Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Bling

Why did God create us if he knew we would sin

263 posts in this topic

Why would God create humans knowing that a vast number of them would suffer in this life? Does eternity really make up for a life of war, fear, hunger, or _______ (insert issue here). The typical response to this question is, “People could have lived in perfection as God created it, but they chose sin.” But that doesn’t answer the question. God would have known that people would sin. So why start the whole mess at all, even with the promise of a messiah?

hello all,

I'm new here but I liked so much here :)

for this quote and this topic:

Our life is the vehicle, not the goal.

By way of our lives that we live, we have to climb ladders of divinity. In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us..." also, the meaning of the name Mikael means who resembles God. Obviously we are seeds of God and by improving we have to be like God (Upper forces/Elohim/Allah/God/Galactic Federation whatever you say for the Creator, it's unimportant, it's important that what or who you want to say), it's God's goal that people can be like God (as inner meaning, not physical because god has no/god need no any physical situation, physical existence, physical dasein..and so on, only we are in need of physical existence, extra when we reach divinity, we won't need any physical existence, bodies, sex, eating.. and so on, at end of this world material existence will finish, spiritual life will start). All in all (excluding holy unity*) there is no any dominant badness or any dominant goodness, all the things serve one goal: "through this life, people are raised upper reality." (In addition to this, Jesus said that you are children of God/they are the sons of God, and in Quran God said: "When your Lord said to the angels: ‘I am placing a caliph on earth" (here "caliph" means successor of God's Kingdom) )

and lastly maybe among us there are people who think existence of hell and heaven, for them:

actually all religious expressions express godlikeness of humanity but especially Prophet Abraham's religions(Judaism,Christianity and Islam) promise existence of hell and heaven, because this situation is necessary to bring under control societies (that is to say that religions have to keep societal order). In fact in world two things seal humans' fate: genetic structure that people were born and environment that people were born. People have no any choice on these two things, due to people have to experience freechoice illusion, in the world they live as if they have own free choice, otherwise they can not keep living by knowing future.

(*holy unity means all people discover existence of god in their inwardness, so they come together with divinity happiness, in other saying "Now my people will know my name. When that day comes, [they will know] that I am the one who says, "Here I am!")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or so the story goes :sleepy:

I'm always amazed how everyone misreads this verse

Genesis 2:17:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Metaphorically speaking, the Serpent (Lucifer), represents the divine force of creation that is able to carry out God's idea of creation. The Serpent sinks down to man's level and awakens the power of creation and the sexual energy in man (Kundalini). Thus, man can reach the knowledge which was previously only accessible to God.

In this Promethean light, we see a dishonest and manipulative god hoping to keep mankind in the dark about immortality and from becoming a god as well, and the Serpent bringing the fire to man against this god's wishes.

The Serpent showed Adam & Eve there are two paths they can follow:

Thy Will Be Done (RHP) or My Will Be Done (LHP)

Only problem is; first god did not lie. In the day they ate the fruit adam and eve lost their immortality and died.Iit took a long time but die they did if they hadnt eaten the fruit they would(in the context of the story b alive today The lack of effective punctuation as well as contextual ambiguities does make such interpretaions problematic but basically god told the truth The serpent lied. He told adam and eve they would NOT surely die, but they did.

Second we only have to compare the state of eden (Particulalry as described again in revelations) with the state of earth and humanity today, to see which was the right choice and best path. Humanity would eventually have gained wisdom as it matured and learned The tree of knowege existed in the garden for that purpose (otherwise what logical reason did it have to be there) The serpent was like a dealer offering drugs or alcohol to a child.

As god pointed out children, especially under the influence of drugs, or powerful knolwedge (the effcts of which they neither understand nor appreciate,) dont make good gods. However in the story, gods eventual purpose for his creations was for them to become as he is. If you think of him as a god then that is our eventual destination. To live forever as pain free creatures in total control of an environment, but with the knowledge and wisdom to live in harmony with it.

Sex is irrelevent. MAn was always a sexual being, from our creation, in the bible story, and was told to go forth and multiply. The origins of sex as a part of sin lies in the evolved catholic churches fear of women and a desire to keep control of property from them, not in the bible.

As i ve pointed out before, genesis is most likely am allegorical teaching tale about the transition from a spiritual based pre agrarian society where connection to gods was the most important element of survival, to a material based agrarian one, where human knowledge and technology became more important. It has all the hall marks of such a tale.

But the warnings about losing our spiritual connections came true, and still apply with tragic consequences in an increasingly materialistic world today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only problem is; first god did not lie. In the day they ate the fruit adam and eve lost their immortality and died.Iit took a long time but die they did if they hadnt eaten the fruit they would(in the context of the story b alive today The lack of effective punctuation as well as contextual ambiguities does make such interpretaions problematic but basically god told the truth The serpent lied. He told adam and eve they would NOT surely die, but they did.

Second we only have to compare the state of eden (Particulalry as described again in revelations) with the state of earth and humanity today, to see which was the right choice and best path. Humanity would eventually have gained wisdom as it matured and learned The tree of knowege existed in the garden for that purpose (otherwise what logical reason did it have to be there) The serpent was like a dealer offering drugs or alcohol to a child.

