wazua Sat, May 9, 2026
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

10 Pages«<8910
If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create them?
Tokyo
#91 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2013 3:26:34 AM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 10/9/2006
Posts: 1,502
2012 wrote:
God's idea I believe was not to create robots. Ask any scientist what they'd prefer to create, a robot or a life being. First you have to believe in God for it to make sense. People have free will and when we sin we have a way back to God through Jesus. Think about it, does your life have purpose outside God? If it does then you will realise soon that it was not fulfilling.


What are you smoking. ?? Better comment about yourself as a believer.
work to prosper
Muriel
#92 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2013 11:43:20 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Muriel wrote:
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:


Wakanyugi, you have raised a point I want to explore a bit more.

History, it is said, is written by the victors.


Quite true. So I think we could say the version that has come down to us is the one written by the victors (Romans). This is the certainly the case with the Christian Bible, there is nothing divine its compilation, unless we say that the Emperor and the Bishops who congregated at Nice were divinely guided (they were certainly politically guided)

wrote:
But there is still some mention of those who were of the opinion that this rapid 'growth' of 'christianity' as pushed by the Romans was not really 'christianity' but something else.


There have been many such groups opposing 'political Christianity', even before the break up of the Catholic church. This is how we have, for instance, the Jerusalem Bible and, further out, the Essenes and Agnostics and later the Protestants, all who practiced a faith markedly different from mainstream Christianity. Many of them paid with their lives as you point out.

But the French have a saying, 'plus ca change...' The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Think of the original issue behind this thread, the sale of miracles. The early Catholic Church used to sell 'miracles' too. They were called 'indulgences.' You paid the priest some money, he spoke to God and got your sins wiped off the slate. It was a lucrative racket when it lasted, even the Popes were in on it.

wrote:
If the Romans had a polytheistic school of thought, how this polytheism ends up rubbing off on a different, an opposing school of thought, a school of thought they sought to exterminate in the first instance is just, well, strange.


The Romans were an intellectually and religiously promiscuous people. Like the present Americans, they borrowed ideas from everywhere and made them their own. The only thing that the original Romans had going was superior military organization and sheer daring. Even their Engineering know-how was initially borrowed from the Etruscans, whom they absorbed. They didn't even have their own Gods, they borrowed them from the Greeks, who were their subjects.

It was thus no harder to borrow the 'one God worship idea from a backwater Province called Judea and expand it into a world dominating religious empire. I think you are right that the Roman Empire never ended.

But my conclusion here is: I think the Romans gift to the present world was a good one. They created a unifying narrative and attitude (the Judeo Christian work ethic) on which most scientific, political, social and economic organization has been based for much of the world since then.

We owe our current development to the Romans.



Wakanyugi

Sorry for this apparent delay in responding.

I am doing something here in Kakoromone till next week so I have been unable to read your comment in a better platform than a phone.

I promise to get back to you as soon as I am amble to.



Wakanyugi,

I have fired up the old machine and I am good to go.
Muriel
#93 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2013 12:35:13 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Wakanyugi wrote:
Muriel wrote:


Wakanyugi, you have raised a point I want to explore a bit more.

History, it is said, is written by the victors.


Quite true. So I think we could say the version that has come down to us is the one written by the victors (Romans). This is the certainly the case with the Christian Bible, there is nothing divine its compilation, unless we say that the Emperor and the Bishops who congregated at Nice were divinely guided (they were certainly politically guided)

wrote:
But there is still some mention of those who were of the opinion that this rapid 'growth' of 'christianity' as pushed by the Romans was not really 'christianity' but something else.


There have been many such groups opposing 'political Christianity', even before the break up of the Catholic church. This is how we have, for instance, the Jerusalem Bible and, further out, the Essenes and Agnostics and later the Protestants, all who practiced a faith markedly different from mainstream Christianity. Many of them paid with their lives as you point out.

But the French have a saying, 'plus ca change...' The more things change, the more they remain the same.



Wakanyungi,

It behooves us to consider the stories of the 'vanquished' beside the 'victor'. It is injustice to paint the 'victor' as being the same with the 'vanquished'. Consider:

1. Belief A is in existence, same as belief B and they are different.
2. Adherents of belief B are losing peers to belief A.
3. Adherents of belief B now penalize and encumber adherents of belief A to it make hard, impossible the shift of adherents.
4. Later, adherents of belief B take up some aspects of belief A while maintaining their core beliefs under the guise and artifice of promoting nominal acceptance of belief A.
5. Thereafter, belief B retains membership and ascendance in its various forms.
6. Then we, here in Wazua, consequently assume, decide that belief B speaks for belief A when they are still different.

The narrative of belief A, is lost in translation and narration and instead the narrative of belief B is made prominent. That few traces of the existence of belief A can be found, except in the accusations of their persecutors - belief B does not in any way or form make them of less interest of study and comprehension.


Wakanyugi wrote:

Think of the original issue behind this thread, the sale of miracles. The early Catholic Church used to sell 'miracles' too. They were called 'indulgences.' You paid the priest some money, he spoke to God and got your sins wiped off the slate. It was a lucrative racket when it lasted, even the Popes were in on it.

wrote:
If the Romans had a polytheistic school of thought, how this polytheism ends up rubbing off on a different, an opposing school of thought, a school of thought they sought to exterminate in the first instance is just, well, strange.


The Romans were an intellectually and religiously promiscuous people. Like the present Americans, they borrowed ideas from everywhere and made them their own. The only thing that the original Romans had going was superior military organization and sheer daring. Even their Engineering know-how was initially borrowed from the Etruscans, whom they absorbed. They didn't even have their own Gods, they borrowed them from the Greeks, who were their subjects.

