Adam and or Eve had all the viruses.

[Avajs]

Lets be practical enough of all this Bible stuff---I want to know how to make the red stone. 1000's of years of alchemy and chemistry and you cannot tell us how to make that stone? Just go away.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

God stands in the congregation of the mighty;He judges among the gods.

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82:1 - New King James Version

A Plea for Justice - A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods.

www.biblegateway.com

There is a footnote in the NKJV (one of the reasons I like it) for "gods" here. (Footnote b)

It reads:

Judges; Heb. elohim, lit. mighty ones or gods

It's not referring to actual gods, but of mighty men, judges.

You're in denial here and even your cited footnote states that Elohim means "gods" little "g"
Strong's Concorance likewise defines Elohim as gods:

Original Word: אֱלהִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: elohim
Phonetic Spelling: (el-o-heem')
Definition: God, god

Note the dual element in that definition. Elohim refers BOTH to ANY "god" with little "g" and also to the "God" with capital "G" who would like to be seen as top dog among all the other gods.

This is where religious dogma being uncomfortable with plainly written text, seeks to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative it wants/needs to peddle to the masses. It's purile to just dismiss all the numerous Bible references to the existence of multiple gods and to suggest that somehow that just means mighty men. It doesn't fly, not for one second.

Except it's not.
If it were so, then you have no means by which to judge God, because you think He is unjust, but I think He is just.
Who’s right? You or me?

Every individual has different concepts of what is right or wrong or just depending on their life experiences and circumstances. What's wrong with that? That's how the world is. It's through our interactions that we learn together and come to appreciate who we all are as individuals and start to understand each other and that in turn evolves everyones notions of right, wrong or just.

How can you know?
There must be an objective standard somewhere.

No there's mustn't because justice is a subjective concept. If there's a standard then it's an authoritarian imposition on others, one person's subjective view of justice forced upon all. That's not right.

My answer depends on your answer to my question.

Pathetic. You lack the moral fibre to call out a very simple example of an unacceptable attrocity that occurs daily and you do so because it challenges to the core the intellectual dogma that you have built your life around. Wrong is wrong and if there exists an entity powerful enough to prevent such an attrocity then inaction is equally wicked and wrong. It IS that simple. There is no confusion, no middle ground. This is the area that I mentioned where people who worship despots like Hitler are "all in" mentally and thus make any and all excuse for appalling behaviour.

Except it's not just a simple yes or no question.

Yes, it is, it really is.

Again: Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?

I don't remotely see the relevance of this question in the context of what I have put to you. What you are alluding to with this question and your subsequent comments regarding it, is that in your immoral mentally "all in" world, it's ok for an innocent kid to be sexually abused provided that LATER ON the guy gets suitable punishment. That's appalling. The innocent child still gets molested and will be psychologically damaged for life.
Not acceptable. There is no grey area here. There are simply people with instinctive moral compasses and compassion who know this is a black and white situation, and then there are people who are so tied to their comfort blanket religious dogma that they compartmentalise such attrocities, pretend they don't really happen and/or that somehow, kids being sexually abused is all part of some super grand master plan of their facile God concept.

The truth is that YOU KNOW in your heart that this is wrong, you KNOW that it doesn't wash with the concept of an all-powerful God or a loving God but your belief system requires you to ignore that inconsistency or make apologies for it. That is self-denial and is I'm afraid incredibly harmful to your own soul and to wider humanity itself. Humanity will never evolve while people cling to this utterly ridiculous religious theological nonsense. Only when we can honestly and sincerely admit that the truth lies elsewhere and we have to find our own way can humanity move forward.

God does not intervene because doing so would cause more harm than good.

Bunkum

Obviously, the parent should intervene. That would be the loving thing to do.

That's it. Nothing more needs to be said. It doesn't need qualifying with caveats and conditions. Intervention, prevention is absolutely paramount. Since it happens, and no intervention occurs we can rationally conclude that the concept of an all-powerful or loving god is pure fiction. That being the case it's entirely reasonable for humaity to individually apraise any other sub-powerful, sub-loving entity that throws his/her/its hat into the ring.

And a society where such is common is the result of inaction on the part of the government, whom God has given the authority and responsibility to deal with such things, to serve as a deterrent against such crimes. To the extent that such crimes occur, to that extent the government has failed.

Where there exists any chain of command the "man" at the top MUST always accept responsibility for failure of any part of that chain. That's the basic premise of all such systems. This has to apply to your concept of God. If he creates a sub-standard product that doesn't function or behave in the right way , then I'm afraid HE not the product, is responsible. Again those religiously indoctrinated will continue to make endless excuses for their concept of God in this respect.

