world.".

The tree of life was the main food of Adam and Eve. So, if the tree gives immortality, how were they not immortal?

When reading the Bible, follow with your heart and let the Holy Spirit enlighten you, otherwise you'll miss obvious details.

The BIBLE calls them sons of God! And here you are, saying they were not. You know better than the Bible! Who do you think God was talking about when he was always talking about "us"? Has He ever included man in "us"
Abeg, just quit.

He doesn't include angels in 'us' either. Every 'us' in the Bible refers to the Trinity. There no single angelic reference. Prove me otherwise.

DaddyCoool:
I said I DID NOT want to say u were talking nonsense.
See, this is what I mean. Trying to fit logic into things that are impossible to logic.
HOW is man who is here today and gone tomorrow superior to immortals. The people you see around you struggling to survive are superior to angel Gabriel!
The bible said the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And those "sons of god" are inferior to man. Abegi!

Man became mortal. He was originally immortal. He'll be immortal again at the close of this age when all things have been restituted. Man has an immortal spirit. A translation from his mortal flesh which came as a result of the fall does not make him mortal.

Please man in his spiritual state is a being created to engage God. Angels cannot do that. Angels will never sit on a throne but man will.

You're looking at physical man while I'm talking to you about the spiritual man.

Angels were referred to as sons of God, not because they were begotten of God but because they came from God's heaven. God has never personally referred to angels as His children. Give me any scripture that does.

God has referred to man as son, friend, confidant, etc.

Gabrielshow24:
Why do you think that is so?
Christ clearly said that it is the sick that need a physician(doctor). As I said earlier it's man that needs the help not Angels because from this we can see that:
1. Angels are not sick
2. They don't warrant or require the plan of man's salvation because they are already saved🤔. Am sure at this moment some Angels are singing and dancing in heaven while you and I are here having this conversation.

This does not negate the fact that angels are created for specific purposes. There are sick angels for whom Christ never died. Think about it.

You paint the picture as if when man enters heaven angels will serve us. To you servitude is a form of gratification the usual way men Lord over others🤔, once again Pride.

God is humility and love.

But where did you see me insinuate that service is a form of gratification? This is false accusation.

Angels are specifically created for specific purposes. Man is created as a being capable of relationship with God. Not for specific purposes like a robot.