As god pointed out children, especially under the influence of drugs, or powerful knolwedge (the effcts of which they neither understand nor appreciate,) dont make good gods. However in the story, gods eventual purpose for his creations was for them to become as he is. If you think of him as a god then that is our eventual destination. To live forever as pain free creatures in total control of an environment, but with the knowledge and wisdom to live in harmony with it.

Sex is irrelevent. MAn was always a sexual being, from our creation, in the bible story, and was told to go forth and multiply. The origins of sex as a part of sin lies in the evolved catholic churches fear of women and a desire to keep control of property from them, not in the bible.

As i ve pointed out before, genesis is most likely am allegorical teaching tale about the transition from a spiritual based pre agrarian society where connection to gods was the most important element of survival, to a material based agrarian one, where human knowledge and technology became more important. It has all the hall marks of such a tale.

But the warnings about losing our spiritual connections came true, and still apply with tragic consequences in an increasingly materialistic world today

"As the tradition of a Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetype. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic."

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'. The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

....................... from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER

First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited

Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4

Printed in Great Britain

by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem here is that people often do not encounter what they think they encountered; rather, their minds try to form an explanation for a series of unexplained, mysterious events... and they believe what they want to believe.

But the question that needs to be asked is evidence of what? Yes, they may have had an experience with objective evidences, but that does not indicate that they had an experience with what they believe that they had an experience with.

It's called critical thinking, and trying to find logical reasoning behind seemingly illogical and fantastical experiences.

I have never claimed to know any more or any less than anybody. Rather, I have claimed that we can not know exactly what we have experienced based solely on the experience, rather we believe that we have experienced what we have experienced based on what our mind sees as appropriate in fitting the experience. That does not, however, indicate that what our minds decided that we have experienced is what we have actually experienced.

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.

Then he should have no problem in providing you with the same evidence for others, as well.

You would assume that they were real, however... your assumption can be very incorrect.

I agree tha tthe capacity and nature of the human mind can lead it to false conclusions. it sees patterns and tries to impose rational explanations as part of its operations. But such false percetion is extremely rare in the totality of human experince.We are evolved within a natural environment and are exceptionally good intepreters of that environment; via physical abilities (sight sound etc) and learned understandings. hence we do not attempt to walk through a wall more than once.

How do we know the wall is there and wh y do we avoid it?

My point is that if I see an "angel" withe same quailities as a wall, then the most likely and logical possibility is that the "angel" is as real as the wal.l it is foolish to rather say, "Well that can't be real because angels ont exist."

And no we dont need sceintific validation to know wah tis real and has objective existence Weve been doing so for millenia long before science as a discipline existed. Science has a purpose and a methodology which works but cannot always be taken into the field.

Your point about wha tis valid But it is we who name, catalogue etc our objective existence. If i call something an angel then, like calling something a wall it must fit established descriptions and paramenters of that object.

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.

As ive said before, this statement is unworkable and untrue ALL human experince exists without beingreproduced tested and observed even if it sometimes is validated in this way Your argument means that a person iving on an island alone can never validate or be certain that ANYTHING the experience is real. And of course it is; unobserved untested or unreproduced, regardless.

ALL experiences must be personally validated, using the same methodologies and proofs. Ie to be sure a wall exists try walking through it. Beyond that nothing more is required for an individual to know an objective truth. That truth then exists whether others have witnessed it or believe it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As the tradition of a Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetype. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic."

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'. The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

....................... from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER

First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited

Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4

Printed in Great Britain

by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London

LOL I dont believe in the bible creation myth, and you offer this as a credible alternative? The biblical mythos did not originate any where near as early as these events, which were tens of thousands of years previous. They may have originated in the change from a hunter gatherer society to a agrarian one in sumer etc and similar mythos can be found in those societies. That puts them from 5000 to a max of 10000 years old

I might be misinterpreting the authors use of pluvial which means a period of heavy rainfall and not a specific date and thus existed many times but the last pluvial period was still over 10000 years ago.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.

As ive said before, this statement is unworkable and untrue ALL human experince exists without beingreproduced tested and observed even if it sometimes is validated in this way Your argument means that a person iving on an island alone can never validate or be certain that ANYTHING the experience is real. And of course it is; unobserved untested or unreproduced, regardless.

ALL experiences must be personally validated, using the same methodologies and proofs. Ie to be sure a wall exists try walking through it. Beyond that nothing more is required for an individual to know an objective truth. That truth then exists whether others have witnessed it or believe it

It seems as if you are not grasping my assertion. My assertion is that if an experience is presented in the absence of evidence that CAN BE REPRODUCED, TESTED AND OBSERVED... Leaves can be subjected to empiricism, sand can be, water can be, humans can be,, air particles can be, dirt can be, and so on and so forth. We do not have to test them in order to know that they are real, as we already know that they can be tested and verified as being real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I differ in my opinion based solely on the fact that God is demonstrated to know the future both probable and improbable...

Take David as an example...

Let us consider 1 Samuel 23:1-14. Note the highlighting carefully.