So again, I ask you, should men not face the consequences of their actions?

Yes men should face the consequences of their actions but this IN NO WAY makes the sexual abuse of innocent children acceptable if there exists the power to prevent it happening at all. Christianity claims it's god is powerful enough, yet it is evident that he either isn't or else is entirely indifferent to children being sexually abused (together with all manner of other unacceptable attrocities).

It's no surprise whatsoever that you refuse to answer the simple question on this topic. Every so-called Christian when confronted with what is a simple moral decision, fails to answer honestly because it drives a stake through their comfortable belief system. It shatters the illusion and that's something most Christians are not ready for. They need the delusion, just as a child needs the delusion of Santa Claus. Meanwhile the rest of society continues to be influenced and shaped by this religious nonsense. That too is unacceptable and needs to stop.

Do you think that the One who gave them that responsibility should be held accountable when those parents forsake that responsibility? Or how about when the government fails in its responsibility to punish criminals appropriately, so as to deter them from such crimes, should then the One who gave the government the responsibility to do so be held accountable for their failure?

See now you're making excuse upon excuse. You may as well worship Hitler. Human parents are NOT all-powerful, not all-loving in the way that Christianity peddles it's god to be. So NO you can't hold parents responsible if their kids get sexually abused by wicked old men. The parents are not all-powerful, can't be everywhere at once at any time. But allegedly the Christian God can. Yet he sits there doing nothing, indifferent.
The upshot is that the notion of the Christian god is patently false. And as Open Theists I guess you'll come back and say "yes" that's mostly right. You don't believe God is all-powerful or all-knowing so you're just choosing to worship one of many sub-standard gods/entities out there which is your right but such is not for me. I WILL hold ANY ENTITY or ruler to a level of morality and action. I most certianly will not be worshipping any entity that is immoral or impotent.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

I want to know how to make the red stone. 1000's of years of alchemy and chemistry and you cannot tell us how to make that stone?

If you want to know how to swim, go find a swimming teacher and learn to swim

If you want to know how to speak Spanish, go find a Spanish teacher and study Spanish

Why do you think such basic concepts would be any different for learning the science of Alchemy?

Get out there, start reading the 100s of alchemy texts and learn. Best get to it as well because as Jesus starkly warned, if you don't eat/drink the White/Red stones, you have no life in you. The clock is ticking . . . .

 

[Avajs]

If you want to know how to swim, go find a swimming teacher and learn to swim

If you want to know how to speak Spanish, go find a Spanish teacher and study Spanish

Why do you think such basic concepts would be any different for learning the science of Alchemy?

Get out there, start reading the 100s of alchemy texts and learn. Best get to it as well because as Jesus starkly warned, if you don't eat/drink the White/Red stones, you have no life in you. The clock is ticking . . . .

Ahh, you just want to keep the secret for yourself.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're in denial here and even your cited footnote states that Elohim means "gods" little "g"
Strong's Concorance likewise defines Elohim as gods:

Original Word: אֱלהִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: elohim
Phonetic Spelling: (el-o-heem')
Definition: God, god

Note the dual element in that definition. Elohim refers BOTH to ANY "god" with little "g" and also to the "God" with capital "G" who would like to be seen as top dog among all the other gods.

Yes, I cited the footnote. Did you not catch that bit?

Please pay more attention.

Regarding Psalm 82, as a whole, later in the verse, the same word is used again.

Note what it says about these "gods":

God stands in the congregation of the mighty;He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly,And show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless;Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy;Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand;They walk about in darkness;All the foundations of the earth are unstable. I said, “You are gods,And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men,And fall like one of the princes.” Arise, O God, judge the earth;For You shall inherit all nations.

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82 - New King James Version

A Plea for Justice - A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; Free them...

www.biblegateway.com

And to further iterate my point:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father in Me, and I in Him.”

Bible Gateway passage: John 10:34-38 - New King James Version

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of...

www.biblegateway.com

To whom was "You are gods" referring to?

Jesus, who is God, is calling someone else "gods," and says "I am the only true God."

So either Jesus was contradicting Himself, or these "gods" are not actual "gods," but men.

Which is perfectly consistent with what I said above...

This is where religious dogma being uncomfortable with plainly written text, seeks to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative it wants/needs to peddle to the masses.

This is where religious dogma being uncomfortable with plainly written text, seeks to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative you want/need in order to reject what the Bible says.

What I said above stands.

It's purile to just dismiss all the numerous Bible references to the existence of multiple gods and to suggest that somehow that just means mighty men. It doesn't fly, not for one second.

