Roycemadeit's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Roycemadeit's Profile › Roycemadeit's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 38 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 9:35pm On Oct 20 |
Kobojunkie:. . Genesis presents Adam as naming the animals, while Christians place him within a 6,000-year timeline. Evolution explains today's biodiversity through changes over millions of years. The contradiction arises when the bible claims Adam named every modern species while you are also using evolution to explain how those species developed. Many species would have existed long before Adam. Genesis offers no evolutionary timeline to reconcile these claims... |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 6:42pm On Oct 20*. Modified: 9:36pm On Oct 20 |
Kobojunkie:. . All the animals in the world entered Ark... Even until now we haven't learned of all animals but Adam named them all... including different species of each... 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: THE HERMENEUTICS OF POSSESSION: WHEN GOD GAVE THEM SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND by Roycemadeit(op): 6:41pm On Oct 20 |
MaxInDHouse:You when dey justify banditry 😂 ... Because God who is love commanded it. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 6:36pm On Oct 20 |
Dtruthspeaker: Our father is now our mother  1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 6:35pm On Oct 20 |
Kobojunkie:. . It matters because na iro nla 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Noah, Eden, Adam And The Animals by Roycemadeit(op): 6:31pm On Oct 20 |
THE PROBLEM WITH EDEN, ADAM AND THE ANIMALS Genesis says God brought the animals to Adam, and Adam named them. Every creature got a name. Adam was basically the first man with a clipboard. “Gajdn.” “Elont.” “Giopfe Let us assume Adam spoke Hebrew. Fine. But the Bible never gives us Adam’s full animal list. Somewhere in heaven, there may be a missing document called: “Adam’s Original Names...” Then there is Eden. Adam lived among the animals, but Genesis never tells us how many animals were there, where the garden ended, there should have been a border right? or whether animals could leave. Personally, I think that's where we'll find unicorn, griffin and other animals in Harry Potter. Adam gets expelled. But what about the animals? Did the Elont say, “I’m staying. The rent is free”? Then Noah’s Canoe arrives. Suddenly animals from everywhere must gather for the flood. But Genesis never explains how the Eden animals connected to the Ark animals, or how they later spread across the world. Personally, I think God confused their looks instead, that's why we have Leopards in Africa and Cougars in America. That is a lot of travel for creatures that learn to build and paddle a submarine.😂 Then the flood covers the mountains. The waters remain for a long time and then evaporated within two winks. Noah sends out a raven, then a dove. The dove returns with a fresh olive leaf. That is the real miracle. Not just surviving the flood, finding a living olive tree afterward. Vegetation doing well after Forty days underwater? That tree needed nothing more than faith even chlorophyll and photosynthesis was subsidized. And the dove is not the problem. Doves eat seeds, insects too but I think it lost knowledge of what to eat because he ignored insects in the ark but went after a leaf. a leaf from a tree, how did the tree survive? Who photosynthesied it? Don't read this funny, these stories are a complete history of humanity and animal life, they explain how the biology actually works. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 6:00pm On Oct 20 |
Dtruthspeaker:. . What makes God male? Is it not Manhood Or should I say Godhood |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 7:55pm On Oct 19 |
Dtruthspeaker:. .Na plan work... God's spirit lead am into the wilderness then called devil and says, "Oya, tempt am or na test they use.... God tests, Satan tempts |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 7:53pm On Oct 19 |
Dtruthspeaker:These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren. BUT THE KING CALLED UPON THE PERSONALITY THAT ALL OF THESE QUALITIES THAT GOD HATES 😂 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 7:50pm On Oct 19 |
Dtruthspeaker: I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things |
| Christianity Etc › Re: THE HERMENEUTICS OF POSSESSION: WHEN GOD GAVE THEM SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND by Roycemadeit(op): 5:09pm On Oct 19 |
Dtruthspeaker:. . Pele, Defender of Confusion |
| Christianity Etc › I Will Soon Open Church, Abel Damina Can't Be Only True Prophet by Roycemadeit(op): 4:58pm On Oct 19 |
WHAT IF GOD AND THE DEVIL ARE THE SAME BEING? Christians believe that God and the Devil are enemies. God represents good, while the Devil represents evil. The Devil may try to frustrate God's plans, but God is more powerful and will eventually defeat him. However, when I read the Bible, I see something different. 1. THE DEVIL IN GOD'S PRESENCE In Job 1:6-12, Satan appears before God, and they have a conversation. Satan questions Job's faithfulness, and God permits him to test Job. This is the same Devil Christians claim was cast out of heaven for rebelling against God. Yet, in the story of Job, he enters through the pearly gates, appears before God and discusses a man's fate with him over brunch. The supposed enemy of God, the father of sin, has access to God's presence, and God permits him to inflict suffering on an innocent man. 2. WHEN GOD DOES IT, IT IS A TEST. WHEN THE DEVIL DOES IT, IT IS TEMPTATION. The Spirit led Jesus Christ into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil (Matthew 4:1). We also see in Genesis 22:1 that God tested Abraham. Notice the distinction: when God does it, it is called a test; when the Devil does it, it is called temptation. Isaiah 45:7 says that God creates light and darkness, peace and calamity. Amos 3:6 also presents disaster as something that does not occur independently of the LORD. The distinction is quite convenient. When God brings suffering, it is part of his plan. When the Devil does something similar, it is evidence of his wickedness. The Bible itself attributes actions associated with evil and destruction to God, while also presenting Satan as an agent of similar actions. 