1 Now they told David, “Behold, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are robbing the threshing floors.” 2 Therefore David inquired of the LORD, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” And the LORD said to David, “Go and attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” 3 But David’s men said to him, “Behold, we are afraid here in Judah; how much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?” 4 Then David inquired of the LORD again. And the LORD answered him, “Arise, go down to Keilah, for I will give the Philistines into your hand.” 5 And David and his men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. 6 When Abiathar the son of Ahimelech had fled to David to Keilah, he had come down with an ephod in his hand. 7 Now it was told Saul that David had come to Keilah. And Saul said, “God has given him into my hand, for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars.” 8 And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9 David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod here.” 10 Then said David, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will surrender you.” 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. 14 And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.

In this account, David appeals to the omniscient God to tell him about the future. In the first instance (23:1-5), David asks God whether he should go to the city of Keilah and whether he’ll successfully defeat the Philistines there. God answers in the affirmative in both cases, David goes to Keilah, and indeed defeats the Philistines.

In the second section (23:6-14), David asks the Lord two questions:

1. Will his nemesis Saul come to Keilah and threaten the city on account of David’s presence?

2. Will the people of Keilah turn him over to Saul to avoid an attack on the city?

Again, God answers both questions affirmatively. Saul is going to come down and the people of Keilah will hand you over to him.

But here’s the interesting point... neither of those things actually happen. Once David hears God’s answer, he and his men leave the city. When Saul discovers this fact (v. 13), he abandons his trip to Keilah. Saul never actually goes to Keilah, and therefore David is never handed over by the people of Keilah to Saul. But why is this significant?

This passage (specifically the second section) clearly establishes that divine foreknowledge does not necessitate divine predestination. God foreknew what Saul would do and what the people of Keilah would do given a set of circumstances. In other words, God foreknew a possibility—but this foreknowledge did not mandate that those events be predestinated to happen. The events never happened, so they could not have been predestinated, despite the fact they had been foreknown by God.

God knows all the variations based on our actions and choices. He doesn't guess or calculate. He knows. We cannot limit ourselves to the word "potential".

And Gods attempt at cleansing the earth with the great flood was never solely about mankind, it was about destroying the nephilim more than anything else.

I agree with this; perhaps just disagree with what it means.Yyes god can see all potentialities (maybe) because a good enough computer could extrpolate in similar fashion, but cant know which will come to pass; and thus pushes us, as he pushed david, towards one best choice. with the best outcomes.

Im not sure that the nephilim are classicall/traditionally biblical enhtities.They dont really appear as the reason god caused the flood in the bible story, as far as I recall, but i am open to correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems as if you are not grasping my assertion. My assertion is that if an experience is presented in the absence of evidence that CAN BE REPRODUCED, TESTED AND OBSERVED... Leaves can be subjected to empiricism, sand can be, water can be, humans can be,, air particles can be, dirt can be, and so on and so forth. We do not have to test them in order to know that they are real, as we already know that they can be tested and verified as being real.

And my assertion is that, once tested by an individual, no further scientific testing is required to establish reality/validity. Further testing, reproduction and observation, only assists in the transferrability of evidences and the accumulation of data.

If god or an angel or a ghost stands up to such testing, just once, then it is real, just as it only needs one test of a leaf or sand or water to know it is real. Similar tests will produce similar results, because it is objectively existent. The difficulty is in capturing the subject, to do the testing.

Actually, every individual human must personally test the validity of every experience, if they wish to know it is real. One cannot use learned or second hand academic/scientific verification to establish this, because this relies on believing, and taking on trust, another's word/findings. Eg Just reading that I cant walk through a wall because its molecules are too densely packed together to allow mine to pass through i,t is not evidence, or convincing proof, but trying to, and failing to, is.

let me just ask, "In your philosophy, if you were illiterate how could you ever know what was real/had objective existence, and what was/did not?"

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or so the story goes :sleepy:

I'm always amazed how everyone misreads this verse

Genesis 2:17:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Metaphorically speaking, the Serpent (Lucifer), represents the divine force of creation that is able to carry out God's idea of creation. The Serpent sinks down to man's level and awakens the power of creation and the sexual energy in man (Kundalini). Thus, man can reach the knowledge which was previously only accessible to God.

In this Promethean light, we see a dishonest and manipulative god hoping to keep mankind in the dark about immortality and from becoming a god as well, and the Serpent bringing the fire to man against this god's wishes.

The Serpent showed Adam & Eve there are two paths they can follow:

Thy Will Be Done (RHP) or My Will Be Done (LHP)

It makes me laugh how so many people ague and bicker over 2000 year old nonsense written by bigotted lunatics ! it is like arguing about the finer points in Grimm's fairy tales- who cares, when there is a real world to understand?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And my assertion is that, once tested by an individual, no further scientific testing is required to establish reality/validity. Further testing, reproduction and observation, only assists in the transferrability of evidences and the accumulation of data.

If such an experience cannot be reproduced in a controlled setting, then the integrity of one's psyche is brought into question. Empiricism is carried out many, many times in order to prove/disprove the hypothesis - that is the entire point of the scientific process. It may be perceived as being real to the individual, but that does not mean that it is real.

