₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
800 years after eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is obviously not in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die! Or is it?

Ogamysamo:
God Didn't, Man Did It Himself For It Is Already a Plain Phenomenon(Plain Because God Already Told Them) That Death Shall Locate Them If They Eat Of The Fruit of The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil.

So What Is God Business With The Fact That Man Lives Not Forever, isn't That What Man Choose For Himself?

budaatum:
What I have written above is not a belief, but an understanding of the text.

shadeyinka:
Do gods die?

budaatum:
https://www.nairaland.com/4260792/graveyard-dead-gods#63743924
By H. L Mencken

Where is the graveyard of dead gods? What lingering mourner waters their mounds? There was a time when Jupiter was the king of the gods, and any man who doubted his puissance was ipso facto a barbarian and an ignoramus. But where in all the world is there a man who worships Jupiter today? And who of Huitzilopochtli? In one year - and it is no more than five hundred years ago - 50,000 youths and maidens were slain in sacrifice to him. Today, if he is remembered at all, it is only by some vagrant savage in the depths of the Mexican forest. Huitzilopochtli, like many other gods, had no human father; his mother was a virtuous widow; he was born of an apparently innocent flirtation that she carried out with the sun. When he frowned, his father, the sun, stood still. When he roared with rage, earthquakes engulfed whole cities. When he thirsted he was watered with 10,000 gallons of human blood.

But today Huitzilopochtli is as magnificently forgotten as Allen G. Thurman. Once the peer of Allah, Buddha and Wotan, he is now the peer of Richmond P. Hobson, Alton B. Parker, Adelina Patti, General Weyler and Tom Sharkey.

Speaking of Huitzilopochtli recalls his brother Tezcatilpoca. Tezcatilpoca was almost as powerful; he consumed 25,000 virgins a year.

Lead me to his tomb: I would weep, and hang a couronne des perles. But who knows where it is? Or where the grave of Quitzalcoatl is? Or Xiehtecuthli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazolteotl, the goddess of love? Of Mictlan? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles? Where are their bones?

Where is the willow on which they hung their harps? In what forlorn and unheard-of Hell do they await their resurrection morn? Who enjoys their residuary estates? Or that of Dis, whom Caesar found to be the chief god of the Celts? Of that of Tarves, the bull? Or that of Moccos, the pig? Or that of Epona, the mare? Or that of Mullo, the celestial jackass? There was a time when the Irish revered all these gods, but today even the drunkest Irishman laughs at them.

But they have company in oblivion: the Hell of dead gods is as crowded as the Presbyterian Hell for babies. Damona is there, and Esus, and Drunemeton, and Silvana, and Dervones, and Adsalluta, and Deva, and Belisima, and Uxellimus, and Borvo, and Grannos, and Mogons. All mighty gods in their day, worshipped by millions, full of demands and impositions, able to bind and loose - all gods of the first class. Men labored for generations to build vast temples to them - temples with stones as large as hay-wagons.

The business of interpreting their whims occupied thousands of priests, bishops, archbishops. To doubt them was to die, usually at the stake.

Armies took to the field to defend them against infidels; villages were burned, women and children butchered, cattle were driven off. Yet in the end they all withered and died, and today there is none so poor to do them reverence.

What has become of Sutekh, once the high god of the whole Nile Valley?

What has become of:
      Resheph                       Baal
      Anath                         Astarte
      Ashtoreth                     Hadad
      Nebo                          Dagon
      Melek                         Yau
      Ahijah                        Amon-Re
      Isis                          Osiris
      Ptah                          Molech?

All there were gods of the highest eminence. Many of them are mentioned with fear and trembling in the Old Testament. They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Yahweh Himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute, and with them the following:

      Arianrod                      Nuada Argetlam
      Morrigu                       Tagd
      Govannon                    Goibniu
      Gunfled                       Odin
      Dagda                         Ogma
      Ogryvan                      Marzin
      Dea Dia                       Mara
      Iuno Lucina                  Diana of Ephesus
      Saturn                        Robigus
      Furrina                        Pluto
      Cronos                        Vesta
      Engurra                       Zer-panitu
      Belus                         Merodach
      Ubilulu                        Elum
      U-dimmer-an-kia          Marduk
      U-sab-sib                     Nin
      U-Mersi                       Persephone
      Tammuz                        Istar
      Venus                         Lagas
      Beltis                        Nirig
      Nusku                         En-Mersi
      Aa                            Assur
      Sin                           Beltu
      Apsu                          Kuski-banda
      Elali                         Nin-azu
      Mami                          Qarradu
      Zaraqu                        Ueras
      Zagaga

Ask the rector to lend you any good book on comparative religion; you will find them all listed. They were gods of the highest dignity - gods of civilized peoples - worshipped and believed in by millions.

All were omnipotent, omniscient and immortal.

And all are dead!

KnownUnknown:
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.

Kobojunkie:
Some of us actually do.

KnownUnknown:
. Yes, then you disagree with each other and insist it means what each person says and every other opinion "is of the devil".

Kobojunkie:
Well, assuming George Bernard Shaw did indeed say what you claim, then he is wrong.

Kobojunkie:
There are those of us who apply basic human language comprehension skills to comprehending that which is written in that book, same set of skills you would apply to any other text out there.