3. THE DEVIL'S REBELLION AND THE IRONY OF HELL Revelation 12:4 describes the dragon sweeping away a third of the stars of heaven, while verses 7-9 describe the war in heaven and the dragon's expulsion. The traditional Christian interpretation presents this as Satan's rebellion against God. This means the Devil was powerful enough to lead a multitude of heavenly beings into rebellion, yet Christians imagine him spending eternity punishing human beings for their own rebellion against God. The irony is difficult to miss. The Devil himself is condemned for rebellion, but the popular Christian imagination turns him into the chief tormentor of other rebels. I think Satan is reasonable enough to organise a fiesta with his fellow rebels instead of judging them for the same rebellion of his. Revelation 20:10, however, describes the Devil being thrown into the lake of fire. He is a victim of punishment there, not its ruler. 4. GOD AND THE DEVIL AS TWO FACES OF THE SAME POWER In 2 Samuel 24:1, God incites David to conduct a census. But in 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan is the one who incites David to do the same thing. The same event. Two different interchangeable agents. The relationship between God and the Devil is not as straightforward as Christians make it appear. The biblical stories of Job and David's census reinforce this problem. God and Satan are presented as distinct agents, yet their actions and responsibilities sometimes overlap. I see the possibility that God and the Devil are two faces of the same power: one representing the good attributed to the deity, the other carrying the blame for its darker side. I am not claiming that the Bible explicitly says they are one being. I am drawing a conclusion from the way the biblical narrative distributes responsibility for good, evil, suffering, and destruction. 5. THE DEVIL COULD BE FEMALE Christians speak of God the Father and God the Son, but no divine wife is recognised in Christian theology. The Devil is also commonly imagined as male, even though the biblical texts do not establish that Satan is God's wife or explicitly identify Satan as female, it hints art. How beautiful she was made - Ever seen a woman preparing to attend a function? .My speculation is that the rebellious figure in this cosmic story could just as easily be imagined as female. A female figure refusing to submit to a supreme authority would not only challenge the authority of a powerful male God but also make him seem less untouchable. Perhaps Satan was made male to give God a worthy opponent, rather than a female challenger whose rebellion might expose the absurdity of a supreme male authority being threatened by a woman. It makes little sense to have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but no God the Mother. It should be God the Father, God the Mother, and God the Son. What I find amusing is that the creator of an all-male heaven understood that Adam needed a female companion, yet somehow managed to have a Son without a woman in heaven. Perhaps that explains all the heavenly anger. 😂 Maybe Jesus spent those three days in the grave negotiating with his mother, begging her to return home with him to heaven, but as a feminist she was still too angry to come back. 😂 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: THE HERMENEUTICS OF POSSESSION: WHEN GOD GAVE THEM SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND by Roycemadeit(op): 4:53pm On Oct 19 |
Dtruthspeaker:. You could have simply answered the questions instead of writing this epistle 😂 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: THE HERMENEUTICS OF POSSESSION: WHEN GOD GAVE THEM SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND by Roycemadeit(op): 10:12pm On Oct 18 |
Dtruthspeaker:  I didn't loose anything talk more of being terrible. Y'all are running on a program, so if a person asks an innocent question they are foolish, instead of you giving them an answer. By the way, you have never provided one answer to any questions I have asked. All you do is abuse, label me derogatory names and evade all the questions... Why don't you turn a new leaf, become a new creature for once? Admit you don't know the answer to my questions... And didn't mention you because I want others to weigh in. |
| Christianity Etc › THE HERMENEUTICS OF POSSESSION: WHEN GOD GAVE THEM SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND by Roycemadeit(op): 6:04pm On Oct 18 |