If god or an angel or a ghost stands up to such testing, just once, then it is real, just as it only needs one test of a leaf or sand or water to know it is real. Similar tests will produce similar results, because it is objectively existent. The difficulty is in capturing the subject, to do the testing.

Actually, every individual human must personally test the validity of every experience, if they wish to know it is real. One cannot use learned or second hand academic/scientific verification to establish this, because this relies on believing, and taking on trust, another's word/findings. Eg Just reading that I cant walk through a wall because its molecules are too densely packed together to allow mine to pass through i,t is not evidence, or convincing proof, but trying to, and failing to, is.

let me just ask, "In your philosophy, if you were illiterate how could you ever know what was real/had objective existence, and what was/did not?"

But the fact of the matter is, "god" or an "angel" does not stand up to such testing. We have no scientific evidence in reinforcement of their existence; the only pieces of evidence that we have are those that are the result of hear-say or, as you say, "your own personal experiences" (which does not constitute as being evidence for anything other than to yourself) and even then those experiences can be misinterpreted.

For example...

A woman has been praying and praying for extra money, and suddenly a random stranger provides her with the money. Does that mean that "god" made that happen, or did the person who gave it to her make it happen, and that experience would have occurred anyway? This is where misinterpretation comes into play.

To the individual that has more of a logical mind, he would most likely say that the encounter would have occurred anyway. We have no evidence that it was the act of god, other than the fact that she prayed and received money. However, I am sure that there are individuals who have prayed and prayed for something, and received it not as a result of prayer, but rather as a result of the natural course of things. And then there are those who have prayed to be relieved of terminal illness, only to have their prayers left unanswered.

My point is that just because we interpret an experience as something, that does not mean that the experience is as we have interpreted. One person sees god, another sees merely a random, coincidental occurrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example...

A woman has been praying and praying for extra money, and suddenly a random stranger provides her with the money. Does that mean that "god" made that happen, or did the person who gave it to her make it happen, and that experience would have occurred anyway? This is where misinterpretation comes into play.

To the individual that has more of a logical mind, he would most likely say that the encounter would have occurred anyway. We have no evidence that it was the act of god, other than the fact that she prayed and received money. However, I am sure that there are individuals who have prayed and prayed for something, and received it not as a result of prayer, but rather as a result of the natural course of things. And then there are those who have prayed to be relieved of terminal illness, only to have their prayers left unanswered.

My point is that just because we interpret an experience as something, that does not mean that the experience is as we have interpreted. One person sees god, another sees merely a random, coincidental occurrence.

I'm a firm believer in Quantum Mechanics, that in many ways we change our inner self and in return the universe begins to bend towards our inner self. This model plays well with today's definition of magick and also works well with why miserable people find more misery and joyous people are surrounded by joy for example. The way you are is how you perceive the universe and what you project onto it as well as onto others (Jungian Shadow). It's not exactly Karma but very close.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because God doesnt care about sins. ITs our human interpretation that God does care about sins and hell sort of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a firm believer in Quantum Mechanics, that in many ways we change our inner self and in return the universe begins to bend towards our inner self. This model plays well with today's definition of magick and also works well with why miserable people find more misery and joyous people are surrounded by joy for example. The way you are is how you perceive the universe and what you project onto it as well as onto others (Jungian Shadow). It's not exactly Karma but very close.

Ah joy. Another complete and utter misreading of quantum physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah joy. Another complete and utter misreading of quantum physics.

So you say, and would you care to explain?

Because I'm taking my lead from Theoretical Quantum Physicist Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D. who clearly outlines everything I just stated.

Anyone interested in understanding how Quantum Mechanics and our Consciousness work together in order to create changes within our self and ultimately creating change in our environment (Magick) should check out Dr. Goswami (Professor of physics at the University of Oregon’s Institute of Theoretical Science for over 30 years)

http://www.amitgoswami.org/

Edited by Etu Malku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this; perhaps just disagree with what it means.Yyes god can see all potentialities (maybe) because a good enough computer could extrpolate in similar fashion, but cant know which will come to pass; and thus pushes us, as he pushed david, towards one best choice. with the best outcomes.

Im not sure that the nephilim are classicall/traditionally biblical enhtities.They dont really appear as the reason god caused the flood in the bible story, as far as I recall, but i am open to correction.

But God isn't a computer...

A computer is still based on matter, even the quantum computers of the future are still based on material laws, God isn't bound by them.

I read a book a number of years ago that speaks of a Godlike computer that humanities far off descendents built, billions of years in the future, a computer that could effectively find all the matter of the Big Bang and recreate the singularity that caused it, thus recreating the universe, time and time again, but each time, it did so, humanity would have to rebuild it and start the process again. That computer had the power to track all the matter of the universe as well as create more of it from the energy existing within the universe itself (quantum tapping), until the whole process is reversed.

But God is not that, he exists outside of the space-time continuum. This universe is his construct down to the last detail. He knows all the possibilities and variations that his construct allows. Now I know that you aren't disagreeing with me, but I decided to add this comment because I thought it relevant.

The Nephilim are as classical/traditional as you can get. It is the modern view that began at the end of the 1st century that distorted this view into its present form. That the flood was sent because of mans evil and continued sin.

