And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, east, and there he put the man he had formed.
Genesis 2:9 And the LORD God made the earth every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for eating the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
may be interpreted this verse as God also created evil, since we knew we had created good, so say believers whenever they have time, but they forget that the tree was not only the "science of good", was the tree of "knowledge of good and evil." Christians often say that all good comes from God and that evil comes from man, it seems that when reading the Bible they forget to read that the same God who created the good, also created evil, ultimately After all born and raised together in the same tree that was planted by the hands of God. I wonder what need was there to plant a fruit tree whose fruit was evil? And here is a dilemma, or God did not know what would happen with this tree, or if he knew why he did it? If not I knew it was not wise, if you knew it was and is an evil.
Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted into four heads. Genesis 2:11
name Pison, this is the one surrounding the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold
Genesis 2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and onyx.
Genesis 2:13 The name of the second river is Gihon: this is the one surrounding the whole land of Cush.
Genesis 2:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel this is the one that goes east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. Genesis
Took
2:15 And the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Genesis 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat for the day that you eat will surely die.
summary, we have a tree planted by God, a tree that is derived from good and evil of man, a tree I guess I planted in full consciousness, why not resign myself to believe that God was ignorant, and proves that it was not is that it warns not to eat it, I wonder if I could not have stopped planting the tree, or maybe start it before it gave its fruits?
Finally, a fable as childish as the men who created a god as childish as the minds of those who created it. But despite all believers can not do without the Bible, yet can not dispense with the Genesis. It is the only proof of their god. Someone wrote in Genesis that God existed and from there take it as proof that God exists, reject the Genesis and the Bible would be set aside based on the same God. Hence the dilemma of believers, know that the Bible is indefensible, they know it's a lie, they know no one believes they know it contains no scientific basis not true, but they can not do without it, because even a fable is the only proof that god. They know that the Bible is lying, they know that they lie, but do not care to continue lying. They know that their faith is based on a lie indefensible, but do not care to continue lying.
created a fable, a monstrous god, devised a lie, you know that all his religion and moral principles that are based are based on a lie, but they can not do without it that would be without God. Maybe that's why as a believer dare not answer when asked dozens of times if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Is fully aware that the Bible lies, but can not answer that without it would be without god father, but all would be without god son. That there can be no god without god father son. And God child is the foundation of Christianity. Stripping
Christ in his divine nature make him a mediocre philosopher, very mediocre, a philosopher in some sites say one thing and another says the opposite, why insist on defending a god father who is very much based on the fable and falsehood.
Genesis 2:9 And the LORD God made the earth every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for eating the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
may be interpreted this verse as God also created evil, since we knew we had created good, so say believers whenever they have time, but they forget that the tree was not only the "science of good", was the tree of "knowledge of good and evil." Christians often say that all good comes from God and that evil comes from man, it seems that when reading the Bible they forget to read that the same God who created the good, also created evil, ultimately After all born and raised together in the same tree that was planted by the hands of God. I wonder what need was there to plant a fruit tree whose fruit was evil? And here is a dilemma, or God did not know what would happen with this tree, or if he knew why he did it? If not I knew it was not wise, if you knew it was and is an evil.
Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted into four heads. Genesis 2:11
name Pison, this is the one surrounding the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold
Genesis 2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and onyx.
Genesis 2:13 The name of the second river is Gihon: this is the one surrounding the whole land of Cush.
Genesis 2:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel this is the one that goes east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. Genesis
Took
2:15 And the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Genesis 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat for the day that you eat will surely die.
summary, we have a tree planted by God, a tree that is derived from good and evil of man, a tree I guess I planted in full consciousness, why not resign myself to believe that God was ignorant, and proves that it was not is that it warns not to eat it, I wonder if I could not have stopped planting the tree, or maybe start it before it gave its fruits?
Finally, a fable as childish as the men who created a god as childish as the minds of those who created it. But despite all believers can not do without the Bible, yet can not dispense with the Genesis. It is the only proof of their god. Someone wrote in Genesis that God existed and from there take it as proof that God exists, reject the Genesis and the Bible would be set aside based on the same God. Hence the dilemma of believers, know that the Bible is indefensible, they know it's a lie, they know no one believes they know it contains no scientific basis not true, but they can not do without it, because even a fable is the only proof that god. They know that the Bible is lying, they know that they lie, but do not care to continue lying. They know that their faith is based on a lie indefensible, but do not care to continue lying.
created a fable, a monstrous god, devised a lie, you know that all his religion and moral principles that are based are based on a lie, but they can not do without it that would be without God. Maybe that's why as a believer dare not answer when asked dozens of times if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Is fully aware that the Bible lies, but can not answer that without it would be without god father, but all would be without god son. That there can be no god without god father son. And God child is the foundation of Christianity. Stripping
Christ in his divine nature make him a mediocre philosopher, very mediocre, a philosopher in some sites say one thing and another says the opposite, why insist on defending a god father who is very much based on the fable and falsehood.
0 comments:
Post a Comment