THE HERMENEUTICS OF POSSESSION: WHEN GOD GAVE THEM SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another auspicious occasion where we examine the responses to my innocent questions about the biblical conquest of Canaan. Our learned siblings have offered several explanations. According to some, the Canaanites were squatters. According to others, the strongest army owns whatever it conquers. One respondent compared God to a landlord who owns the world and can evict anyone he pleases. Others argued that the Canaanites attacked Israel first. Let us examine these arguments and see whether they answer the questions or simply defend the story. 1. WAS CANAAN EMPTY LAND WAITING FOR ISRAEL? My argument: Genesis 12:6 identifies the Canaanites as inhabitants of the land when Abraham arrived. Genesis 13:7 mentions the Canaanites and Perizzites, while Genesis 23 describes Abraham purchasing a burial site from Ephron the Hittite. These were established communities with homes, families, and property. Canaan was not an empty inheritance waiting for Abraham's descendants. Their response: MaxInDHouse argued that ancient nations acquired territory through warfare. The strongest army took the land, and Israel was simply acting according to the standards of the time. The issue: This explains how land was conquered, not why the conquest was morally right. If military strength determines who deserves land, then every successful conqueror is justified simply because they win. Is that really the moral standard being defended? 2. ABRAHAM BOUGHT LAND, BUT HIS DESCENDANTS TOOK IT My argument: When Abraham needed somewhere to bury Sarah, he negotiated with Ephron and paid for the property. He did not simply seize it because he believed God had promised him the territory. Their response: Dtruthspeaker argued that God owns the world and is therefore its landlord. Since the Canaanites had not purchased their land from God, they were merely squatters whom God could evict. The issue: This argument assumes what it needs to prove: that the biblical claim of ownership is true and that ownership gives the owner unlimited moral permission. Imagine someone promising your house to his children. Does his promise automatically give them a right to dispossess you? The fact that someone claims ownership does not independently establish that claim. And even ownership does not automatically make every possible action against occupants morally acceptable. Calling the Canaanites squatters does not settle the question. It simply assumes that Yahweh's claim overrides theirs. 3. DID THE CANAANITES HAVE TO ACCEPT A PROMISE MADE TO ABRAHAM? My argument: The covenant in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 concerns Yahweh and Abraham's descendants. The Canaanites were not parties to that agreement. Why should a promise made between a deity and one family automatically obligate other people to surrender their homes? Their response: The respondents returned to the argument that God owns the land and can give it to whomever he chooses. Others argued that the Canaanites had acquired their territories through warfare too. The issue: Explaining how people acquired land in the past does not establish that every subsequent conquest is justified. If someone promises his children another person's property, the promise does not become legitimate merely because he believes he has the authority to make it. The argument that God gave Israel the land explains Israel's understanding of the conquest. It does not, by itself, establish that the existing inhabitants were morally obligated to accept the transfer. 4. DID EVERY CANAANITE ATTACK ISRAEL FIRST? My argument: I asked what the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai did to Israel before Israel attacked them. I also asked whether the Gibeonites attacked Israel before seeking peace. Their response: Some respondents argued that Israel was a displaced people returning to its promised land and that the Canaanites were the aggressors. One compared the situation to the United States bombing Japan after Japan attacked first. Another described Jericho and Ai as dangerous military outposts. The issue: The Amalekites and Sihon, king of the Amorites, were involved in distinct conflicts with Israel. Their actions do not establish that every nation Israel conquered attacked Israel first. Calling a city a military obstacle does not establish that every person in it was a combatant or that killing its entire population was justified. Even if one nation attacks another, that does not automatically justify every possible response against everyone belonging to that nation. The question remains: where does the biblical text establish that every targeted population attacked Israel first? 5. WERE THE CANAANITES WRONG TO DEFEND THEIR HOMES? My argument: From the inhabitants' perspective, an armed population was arriving to take their land. Resisting that army would naturally look like self-defence. Their response: MaxInDHouse argued that the Canaanites knew how ancient warfare worked and should have surrendered to the stronger army. He cited the Gibeonites, who sought peace rather than risk destruction. The issue: The Gibeonites' decision shows that they wanted to survive. It does not prove that Israel was morally right to invade them. If foreigners arrived in Nigeria with a stronger army and demanded our homes, would their military superiority give them the moral right to kill us if we refused? If not, then military strength alone cannot settle the question. Explaining how the Canaanites could have avoided death is not the same as explaining why they deserved it. 6. IF GOD COMMANDED IT, DOES THAT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT RIGHT? My argument: If someone today claimed that God commanded them to seize your property and kill you if you resisted, we would demand evidence and examine the morality of their actions. Why should the same acts become morally acceptable simply because an ancient religious text attributes them to God? Their response: The respondents argued that God owns the world, that the Canaanites were wicked, and that Israel acted according to the standards of its time. Dtruthspeaker accused me of relying on emotion and invoked just-war reasoning. The issue: The question is not whether the Bible presents the conquest as divinely commanded. It does. The question is whether attributing an action to God automatically establishes that the action is morally good. If the answer is yes, any religious group could justify violence by claiming divine instructions. We would still need to determine whether the claimed command was genuine and whether the action was justified. Otherwise, the standard becomes: whatever my religion attributes to God is right, while whatever another religion attributes to its deity is wrong. That is not a consistent moral standard. It is loyalty to one's own religious narrative. 