Yes that is true but the evil referred to was sexual intercourse between spiritual beings and human women, resulting in the mutation known as the Nephilim. It was never about mankinds sinful ways, which haven't changed since Adam. This was the evil that needed to be wiped out completely and needed a worldwide flood to do it.

It doesn't matter whether people believe it or not, or whether it is a true event or not, what is relevant is that Jewish and early christian belief was based on this event. It is mentioned a number of times in the Old Testament and in the New Testament as well, but it is the wealth of literature on the subject during the Inter-testamental period that shows this most clearly.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But God isn't a computer...

A computer is still based on matter, even the quantum computers of the future are still based on material laws, God isn't bound by them.

I believe what people refer to as god IS material laws (the objective universe).
But God is not that, he exists outside of the space-time continuum. This universe is his construct down to the last detail. He knows all the possibilities and variations that his construct allows. Now I know that you aren't disagreeing with me, but I decided to add this comment because I thought it relevant.
I don't believe in an omniscient/omnipotent being, my stance remains that this god/thought-form is mankind conceived, that it is "us" who has assigned this symbology/metaphor to the Laws & Principles that govern the objective universe.
The Nephilim are as classical/traditional as you can get. It is the modern view that began at the end of the 1st century that distorted this view into its present form. That the flood was sent because of mans evil and continued sin.
The idea of the Nephilim date much further back then the 1CE, they are mentioned in the Hebrew bible and the Torah.
Yes that is true but the evil referred to was sexual intercourse between spiritual beings and human women, resulting in the mutation known as the Nephilim. It was never about mankinds sinful ways, which haven't changed since Adam. This was the evil that needed to be wiped out completely and needed a worldwide flood to do it.
There are other theories behind the Nephilim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The education of the soul is too important to leave it up to chance.

Life ain't a bowl of cherries and it's not supposed to be.

The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates.

We are spiritual beings having a physical experience.

Separation, time and space, and memories of what it means and how it feels to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If such an experience cannot be reproduced in a controlled setting, then the integrity of one's psyche is brought into question. Empiricism is carried out many, many times in order to prove/disprove the hypothesis - that is the entire point of the scientific process. It may be perceived as being real to the individual, but that does not mean that it is real.

But the fact of the matter is, "god" or an "angel" does not stand up to such testing. We have no scientific evidence in reinforcement of their existence; the only pieces of evidence that we have are those that are the result of hear-say or, as you say, "your own personal experiences" (which does not constitute as being evidence for anything other than to yourself) and even then those experiences can be misinterpreted.

For example...

A woman has been praying and praying for extra money, and suddenly a random stranger provides her with the money. Does that mean that "god" made that happen, or did the person who gave it to her make it happen, and that experience would have occurred anyway? This is where misinterpretation comes into play.

To the individual that has more of a logical mind, he would most likely say that the encounter would have occurred anyway. We have no evidence that it was the act of god, other than the fact that she prayed and received money. However, I am sure that there are individuals who have prayed and prayed for something, and received it not as a result of prayer, but rather as a result of the natural course of things. And then there are those who have prayed to be relieved of terminal illness, only to have their prayers left unanswered.

My point is that just because we interpret an experience as something, that does not mean that the experience is as we have interpreted. One person sees god, another sees merely a random, coincidental occurrence.

First point . Rubbish. Humans do not need to have their every experiential moment verified by any form of academic science to know they are sane and seeing what is real That is what our evolved senses and awareness allows us to do.

Of course god and angels can stand up to such testing, if one can test them, as long as they are real physical beings, and in my experience they are just as real and physical as you and I. You do not believe they are real, and thus you assume they could not be scientificaly tested. I know they are real and thus know they can be.

We decipher all our experiences by the same contextual evidences. Take that woman. If she prays to god, and god tells her he will make a $100 note appear in front of her in exactly 15 minutes time, and then this happens, yes of course one can know it was god.

The same as if my brother says he will lend me $100 on saturday morning and then he does perhaps by dropping it in my letterbox. I know it is my brother producing the money, because he said he would at that time .. You just chose to disbelieve that this, and other such things can happen. Let us suppose god tell the woman to go to person X and they will give her money. When she gets to person x, that person has the money ready and says, "god told me you would be needing this."

Such things are common place, at least in my life. the things i am talkng about are not random occurences The parameters of random occurences are very differnt from those of miracles, where god directs and informs a person what to do and how to act.

I acept the validirty of what you are saying for some people and some scenarios. But this is not what happens in my life, and I can only assume i am not special, and that god works directly in and with many other human beings.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But God isn't a computer...

A computer is still based on matter, even the quantum computers of the future are still based on material laws, God isn't bound by them.

I read a book a number of years ago that speaks of a Godlike computer that humanities far off descendents built, billions of years in the future, a computer that could effectively find all the matter of the Big Bang and recreate the singularity that caused it, thus recreating the universe, time and time again, but each time, it did so, humanity would have to rebuild it and start the process again. That computer had the power to track all the matter of the universe as well as create more of it from the energy existing within the universe itself (quantum tapping), until the whole process is reversed.