It's puerile to just dismiss all the numerous Bible references to where God says "I am the only true God" and "besides Me there is no other" and to suggest that God was lying. It doesn't fly, not for one second.

Instead of doing that, perhaps, just maybe, you could try to have an open mind, and consider what the Bible says about these "gods," instead of trying to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative you want/need in order to reject what the Bible says.

Read, please:

If the God of the Bible Is the Only One Who Exists, Then Why Does Scripture Speak of Other Gods?

Apart from the God of the Bible, could other gods possibly exist? Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of other gods? No Other gods Exist

www.blueletterbible.org

Every individual has different concepts of what is right or wrong or just depending on their life experiences and circumstances.

You think God is unjust, but reject an objective standard by which to judge Him.

Do you not see the problem with that?

What's wrong with that? That's how the world is. It's through our interactions that we learn together and come to appreciate who we all are as individuals and start to understand each other and that in turn evolves everyones notions of right, wrong or just.

God exists, therefore an objective standard of right and wrong exists.

No there's mustn't because justice is a subjective concept.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If there's a standard then it's an authoritarian imposition on others, one person's subjective view of justice forced upon all. That's not right.

The problem with this assertion is that it doesn't take into consideration the nature of God. This is where Euthyphro's Dilemma comes into play.

If God were a unitarian God (ie, if He was only one Person), then your argument would be valid, because there would be no way for Him to know if He was good.

However, the God of the Bible, the one true God, is not unitarian. He is triune. He is one God in three Persons.

The Father testifies of the Son that the Son has never wronged Him. The Son testifies of the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit has never wronged Him. And the Holy Spirit testifies the same of the Father.

Thus, God knows that He is good, through the trifold witness of the Trinity. His standard is not subjective, but objective for that reason.

See this thread for a full explanation:

Euthyphro's Dilemma (On God, right and wrong)

rayruiz wrote on 12-27-2003 12:18 AM: Hi Pastor Enyart, I am a member of the CWS Christian chat room and hope I can get you to help us on a subject that came up...? Thanks and that was a great battle royale!! Dear rayruiz, Thanks for asking your question about what many call Euthyphro's...

theologyonline.com

Pathetic.

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

You lack the moral fibre to call out a very simple example of an unacceptable attrocity that occurs daily

False.

and you do so because it challenges to the core the intellectual dogma that you have built your life around.

False.

Wrong is wrong

Objectively?

Or just according to your subjective opinion?

and if there exists an entity powerful enough to prevent such an attrocity then inaction is equally wicked and wrong.

Because you say so?

It IS that simple.

Because you say so?

There is no confusion, no middle ground.

Because you say so?

This is the area that I mentioned where people who worship despots like Hitler are "all in" mentally and thus make any and all excuse for appalling behaviour.

Supra.

Yes, it is, it really is.

No, it really isn't.

Plugging your ears and demanding that it is because you don't like what it means if it isn't, is irrational and intellectually dishonest.

Don't be irrational or intellectually dishonest.

I don't remotely see the relevance of this question in the context of what I have put to you.

Thankfully, all you have to do, in order to move this conversation forwards, is to simply answer the question.

Your stonewalling against it is telling.

Please answer the question:

Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?

What you are alluding to with this question and your subsequent comments regarding it, is that in your immoral mentally "all in" world, it's ok for an innocent kid to be sexually abused provided that LATER ON the guy gets suitable punishment.

Who said that?

I certainly didn't.

That's appalling.

Indeed, that would be appalling, if that is in fact what I said.

Thankfully, that's not what I said.

The innocent child still gets molested and will be psychologically damaged for life. Not acceptable. There is no grey area here. There are simply people with instinctive moral compasses and compassion who know this is a black and white situation, and then there are people who are so tied to their comfort blanket religious dogma that they compartmentalise such attrocities, pretend they don't really happen and/or that somehow, kids being sexually abused is all part of some super grand master plan of their facile God concept.

Yawn.

The truth is that YOU KNOW in your heart that this is wrong,

What is?

you KNOW that it doesn't wash with the concept of an all-powerful God or a loving God

God is indeed loving.

But God is not "all-powerful."

So you're arguing against a straw man.

Try arguing against my/our actual position.

but your belief system requires you to ignore that inconsistency or make apologies for it.

Or, maybe, just maybe, you're not arguing against my position, but a straw man.

That is self-denial and is I'm afraid incredibly harmful to your own soul

So you believe in a soul?

Or is this a matter of stolen concept fallacy?

and to wider humanity itself.

Or maybe what I said is right, and what you're ranting about is what's harmful...

Humanity will never evolve while people cling to this utterly ridiculous religious theological nonsense.