7. HOW DID THE GOD OF ISRAEL BECOME THE GOD EVERYONE MUST WORSHIP? My argument: The biblical narrative begins with Yahweh calling Abraham, establishing a covenant with his descendants, and promising them land. I asked how this particular covenantal relationship became a universal obligation for every human being. Their response: One respondent argued that people recognized Yahweh through Israel's history, including the Holocaust and Israel's return to Palestine. Others accused me of attacking the Bible or demanded evidence for my position. The issue: A religious community may interpret historical events as evidence of divine intervention. But people from different religions interpret events through their own beliefs too. The spread of a religion or the survival of a nation does not, by itself, establish that its supernatural claims are true. The question remains: what evidence establishes that Yahweh is the universal God, beyond the testimony of the tradition that teaches people to believe in him? 8. HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN SOMEONE SPEAKS FOR GOD? My argument: The Bible itself describes people making contradictory claims of divine authority. In 1 Kings 13, an older prophet lies about receiving a message from an angel, leading another prophet to disobey his original instruction. Jeremiah 27–28 also presents conflicting prophetic claims. Their response: MaxInDHouse asked whether the goal was to prove God does not exist or to learn how to identify genuine servants of God. The issue: Those are different questions. Even if God exists, it does not follow that everyone claiming to speak for him is telling the truth. Saying that we should identify genuine messengers is not an answer unless a reliable method of identification is provided. A person's religious title, confidence, or sincerity does not independently prove that their message came from God. SOME FINAL THINGS TO CONSIDER A pattern emerges from these responses. When I ask whether the land was already inhabited, I am told that ancient nations fought wars. When I ask whether a promise to Abraham obligated the Canaanites, I am told that God owns the world. When I question the morality of the conquest, I am told that the Canaanites were wicked or should have surrendered. But explaining how an event happened is not the same as establishing that it was right. If the strongest army has the right to take land, power becomes the standard of justice. If every action attributed to God is automatically good, then no independent moral standard remains by which to examine the claim. THE FINAL QUESTION IS SIMPLE: If foreigners came to Nigeria claiming that their god had promised them our land, and they killed our families when we refused to leave, would we accept their claim as sufficient justification? If not, why should the answer change because the story appears in the Bible? The objective is simple: examine what the text says, test the arguments, and apply the same standard of reasoning regardless of whose beliefs are being defended. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 5:59pm On Oct 18 |
Prettychild:.. . I thought Jesus descended into the underworld to fight Hades, like the Greek mythology and Hellenistic beliefs they stole that concept from. Now, that you say he went preaching...  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 5:57pm On Oct 18 |
StillDtruth:. . God planned everything from the beginning, yet Jesus pronounced woe on Judas for carrying out the very betrayal that facilitated that plan. If Judas refused, wouldn't God have found another way to fulfil his plan? So why condemn Judas? The Gospel of Judas, an ancient Coptic text preserved in the Codex Tchacos, which presents a radically different portrayal of Judas and his relationship with Jesus, challenges the simplistic picture that the canonical Gospels are the only perspective worth examining. God's plan required Jesus to be betrayed, yet we condemn the person through whom that plan was fulfilled. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 1:55pm On Oct 18 |
StillDtruth:. . You have said a bunch of things but a simple yes or no would have suffice. Jesus must be betrayed. If not Judas somebody else; true or false? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 1:03pm On Oct 18 |
StillDtruth:Suppose Judas had refused. Would God's plan have failed, or would someone else have taken his place and suffered the same condemnation? If the betrayal was necessary for God's plan, then whoever fulfilled that role would have been condemned for doing what the plan required. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 1:00pm On Oct 18 |
StillDtruth: Roycemadeit:Suppose Judas had refused. Would God's plan have failed, or would someone else have taken his place and suffered the same condemnation? If the betrayal was necessary for God's plan, then whoever fulfilled that role would have been condemned for doing what the plan required. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Adam, Eve, Serpent, God, Tree And Logic by Roycemadeit(op): 12:46pm On Oct 18*. Modified: 6:03pm On Oct 18 |