But God is not that, he exists outside of the space-time continuum. This universe is his construct down to the last detail. He knows all the possibilities and variations that his construct allows. Now I know that you aren't disagreeing with me, but I decided to add this comment because I thought it relevant.

The Nephilim are as classical/traditional as you can get. It is the modern view that began at the end of the 1st century that distorted this view into its present form. That the flood was sent because of mans evil and continued sin.

Yes that is true but the evil referred to was sexual intercourse between spiritual beings and human women, resulting in the mutation known as the Nephilim. It was never about mankinds sinful ways, which haven't changed since Adam. This was the evil that needed to be wiped out completely and needed a worldwide flood to do it.

It doesn't matter whether people believe it or not, or whether it is a true event or not, what is relevant is that Jewish and early christian belief was based on this event. It is mentioned a number of times in the Old Testament and in the New Testament as well, but it is the wealth of literature on the subject during the Inter-testamental period that shows this most clearly.

I respect your beliefs but the god i know and love exists within the same space-time continuum as we do and is as real in his own way as we are He did not preexist the beggining of the universe but is an evolved product of it

It would take some convincing from within the text of the old testament itself to convince me on your point of view about the nephilim. From memory the bible is quite clear about gods purpose for the flood and his choice of noah as a survivor. Certainly the sexual behaviour of men at that time, as in sodom and gomorrah, was a deciding factor in gods actions. But the sin of sex is in the form of sex, not in sex itself. In the bible story god created adam and eve as sexual beings, meant to have children and populate the earth The act of sex was corrupted by the fallm as was everything else, and women then gave birth in pain and suffering, but it was not anything to do with a cause of the fall

I am not a biblical literalist but the bible story can only be studied as a piece of writing from within it.

The concept of nephilim as aliens breeding with human women is a bit outre for me and unless it is sourced within the bible itself I dont think it can be added to the story that exists within the bible. Biblically it is much more likely that the references to nephilim were to humans, perhaps those descended from seth. They were described as powerful giants. like goliath Certainly apocryphal writings provide other points of view, but as christians dont accept those as christian canon or mainstream truth, its not reasonable to use them to explain the nephilim in biblical context.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First point . Rubbish. Humans do not need to have their every experiential moment verified by any form of academic science to know they are sane and seeing what is real That is what our evolved senses and awareness allows us to do.

They absolutely do. If an individual sees a pink elephant with three legs going around in circles on a unicycle, and they believe that it is real... then there is a problem. What they perceive as being real does not necessarily equate to being real. If such an experience can not be subjected to empiricism in a controlled setting, then the sanity of one is questioned.

This is why we have mental institutions; individuals whom have a deluded sense of perception are placed here because they can not function within the real world, as they are living in their own fantasies.

Of course god and angels can stand up to such testing, if one can test them, as long as they are real physical beings, and in my experience they are just as real and physical as you and I. You do not believe they are real, and thus you assume they could not be scientificaly tested. I know they are real and thus know they can be.

We decipher all our experiences by the same contextual evidences. Take that woman. If she prays to god, and god tells her he will make a $100 note appear in front of her in exactly 15 minutes time, and then this happens, yes of course one can know it was god.

Do you really think if god and angels could stand up to such testing that there would not be such a controversy with regards to their existence? Really, Walker; that is just absurd. The question of god's existence has been questioned since the beginning of organized religion, so do not make foolish statements like that. If god could be proven via empiricism, or angels... then there would be no question, it would simply be accepted fact, which it is not in the realm of science.

And, no... one can not know it was god; one can ASSUME that it was god based on the outcome. Assumptions do not equate to knowledge.

The laws of physics, also, do not concur with such a claim. Money simply can not materialize out of nothing. That was a horrible example.

The same as if my brother says he will lend me $100 on saturday morning and then he does perhaps by dropping it in my letterbox. I know it is my brother producing the money, because he said he would at that time .. You just chose to disbelieve that this, and other such things can happen. Let us suppose god tell the woman to go to person X and they will give her money. When she gets to person x, that person has the money ready and says, "god told me you would be needing this."

Your brother giving you money because you asked him to is much different than money materializing because you asked god to materialize it, simply because money does not materialize out of... nothing. It defies the law of physics. If you can make this happen, then may I suggest contacting a group of physicists and showing them that this can be done? There would be much research and testing to be conducted on such a process.

Such things are common place, at least in my life. the things i am talkng about are not random occurences The parameters of random occurences are very differnt from those of miracles, where god directs and informs a person what to do and how to act.

Or, it is simply a coincidence; nothing more, nothing less

Quite frankly, I am starting to question whether or not you are a troll. Most of what you assert or claim does not make any sense whatsoever. You seem to be what I have always claimed, and that is severely deluded... I think you need to find a new psychologist, because the one you currently have clearly is not giving you the proper care that you evidently require.

Edited by Alienated Being
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe what people refer to as god IS material laws (the objective universe).

A number of people and even some major religiuons share your view... christianity however does not. The God we accept is a sentient being,who designed and created this entire universe and that includes its laws. Now if we are talking generically I can accept your point of view, if we are specifically speaking about the Judeo-Christian God, then no you would not be correct.