Appeal to the stone. And nonsense in and of itself.

Only when we can honestly and sincerely admit that the truth lies elsewhere and we have to find our own way can humanity move forward.

Hilarious.

Bunkum

Saying it doesn't make it so.

That's it. Nothing more needs to be said. It doesn't need qualifying with caveats and conditions. Intervention, prevention is absolutely paramount. Since it happens, and no intervention occurs we can rationally conclude that the concept of an all-powerful or loving god is pure fiction.

I'm not seeing the connection between parental intervention/prevention, which parents should do, and preventing crimes from happening on God's part.

Could you perhaps explain the connection for me? What's your reasoning for conflating these two things?

That being the case it's entirely reasonable for humaity to individually apraise any other sub-powerful, sub-loving entity that throws his/her/its hat into the ring.

Whatever that's supposed to mean...

Where there exists any chain of command the "man" at the top MUST always accept responsibility for failure of any part of that chain.

Why?

That's the basic premise of all such systems.

News to me.

This has to apply to your concept of God.

Because you say so?

If he creates a sub-standard product that doesn't function or behave in the right way, then I'm afraid HE not the product, is responsible.

I see you never bothered to watch that CSLewisDoodles video I posted.

Would you mind doing that now?

Here's the link again:

Again those religiously indoctrinated will continue to make endless excuses for their concept of God in this respect.

No one here is making any excuses, but you.

Yes men should face the consequences of their actions

If the consequences of a person's actions is that someone is harmed as a result, and God intervenes so that the person is not harmed, would that not be preventing men from facing the consequences of their actions?

but this IN NO WAY makes the sexual abuse of innocent children acceptable

Of course it's not acceptable. That's different than whether something should be allowed to happen, though.

You seem to be conflating those two things.

if there exists the power to prevent it happening at all.

Supra.

Christianity claims it's god is powerful enough, yet it is evident that he either isn't or else is entirely indifferent to children being sexually abused (together with all manner of other unacceptable attrocities).

False dichotomy.

The third option is that He is powerful enough, but recognizes that intervening every time a child is about to be harmed would only strengthen the desire for the abuser to commit such an atrocity.

Which is far worse.

It's no surprise whatsoever that you refuse to answer the simple question on this topic. Every so-called Christian when confronted with what is a simple moral decision, fails to answer honestly because it drives a stake through their comfortable belief system. It shatters the illusion and that's something most Christians are not ready for. They need the delusion, just as a child needs the delusion of Santa Claus. Meanwhile the rest of society continues to be influenced and shaped by this religious nonsense. That too is unacceptable and needs to stop.

What was the question again? I must have missed it.

See now you're making excuse upon excuse. You may as well worship Hitler. Human parents are NOT all-powerful, not all-loving in the way that Christianity peddles it's god to be.

Straw man.

Not my position.

So NO you can't hold parents responsible if their kids get sexually abused by wicked old men.

You can if they are negligent, or if they allow it to happen.

The parents are not all-powerful, can't be everywhere at once at any time.

Who said they were?

I didn't.

But allegedly the Christian God can.

You're arguing against a straw man.

Yet he sits there doing nothing, indifferent.

He did do something.

He implemented human government to punish and deter criminals from committing such crimes.

To the extent that the government is not a deterrent, to that extent the government is at fault.

But God is not at fault for what the creatures which He made to be free agents do or do not do.

Nor is He at fault for not intervening when the do or do not do something.

The upshot is that the notion of the Christian god is patently false.

False.

And as Open Theists I guess you'll come back and say "yes" that's mostly right.

Wrong.

You don't believe God is all-powerful or all-knowing

Correct.

We believe God has the attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible, not the ones ascribed to Him by pagan Greek philosophers.

so you're just choosing to worship one of many sub-standard gods/entities out there which is your right but such is not for me.

Huh?

I WILL hold ANY ENTITY or ruler to a level of morality and action.

That's nice.

Now, if you could address our position, rather than some straw man you've come up with...

I most certianly will not be worshipping any entity that is immoral or impotent.

God is neither.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Read, please:

If the God of the Bible Is the Only One Who Exists, Then Why Does Scripture Speak of Other Gods?

Apart from the God of the Bible, could other gods possibly exist? Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of other gods? No Other gods Exist

www.blueletterbible.org

How ironic ! You use a citation to try and uphold your belief which itself totally contradicts your belief ! It says:

"Also there is no room in the universe for another God to exist. Scripture says that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present. He is without limits. It would be absurd to believe that two unlimited beings could occupy the same space. If another God did exist, then God would be limited. However the Bible says God has no limitations."