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE EXAMINATION OF THE SCRIPTURES! Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this auspicious occasion where we examine the responses to my very innocent, unbiased questions about the Bible. Our learned siblings have graciously offered their explanations. I invite you to read their responses and judge for yourselves how well they answered the questions. I would not want to arrogate to myself the position of judge. I merely quoted the book; they have come to explain what the book supposedly means. So let us examine their responses and see how much light they shed on the scriptures they defend. Some questions received analogies, some received theological interpretations, some received insults, and others were apparently too familiar to deserve answers. One respondent even declared that the questions had already been answered because he had once compared an image to a mannequin. Ladies and gentlemen, let the examination begin! 1. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE? My question: Genesis 1:26–27 says humans were made in God's image, while John 4:24 says God is spirit. Genesis 3:22 later says humans became like God in knowing good and evil. What did God's image mean before they acquired that knowledge? Their response: One respondent compared God's image to a mannequin or statue, arguing that an image does not have to be identical to the original. He then asked whether I had seen God's image and suggested that my question was irrational. The issue: I never said an image must be identical to its original. I asked what God's image actually means in these passages. A mannequin analogy may explain that a representation differs from its original, but it does not explain what aspect of God humans supposedly reflect. Is it physical, spiritual, intellectual, moral, or something else? 2. WHY WAS GOD WALKING IN THE GARDEN? My question: Genesis 3:8 says Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden. If God is spirit, what were they hearing? And if God is everywhere, why is his presence described in one particular place? Their response: One respondent compared the story to modern CCTV cameras and monitoring systems, asking whether people who understand surveillance technology could still ask such a question. He also called the questioners atheists. The issue: CCTV cameras do not explain what the biblical author meant by God walking in the garden. Surveillance explains how someone can observe a place without being physically present, but it does not establish that this is what the passage describes. The question concerns the language of the text itself. What exactly was walking, what produced the sound of footsteps, and why was God's presence described in that location? An insult do not answer those questions, my guy. 3. WHY DID GOD ASK ADAM WHERE HE WAS? My question: Genesis 3:9 says God called Adam and asked, "Where are you?" How does this fit with the claim that God knows everything? Their response: A respondent compared God to someone who suspects their partner of cheating but waits to see what happens, either to confirm the suspicion or to be surprised. The issue: That is an interpretation supplied by the respondent. Where does Genesis say God asked Adam where he was in order to test him, confirm something, or give him an opportunity to confess or was He pretentious? If God already knew Adam's location and what had happened, what was the purpose of the question? 4. DID ADAM UNDERSTAND DEATH BEFORE EATING THE FRUIT? My question: God warned Adam that he would die if he ate the forbidden fruit. Yet the story never says Adam had witnessed death before. How could he understand the full meaning of that punishment? Their response: The respondent turned the story into a Sabinus courtroom skit, arguing that Adam's attempt to blame the woman, and indirectly God, proved that he understood the offence and its consequences. He declared the matter res judicata, meaning it had already been decided and could not be reopened. The issue: Adam's attempt to shift blame establishes that he responded to the accusation. It does not establish that he had previously witnessed death or fully understood what dying meant. Genesis 3:22 says humans had acquired knowledge of good and evil. The question is whether Adam understood the full implications of the warning before eating the fruit. Being held responsible for disobedience and understanding the full meaning of a punishment are two different things. Calling the matter a closed court case does not resolve that distinction. 5. WHY WAS THE SERPENT ALLOWED INTO THE GARDEN? My question: Genesis 3:1 describes the serpent as the craftiest of the animals God made. Why was this deceiver allowed into the garden to mislead the humans? Their response: No direct answer to this question appears in the exchange examined. The issue: The question is not merely whether the serpent deceived the humans. The story already tells us that it did. The question is why the serpent was there in the first place and why it was permitted to deceive them. If God created the garden, the humans, and the serpent, why was the situation allowed to develop in this way, what was the motive? 6. WAS ETERNAL LIFE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE TREE OF LIFE? My question: Genesis 3:22–24 says God expelled Adam and Eve to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and living forever. Doesn't that suggest they were not already guaranteed eternal life? If they were supposed to live forever in their innocence, why was the tree of life there? Their response: No direct answer to this question appears in the responses examined here. The issue: The passage gives a specific reason for the expulsion: God did not want the humans to eat from the tree of life and live forever lest they become like us. That raises a straightforward question. If Adam and Eve were already destined to live forever, why did access to the tree matter? And if eating from the tree could enable them to live forever, what does that tell us about their original condition? 