I don't believe in an omniscient/omnipotent being, my stance remains that this god/thought-form is mankind conceived, that it is "us" who has assigned this symbology/metaphor to the Laws & Principles that govern the objective universe.

Well that is your perrogative, however my stance is different.

The idea of the Nephilim date much further back then the 1CE, they are mentioned in the Hebrew bible and the Torah.

Of course, I agree with that it is one of the oldest and most ancient beliefs shared widely by a number of cultures not only througout the Middle East but around the world. We can say that 4000 years is a common number for the age of the myths but they could well be alot older.

There are other theories behind the Nephilim.

Yes there are, but for the purposes of the biblical record they are the offspring of spiritual beings and human women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your beliefs but the god i know and love exists within the same space-time continuum as we do and is as real in his own way as we are He did not preexist the beggining of the universe but is an evolved product of it

And you know this categorically because?... Following the biblical view (as found within the Bible), that is not the conclusion we come to.

It would take some convincing from within the text of the old testament itself to convince me on your point of view about the nephilim. From memory the bible is quite clear about gods purpose for the flood and his choice of noah as a survivor. Certainly the sexual behaviour of men at that time, as in sodom and gomorrah, was a deciding factor in gods actions. But the sin of sex is in the form of sex, not in sex itself. In the bible story god created adam and eve as sexual beings, meant to have children and populate the earth The act of sex was corrupted by the fallm as was everything else, and women then gave birth in pain and suffering, but it was not anything to do with a cause of the fall

The text of the Old Testament can be taken a number of ways, but if you add the extra-Biblical texts found in Qumran as just one small example among many you will find it quite clear that the Nephilim are the offspring of angels and human women. The bible itself does not clearly state this but a number of texts within it demonstrate this understanding... An understanding that was later corrupted to something more palatable but erroneous.

Jude 1:6-7

6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:4-7

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men...

I am not a biblical literalist but the bible story can only be studied as a piece of writing from within it.

And it is from that very context you mention that this understanding comes, whether one is a literalist or not, historically the evidence for this particular view is conclusive.

The concept of nephilim as aliens breeding with human women is a bit outre for me and unless it is sourced within the bible itself I dont think it can be added to the story that exists within the bible. Biblically it is much more likely that the references to nephilim were to humans, perhaps those descended from seth. They were described as powerful giants. like goliath Certainly apocryphal writings provide other points of view, but as christians dont accept those as christian canon or mainstream truth, its not reasonable to use them to explain the nephilim in biblical context.

I do not believe the Nephilim are aliens, nor are the Sons of God aliens. What I specifically stated was the the Sons of God (many times translated as angels or lower gods) forsook their rightful place in the heavenly realm and took on bodies which they used to father children with human women, the offspring of this union is what we call the Nephilim, a genetic mutation, which includes giantism and polydactylism.

These beings known as the Nephilim are also known by another more well known name... demi-gods.

And we know many of their names...

  1. Heracles, son of Zeus
  2. Perseus, son of Zeus
  3. Theseus, son of Poseidon
  4. Aeneas, son of Venus
  5. Minos, son of Zeus
  6. Calais, son of Boreas
  7. Zetes, son of Boreas
  8. Orpheus, son of Apollo
  9. Helen, daughter of Zeus
  10. Achilles
  11. Adonis
  12. Circe, daughter of Hecate
  13. Polyphemus, son of Poseidon
  14. Pandora
  15. Orion
  16. Odysseus
  17. Paris
  18. Maiu (A Hawiian)
  19. Polydeuces
  20. Castor
  21. Iasion
  22. Alexander the Great
  23. Commodus (A Roman), son of Zeus
  24. Xena
  25. Kratos
  26. Leonides

Of course these are not their original names, but these are all based on those mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of people and even some major religiuons share your view... christianity however does not. The God we accept is a sentient being,who designed and created this entire universe and that includes its laws. Now if we are talking generically I can accept your point of view, if we are specifically speaking about the Judeo-Christian God, then no you would not be correct.

Well that is your perrogative, however my stance is different.

Of course, I agree with that it is one of the oldest and most ancient beliefs shared widely by a number of cultures not only througout the Middle East but around the world. We can say that 4000 years is a common number for the age of the myths but they could well be alot older.

Yes there are, but for the purposes of the biblical record they are the offspring of spiritual beings and human women.

I'm glad you see my points, and it's a good thing we're in the Spirituality vs Skepticism forum :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They absolutely do. If an individual sees a pink elephant with three legs going around in circles on a unicycle, and they believe that it is real... then there is a problem. What they perceive as being real does not necessarily equate to being real. If such an experience can not be subjected to empiricism in a controlled setting, then the sanity of one is questioned.

This is why we have mental institutions; individuals whom have a deluded sense of perception are placed here because they can not function within the real world, as they are living in their own fantasies.

Do you really think if god and angels could stand up to such testing that there would not be such a controversy with regards to their existence? Really, Walker; that is just absurd. The question of god's existence has been questioned since the beginning of organized religion, so do not make foolish statements like that. If god could be proven via empiricism, or angels... then there would be no question, it would simply be accepted fact, which it is not in the realm of science.