Kobojunkie:
Second, people disagree on most everything, even the color of the sky so it isn't unexpected.

KnownUnknown:
No, he isn't wrong. Budaatum and Shadeyinka are examples. You are an example, Max is an example, etc etc. Everyone is a parish of one.
You probably have your own interpretation of the Budaaatum/Shadeyinka's "thou shalt surely die" palaver.

What do the rest of you apply instead of basic human language comprehension skills?
Disagreeing about the effect of light in the atmosphere is different from disagreeing about the meaning of a text. The "color" is due to our perception of the world based on our physiology. Some may say the color is violet, some say blue, and some have seen green skies. They may disagree but no one is wrong. On the other hand, your book says something explicitly then you people start interpreting based on your biases.

KnownUnknown:
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, critic, polemicist and political activist
1856-1950

livingchrist:
One of the function of the tree of life is to cause permanence in whatever condition or state in which it is eaten.

After Adam and eve ate from the tree of life, sin entered them and they fell from God's glory. [/b]They were judged and condemned for their sin, since they were in a fallen state, lost and far from God [b]eating from the tree of life would make their pathetic and miserable condition permanent for all eternity it would mean sin would remain for ever and the creation cursed for ever.
God showed his mercy by driving them away from the tree of life so as not to sentence themselves to eternal misery.

Kobojunkie:
Pay attention to the claim you posted.. What does the Bible say? Throwing away the special interpretation magic, a basic knowledge of what is says can be obtained by applying the most basic of human language comprehension skills in processing what is written.

Now since there exists those accept that which the Bible indeed says, then it means the statement is wrong.

KnownUnknown:
No, even the Bible literalists still disagree with each other so the statement stands. Who decides whether Adam and Eve is an allegory or real story?

Kobojunkie:
Again...Pay attention to the claim you posted..
What does the Bible say? Throwing away the special interpretation magic, a basic knowledge of what is says can be obtained by applying the most basic of human language comprehension skills in processing what is written.

Now since there exists those accept that which the Bible indeed says, then it means the statement is wrong.

Kobojunkie:
Now since there exists those accept that which the Bible indeed says, then it means the statement is wrong.

KnownUnknown:
If Adam and Eve were the first humans what happened to those created on day 6?

Genesis 1:
26Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

KnownUnknown:
The statement is not wrong. They don’t accept what the Bible says because they can’t decide when it’s literal or figurative. Allegory or Real Story. Mythology or History.

Unless you’re going to put yourself forward as the person that literally believes every single word from Genesis to Revelation.

The book of revelations is enough to prove the statement that each is a parish of one.

Kobojunkie:
What does the Bible say? Throwing away the special interpretation magic, a basic knowledge of what is says can be obtained by applying the most basic of human language comprehension skills in processing what is written.

Now since there exists those accept that which the Bible indeed says, then it means the statement is wrong.

Kobojunkie:
You are still not paying attention... again...

KnownUnknown:
No, you are just been duplicitous as expected.

KnownUnknown:
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, critic, polemicist and political activist
1856-1950

Kobojunkie:
Well, what are you told in the book of Genesis ?

Kobojunkie:
How exactly am I the duplicitous party here?

. What does the Bible say? Throwing away the special interpretation magic, a basic knowledge of what is says can be obtained by applying the most basic of human language comprehension skills in processing what is written.

Now since there exists those accept that which the Bible indeed says, then it means the statement is wrong.

---

You introduced the claim and I was able to show that the claim is baseless since there exists at least one person who in fact accepts what the Bible says.

KnownUnknown:
You choose to rephrase the question. Cool.

What are you told about the first humans in the book of Genesis

Kobojunkie:
Rephrase the question?

There are only about 2 chapters that specifically address the first humans so I am not sure what encyclopedic knowledge you intend to draw from that apart from what is intact written there in those 2 chapters.

KnownUnknown:
And I have given you enough examples to prove his point. Another example being the Genesis question you refuse to answer.

It’s rich that you call his claim baseless when you are an example. You disagree with damn near every Christian on this forum so much that you are described like a gratuitous contrarian.

KnownUnknown:
Well, answer. Which ones were first, chapter one or chapter two?

Kobojunkie:
You gave examples to prove what? You did no such so stop deceiving yourself.

All you did was ask a question of the first humans and I told you that all that is known is that which is written there in the book of Genesis. How does that prove what you claim?

Kobojunkie:
Oh, you want me to read the book for you?

KnownUnknown:
The question about genesis is another way to demonstrate is claim

KnownUnknown:
If that helps you answer the question. Go for it.

Kobojunkie:
Bullsheet! You are the one who doesn't accept what it says.

The book was written to you as is. It is not meant to make exact sense to you but it is as is written. You can't seem to accept that, yet you think you are able to prove that those who do don't?

Kobojunkie:
Again, the book comes to you as is. You either accept what it says or you are no different from those you point an accusing finger at.

You expect the book to answer the exact questions it never proposed to answer in the first place, and you throw a fit when you are told that what is written is as is written?

KnownUnknown:
The book wasn’t written to me but that’s not the reason it doesn’t make sense. It becomes senseless when you try to make it fit reality.

Look at your silliness proving his point again.
“ The book was written to you as is. It is not meant to make exact sense to you but it is as is written. ”

It is not meant to make exact sense so you give it the exact sense you want.