7. WHAT EXACTLY CHANGED WITH CHILDBIRTH? My question: Genesis 3:16 connects the woman's punishment with pain in childbirth. Modern medicine can reduce that pain without eliminating childbirth itself. What exactly changed after the curse? Did women's anatomy change, or was the punishment simply the pain associated with a process that already existed? Their response: No direct response to this question appears in the exchange examined here. The issue: The question concerns the relationship between the supposed curse and the biological process of childbirth. If childbirth existed as part of human reproduction, what changed after the event in Eden? Was there a change in anatomy, an increase in pain, or simply a declaration that childbirth would be painful? 8. HOW DOES THE CURSE OF LABOUR APPLY TO EVERYONE? My question: Genesis 3:17–19 connects the man's punishment with painful labour to obtain food. Yet some people inherit enormous wealth and never need to work to survive. How does this curse apply to them? Their response: No direct answer to this question appears in the exchange examined here. The issue: The passage connects the curse with the difficulty of obtaining food from the ground through labour. But human circumstances vary enormously. Some people struggle to survive through exhausting work, while others inherit wealth and live comfortably without having to work for their basic needs. If the curse concerns painful labour to obtain food, how should we understand its application to those whose wealth removes that necessity? 9. DO SNAKES EAT DUST? My question: Genesis 3:14 says the serpent will eat dust. Snakes eat other animals, not dust. Is the statement meant literally or symbolically? Their response: No direct answer to this question appears in the exchange examined here. The issue: If the statement is symbolic, what does the symbolism mean? If it is literal, how does it correspond to what snakes actually eat? The question is simple: what does the passage mean, and how should its language be understood? 10. CAN ALL HUMAN GENETIC DIVERSITY COME FROM JUST TWO PEOPLE? My question: If Adam and Eve were the only original humans, how does that account for the genetic diversity found in modern humanity, given what population genetics tells us? Their response: No direct answer to this question appears in the exchange examined here. The issue: This is a question about human origins and the relationship between the biblical account and scientific evidence. Modern human genetic diversity reflects a complex population history. The question is how a model in which humanity began with only two individuals accounts for that diversity. [size=4]SOME FURTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER[/size] There is another detail in the Eden story worth examining. Genesis 3:23–24 says that after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God expelled them from the garden and placed cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life. Consider the sequence. First, the serpent was able to enter the garden and deceive the humans. Then the humans disobeyed. Afterward, God placed guards to prevent them from accessing the tree of life. Here is the question: If God could place guards to protect access to the tree of life after the incident, why was the situation that led to the deception not prevented in the first place? To be precise, the passage says the guards were placed to protect the way to the tree of life. It does not explicitly say that they were meant to keep the serpent out. But the broader question remains: why was the deceiver allowed access to the humans in the first place? If God created the garden, created the humans, knew what the serpent would do, and knew the consequences of their actions, why was the outcome permitted to unfold before measures were taken to prevent the humans from living forever? The story presents a deceiver who succeeds, humans who fail, and punishment that follows. God then takes steps to prevent the humans from accessing eternal life. The moral question is this: If the outcome was foreseeable and preventable, why is any blame placed on the dumb humans? THE EXAMINATION IS NOT OVER SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE DECLARES THE CASE CLOSED. I have presented the questions and examined the responses available in the discussion. Some received analogies, some received assertions, and some received no direct answer in the exchange reviewed. Readers can judge whether the responses address the actual questions or merely explain them away. The objective is simple: examine what the text says, distinguish it from what people say it means, and ask whether the explanations stand up to scrutiny. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 12:43pm On Oct 18 |
Dtruthspeaker:So, if Judas repented, then Jesus coming would have been in vain? Read everything I had written don't pick a part to respond... You can't be doing your blindsidedness every time |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 12:20pm On Oct 18 |
vdestro:Your argument is that because the Bible never explicitly says God influenced Judas, he must have acted entirely on his own volition. But does the Bible always reveal the full extent of God's involvement in human actions? Judges 14:4 says God was seeking an occasion against the Philistines through Samson. The people could see Samson acting, yet the narrative reveals a divine purpose behind it. Why assume that what the text doesn't explicitly say about Judas proves God had no involvement? Absence of an explicit statement is not proof of absence, especially when the same Bible portrays God as directing human affairs to fulfil his purposes. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 12:11pm On Oct 18 |