And, no... one can not know it was god; one can ASSUME that it was god based on the outcome. Assumptions do not equate to knowledge.

The laws of physics, also, do not concur with such a claim. Money simply can not materialize out of nothing. That was a horrible example.

Your brother giving you money because you asked him to is much different than money materializing because you asked god to materialize it, simply because money does not materialize out of... nothing. It defies the law of physics. If you can make this happen, then may I suggest contacting a group of physicists and showing them that this can be done? There would be much research and testing to be conducted on such a process.

Or, it is simply a coincidence; nothing more, nothing less

Quite frankly, I am starting to question whether or not you are a troll. Most of what you assert or claim does not make any sense whatsoever. You seem to be what I have always claimed, and that is severely deluded... I think you need to find a new psychologist, because the one you currently have clearly is not giving you the proper care that you evidently require.

First point If it is a real, objectively existent, three legged pink elephant, then the person is quite sane and seeing what is there There are all sorts of physical and logicala reality checkers we apply to observed reality to confirm its reality . No need for scientific validation,

Actualy lamost no one is placed in an instituion for that anymore. But certainly some people do have problems with their physical and mental percetion They have either a physical or a mental disabilty sometimes caused by drugs or alcohol. I do not. And i know that from empirical fact having been told so by the best experts in australia

I hadnt realised you were such an expert on the laws of physics Within 100 years anyone will be able to materialise anything they like, apparently from thin air but actually using a template, energy and matter, which is then transmitted from source to destination via a transmat beam. Given that humans are on the verge of doing this, in historical terms, it is not much of a feat for a god/advanced alien species

The personal comments illustrate your frustration perhaps, at an educated and articulate person who has a very different experience of reality from your own. I am perfectly sane and healthy, and highly functional. I only wish more people were.

I've been on UM for about 8 years. I've never lied about an experience except where making a deliberate and clear joke, and i try to explain them as clearly and honestly as I can.

Having lived like this all my life for over 60 years, I honestly cant appreciate how unbelievable it might seem to a person with no such experience. Its like a person who has seen ghosts all their life trying to comprehend what it would be like for a person living their life not seeing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you know this categorically because?... Following the biblical view (as found within the Bible), that is not the conclusion we come to.

The text of the Old Testament can be taken a number of ways, but if you add the extra-Biblical texts found in Qumran as just one small example among many you will find it quite clear that the Nephilim are the offspring of angels and human women. The bible itself does not clearly state this but a number of texts within it demonstrate this understanding... An understanding that was later corrupted to something more palatable but erroneous.

Jude 1:6-7

6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:4-7

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men...

And it is from that very context you mention that this understanding comes, whether one is a literalist or not, historically the evidence for this particular view is conclusive.

I do not believe the Nephilim are aliens, nor are the Sons of God aliens. What I specifically stated was the the Sons of God (many times translated as angels or lower gods) forsook their rightful place in the heavenly realm and took on bodies which they used to father children with human women, the offspring of this union is what we call the Nephilim, a genetic mutation, which includes giantism and polydactylism.

These beings known as the Nephilim are also known by another more well known name... demi-gods.

And we know many of their names...

  1. Heracles, son of Zeus
  2. Perseus, son of Zeus
  3. Theseus, son of Poseidon
  4. Aeneas, son of Venus
  5. Minos, son of Zeus
  6. Calais, son of Boreas
  7. Zetes, son of Boreas
  8. Orpheus, son of Apollo
  9. Helen, daughter of Zeus
  10. Achilles
  11. Adonis
  12. Circe, daughter of Hecate
  13. Polyphemus, son of Poseidon
  14. Pandora
  15. Orion
  16. Odysseus
  17. Paris
  18. Maiu (A Hawiian)
  19. Polydeuces
  20. Castor
  21. Iasion
  22. Alexander the Great
  23. Commodus (A Roman), son of Zeus
  24. Xena
  25. Kratos
  26. Leonides

Of course these are not their original names, but these are all based on those mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Thata a fascinating conjunction of christianity and mythological heroes Again its not my cup of tea but at least i now understand beter your rationales and where you are coming from.

The most important question you asked was, how do i know the nature of god. There are two sources for this knolwedge How god acts in tales told about him which may represent contact tales, and how he acts with me. Given acts we can extrapolate form and function Given only beliefs we can only construct god as those beliefs allow. So how god acts is more reliabler than how a witness to those actions interprets his intent or nature.

For example god mentors and teaches me via, voice imagery and imparted direct knolwedge. That tells me something about him He produces visions of futures as a warning, allowing me to avoid a future for a better one. He provides visions of a future as motivation to show how I can make something wonderful come about. I know from a 40 year relationship with god how he thinks, talks, melds his mind with humans, tell jokes, uses allegory and symbolic metaphors, and how he acts; WITH ME.

That of course is the limitation. I can only understand god via our personal relationship (and reading about his relationships with other human beings across all times and cultures) Thus i cannot, and am not qualified to, try and convert others, or tell them only my form of relationship is viable. Every individual will have a personal and unique relationship with god, because every human is a unique individual.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.