And yet you and your cohorts here argue endlessly that god isn't all-powerful or all-knowing. You seem to want it all ways.

The Bible most certainly refers to the presence of numerous gods. This article explains it well:

The Bible’s Many Gods | Gerald McDermott

The idea that there are other “gods” who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. . . . Continue Reading »

www.firstthings.com

The world has for countless years suffered the jostling for position of all these powerful beings, fights, wars, conflicts and the "little people" have suffered the outfall of every one of them. The gods don't care about humans, we are cannon fodder to them. Every one of them believes they have the right to subjugate humanity and use us for their own ends. We are trapped in a planetary prison of their making, a slave work force. None of them are worthy to be worshipped.

Jesus was a man, a remarkable man and an alchemist and one who used that secret and important knowledge wisely and for the good of others. Yet even then, he kept this great thing, the Stone, for himself and his disciples instead of freely giving it to all mankind. After all, if we had it then we too would become like god and of course he doesn't want that as he stated clearly in Genesis.

"And 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."

How nice!!!! We mustn't be allowed to live forever and enjoy that natural priviledge just as the gods do. This isn't love. This is despotism.

I'm not seeing the connection between parental intervention/prevention, which parents should do, and preventing crimes from happening on God's part.
Could you perhaps explain the connection for me? What's your reasoning for conflating these two things?

No I imagine you don't. The connection is love. Love demands that action is taken. And the ability/power demands that action is taken.
A loving parent would take immediate action to prevent a child from being sexually abused. If they had the ability/power to do so.
A loving god by the same token would take immediate action likewise if it had the ability/power.

I'm very confortable if your defense is that the Christian god is impotent. But on that basis I see no reason to take any notice of an impotent being much less an un-loving one.

I see you never bothered to watch that CSLewisDoodles video I posted.

The so-called "free will" argument is about as lame as they come and has always been cited by cowardly Christians to explain away all the appalling attrocities of the world which their god sits idly by watching and allowing. There is no free will. You don't have free will and neither do I.
The true definition of free will is that you can "will" something and that thing happens, materialises, manifests. Humans are not permitted to do this, yet the gods enjoy this natural ability. Of course the Stone would give a human that ability which is doubtless why the gods seek to keep it from humanity. We are prisoners held captive on a prison planet. Had you free will you could, with a moments thought, will yourself onto a different planet in the universe, create your own planet, do anything you desired. Please don't try appealing to the cowardly free-will nonsense, it's an absurdity.

If the consequences of a person's actions is that someone is harmed as a result, and God intervenes so that the person is not harmed, would that not be preventing men from facing the consequences of their actions?

For God to intervene he would first have to know that the crime is about to be committed. According to your Open Theist position god is an impotent un-knowing sub-standard entity so discussion about how he/she/it might prevent an attrocity from occurring is pointless surely. If we instead debate the defacto Christian position of an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, omni-present entity then we CAN discuss it but we inevitably arrive at the same conclusion which is that this god cannot possibly be BOTH all-powerful and all-loving for love demands that action is taken (just as with the parents) and action can only be taken if there is power and ability to take it.

Of course it's not acceptable. That's different than whether something should be allowed to happen, though.

So you iterate your thoroughly awful immoral position. You suggest that sexual abuse of children SHOULD be allowed to happen. How disgusting.

The third option is that He is powerful enough, but recognizes that intervening every time a child is about to be harmed would only strengthen the desire for the abuser to commit such an atrocity.

This makes no sense at all. If a powerful god intervened then it would strike abject fear in the perpetrator who would know that he can't get away with his actions. Even if he tried to do it again, he would meet the same obstruction by god. He would soon realise that he simply can not do what he wants to do.

He implemented human government to punish and deter criminals from committing such crimes.
To the extent that the government is not a deterrent, to that extent the government is at fault.

But God is not at fault for what the creatures which He made to be free agents do or do not do

False. Any god IS TOTALLY responsible and accountable for those in his chain of command. If he doesn't manage his chain of command adequately then he is at fault. Regardless, punishment of perpetrators and deterence is a world away from actual prevention which is what is needed in regards to some forms of attrocity. Your god doesn't prevent such attrocity. He sits by and watches those things happen. What happens to the perpetrator is immaterial. It's what happens to the victim that is the problem. Innocent children should be protected by those with the power to do so. Your god very clearly doesn't have such power, nor it seems the love to induce any action.

We believe God has the attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible, not the ones ascribed to Him by pagan Greek philosophers.

You believe he isn't all-powerful or all-knowing. That being the case he's just one of many gods and all therefore have a case, all should be assessed in their own right.