LordIsaac:. . For aesthetics' sake, perhaps Jesus had to warn Judas so the story could portray him (Jesus) as the victim of betrayal. Jesus came specifically to die for humanity's sins, he pronounced woe on the person whose betrayal supposedly helped bring the redemption of mankind! Judas was necessary to God's plan, why is he blamed while God gets the glory? And if Jesus knew he would rise again in less than three days, the sacrifice was hardly equivalent to permanent death. I, Roycemadeit, would gladly endure three months of death if I knew I would return. More importantly, Satan was the real mastermind, not Judas, or should I rather say God was the real mastermind and Jesus too 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Christ Would Have Forgiven Judas Iscariot if He Had Repented! by Roycemadeit(m): 12:00pm On Oct 18 |
Judas Iscariot wasn't acting on his own volition. He was used to fulfil what God had already planned and was discarded after, left to burn for all eternity. Consider these examples: God hardened Pharaoh's heart, even when the narrative says Pharaoh wanted to let Israel go: Exodus 9:34–35; 10:1, 20, 27; 14:4, 8. God hardened the hearts of the Canaanite kings so they would fight Israel: Joshua 11:19–20. In the census story, God was angry with Israel and incited David to conduct the census: David was very apologetic for his actionsz unbeknownst to him that it was God who provoked him: 2 Samuel 24:10 God sent a lying spirit into the mouths of Ahab's prophets to lead him to his destruction: 1 Kings 22:19–23; 2 Chronicles 18:18–22. If God can harden people's hearts, influence their decisions, or send a lying spirit to deceive someone, how do we determine that Judas was acting freely or fulfilling a divine purpose? If his betrayal was necessary to fulfil God's plan for Jesus' death, could Judas simply have refused to participate and prevented that plan from happening? A prediction is not a command, but if an all-knowing God deliberately arranges the circumstances to ensure that a predicted event happens, the question of responsibility becomes much more complicated. The Bible itself gives different accounts of Judas's death: Matthew 27:3–10; Acts 1:16–20. There is also the Gospel of Judas, an ancient text that presents a radically different interpretation of Judas's role, although it is not part of the biblical canon. The usual claim that Judas was simply evil, while Peter was forgiven because he repented, overlooks the deeper question: if God orchestrated the events, was Judas really free to choose otherwise? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: What Happens When You Read The 6th And 7th Books Of Moses? by Roycemadeit(m): 11:47am On Oct 18 |
thrillionaire:. . Abeg, God never give me my own bible ooo. Where He dey share am, make I collect my own! 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: What Happens When You Read The 6th And 7th Books Of Moses? by Roycemadeit(m): 11:43am On Oct 18 |
I have read The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, and nothing has happened to me. The only things I didn't do were follow the instructions to draw symbols, light candles, and chant the names of supposed angels. One ritual even claims that a thief can be compelled to return stolen property or die. People assume Moses wrote the book because his name is on it. That's no different from assuming he wrote the first five books of the bible instead of the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly who wrote it. The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses are also later occult texts, not works written by the biblical Moses. 9 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Garden Of Eden: A Paradise Designed For Failure by Roycemadeit(op): 12:06pm On Oct 13 |
Dtruthspeaker:. .. ... Since you have dismissed my write-ups and accused me of lying, let us deal with the actual story in the Bible. Please explain these points or just keep quiet: 1. God's image: Genesis 1:26–27 says God made humans in his image. John 4:24 says God is spirit. What exactly is God's image? Is it physical or spiritual? 2. God's footsteps: Genesis 3:8 says Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden. If God is spirit, what were they hearing? And if God is everywhere, why is his presence described in one particular place? 3. God looking for Adam: Genesis 3:9 says God called out, “Where are you?” Did an all-knowing God not know where Adam was? 4. The forbidden fruit: Adam was warned that he would die if he ate it, yet he had never witnessed death. How could he understand the full meaning of that punishment? 5. The serpent: Genesis 3:1 calls the serpent the craftiest of the animals God made. Why was this deceiver allowed into the garden to mislead the humans? 6. Knowing good and evil: Genesis 3:22 says humans had now become like God in knowing good and evil. What did being made in God's image mean before they acquired that knowledge? 7. The tree of life: Genesis 3:22–24 says God expelled the humans to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and living forever. So was eternal life available to them through that tree? 8. Childbirth: Genesis 3:16 presents pain in childbirth as part of God's punishment of the woman. Yet childbirth pain results from biological processes, including uterine contractions and the baby's passage through the mother's pelvis. Modern medicine can reduce that pain without changing the basic process. What exactly changed after the supposed curse? Did women's anatomy change? 9. Human labour: Genesis 3:17–19 describes painful labour to obtain food. Yet some people inherit enormous wealth and never need to work for their survival. How does this curse apply to them? 10. The serpent eating dust: Genesis 3:14 says the serpent will eat dust. Snakes eat other animals, not dust. Is this meant literally or symbolically? 11. Human origins: If Adam and Eve were the only original humans, how does that account for the genetic diversity found in modern humanity, given what population genetics tells us? These are the issues in the biblical story that I discussed. You have called me a liar, but insults do not explain any of them. Please address the points themselves. Calling me a chameleon does not make the story accurate, and calling yourself a defender of truth does not exempt your arguments from examination. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Hermeneutics Of Possession (when “god Gave Us The Land”) by Roycemadeit(op): 8:33am On Oct 13 |
.. . Their response exposes the contradiction in their moral reasoning: they would condemn people for killing others and seizing their land today, yet justify the same actions in the Bible because God allegedly commanded them. They treat an act as evil when humans commit it, but acceptable when scripture attributes it to God, even though the people who were killed never agreed to give up their land. Those people were already living there, even Abraham lived and purchased a burial-site property from them. They had families, children, homes, and communities. They did not choose to be born in Jericho, just as the Israelites did not choose to be born in Israel. Yet the Bible describes them being killed because they stood in the way of Israel taking the land. Now, imagine that foreigners came to Nigeria tomorrow and said, “Our God, Zeus, promised us your land. Pack your things and leave.” If they killed your family because you refused to leave, would you accept it because they claimed their god commanded them? If your answer is no, why should the answer change because the story is in the Bible? Some Christians say those nations acquired their land through war. But the fact that people fought wars in those days does not mean conquest was right. Explaining how people took land is not the same as proving they had the moral right to take it especially when they assume that it's the same creator who created everyone. Some people condemn violence when others commit it, but defend it when the Bible says God commanded it. They even justify the killing of children by saying no child is innocent because they would grow to become evil. Nobody chose to be born in Israel, Jericho, or Oyo. Why should people suffer because of a promise allegedly made between their neighbours' deity and their ancestors? European colonisers used Christian beliefs to justify taking Indigenous peoples' lands in the Americas, causing mass death and displacement. If Europeans could use the Bible to justify taking other people's property, what makes it impossible that the biblical Israelites also used divine promises to justify conquest? Even the Bible says the Israelites could not drive out certain inhabitants because they had iron chariots. If an individual committed the same acts, would you defend them? If not, why does calling the person God suddenly make those acts right? Religion should not make us abandon our sense of right and wrong. If your belief tells you, "thou shall not kill" and still makes you defend "murder" or something you would condemn any other person for doing, then it is time to question that belief. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Hermeneutics Of Possession (when “god Gave Us The Land”) by Roycemadeit(op): 4:32pm On Oct 12 |
MaxInDHouse:Even if these nations got their land through war, how does that prove Israel was right to take theirs? Explaining how people took land is not the same as proving it was right. Your Gibeonite example proves nothing. They chose peace because they feared being destroyed, even God was angry with Israel for not wiping them off  . Does surrendering out of fear mean the people attacking them were right?Earlier, Genesis 12:6 says the Canaanites were already living in the land when Abraham arrived. In Genesis 23, Abraham even bought a burial plot from Ephron the Hittite. So na empty land ba? My question is simple: if Europeans tell you that Zeus has promised them your house, does that give them the right to take it from you? If your answer is no, explain why the same principle changes when the Bible says Yahweh promised Canaan to Abraham's descendants. Please answer that question instead of explaining how ancient wars were fought. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Garden Of Eden: A Paradise Designed For Failure by Roycemadeit(op): 4:18pm On Oct 12 |
Dtruthspeaker:. Nobody said an image must be exactly like the thing it represents. The question is simple: what does it mean that God made humans in his image? Is it our skin colour, hair, height, or physical body? John 4:24 says God is spirit, so what does God's image look like? Genesis 3:22 adds another problem. God says humans have now become like him in knowing good and evil. But weren't they already made in his image? What exactly changed? And that is only one part of my post. I also discussed childbirth pain, painful labour, snakes eating dust, God walking through the garden and calling out for Adam, and the claim that all humans came from just two people, which conflicts with modern genetics. You chose one point, turned it into a joke about mannequins, and ignored the rest. Laughing at my argument does not answer it. If you disagree, address the points I actually made instead of mocking an argument I never presented. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Hermeneutics Of Possession (when “god Gave Us The Land”) by Roycemadeit(op): 4:07pm On Oct 12 |
Dtruthspeaker: My reluctance to engage is simple: we approach the Bible from fundamentally different perspectives. I'm examining its history, contradictions, and moral implications, while you seem more concerned with defending its authority, even when its narratives raise serious ethical questions. A meaningful discussion requires us to examine the text critically rather than assume that whatever it attributes to the Hebrew deity must be justified. Until we are willing to question our assumptions and apply the same moral standards consistently, I don't see much value in doing that. |