It was thus no harder to borrow the 'one God worship idea from a backwater Province called Judea and expand it into a world dominating religious empire. I think you are right that the Roman Empire never ended.



Of all the conquered lands, Judea was the most troublesome for the Romans and its peoples the most hated in Rome. That you say it was hence 'easy' for the conquerors to borrow 'one God worship idea' from these conquered peoples is an interesting concession. They indeed 'borrowed' the idea and that's about it. The idea did not and could not supplant the pre-existing polytheistic ideas found within them. 'Victors' do not supplant their belief systems with that of the 'vanquished' who were not assimilated as were the Greeks. The Romans hence are not, cannot be the poster child, the repository, the reference of this one-god worship idea.


Wakanyugi wrote:

But my conclusion here is: I think the Romans gift to the present world was a good one. They created a unifying narrative and attitude (the Judeo Christian work ethic) on which most scientific, political, social and economic organization has been based for much of the world since then.

We owe our current development to the Romans.



How then can you say that the Romans gift to the world was a good one? Perhaps you have not read of Henry IV of Germany? I am sure today with hindsight, he will be keenly interested in this point and refute it even.

The great nations of the earth today, owe their greatness to the antithesis of this Romans belief, in my example to belief A.

Think of USA, Australia, England, Germany, Scandinavia and the like. Their work ethic and 'advanced' societies (which latter day admirers such as Asians and Africans have copied with varying levels of success) is due to and has irrefutably arisen from the antithesis of the Romans belief aka protestantism. But be alive to the fact that realignments have since occurred.

Currently, they do not adhere to this belief but that in no way diminishes or mitigates its particular and specific contribution. Though the role of protestantism is now downplayed in their histories, it cannot be obliterated. That to me is why 'non believers' who cite Scandinavia, for instance, as the 'pinnacle of human endeavor and society without religion' are not being entirely honest and truthful.

My conclusion and my point is that the 'protestant' narrative is being lost whenever 'christianity' is put under the microscope. Perhaps 'Protestantism' a relatively modern terminology is not its best description since the dichotomy it represents was already in existence at the very start.

History is fascinating!!!!!!!
Wakanyugi
#94 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2013 1:47:50 PM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,635
Muriel wrote:


It behooves us to consider the stories of the 'vanquished' beside the 'victor'. It is injustice to paint the 'victor' as being the same with the 'vanquished'. Consider:

1. Belief A is in existence, same as belief B and they are different.
2. Adherents of belief B are losing peers to belief A.
3. Adherents of belief B now penalize and encumber adherents of belief A to it make hard, impossible the shift of adherents.
4. Later, adherents of belief B take up some aspects of belief A while maintaining their core beliefs under the guise and artifice of promoting nominal acceptance of belief A.
5. Thereafter, belief B retains membership and ascendance in its various forms.
6. Then we, here in Wazua, consequently assume, decide that belief B speaks for belief A when they are still different.

The narrative of belief A, is lost in translation and narration and instead the narrative of belief B is made prominent. That few traces of the existence of belief A can be found, except in the accusations of their persecutors - belief B does not in any way or form make them of less interest of study and comprehension.


This is an interesting thought. I don't know how we can go about reversing the narrative of the victor versus the underdog, seeing as life on Earth seems set in such a way that, while we may emotionally sympathize with the underdog, none of us want be one. We deify the victor for good reason, that is where our aspirations lie. Remember God, as we have created him, is the alpha 'overdog' one who can admit of no human weaknesses. How do we reverse such an entrenched belief system? I am willing to listen.


wrote:
Of all the conquered lands, Judea was the most troublesome for the Romans and its peoples the most hated in Rome. That you say it was hence 'easy' for the conquerors to borrow 'one God worship idea' from these conquered peoples is an interesting concession. They indeed 'borrowed' the idea and that's about it. The idea did not and could not supplant the pre-existing polytheistic ideas found within them. 'Victors' do not supplant their belief systems with that of the 'vanquished' who were not assimilated as were the Greeks. The Romans hence are not, cannot be the poster child, the repository, the reference of this one-god worship idea.


I beg to disagree. The story of Judaea as the most troublesome Roman Province is Biblical revisionism of Roman history. Otherwise the Romans themselves recorded some of their most troublesome provinces as being Gaul (France) and the Germanic tribes to their North and to an extent the Parthians of Asior Minor. Remember Varcingetorix or Spartacus?

You may not wish to give Romans credence for the spread of what became the Christian Church, but you may wish to reconsider when you look at the following fact. This was not even the greatest example of their borrowing ideas and massively taking them to scale. Think of the calender we use, the number system, alphabet, modern day road engineering, military organization, democracy etc all borrowed from the Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Indians etc and turned into world dominating 'mass products' as only the Romans could.

The one concession I make is that the Romans didn't do this for the benefit of the world. They adapted ideas and products first for the Roman Empire market and in fact made very little effort to proselytize their beliefs or ideas. It is recorded many times that Romans would conquer a people and allow them to keep their religion and system of government, a rarity in ancient times.

You have made some good points about modern developments that arose as an antithesis to the Romans. I would like to respond to these separately later. For now let me leave you with this conundrum:

"You were raised by two fathers. One of them helped you to grow by encouraging every good deed you made. The other one helped you to grow through the force of his opposition to everything you did. You grew by emulating, on the one hand and overcoming on the other. Which of these fathers is more important?"

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
Muriel
#95 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2013 3:01:07 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142

Ah, Wakanyungi,

You are consistent.

Are you saying you cannot consider any other narrative other than what the 'victor' tells you?

What I am trying to do has got very little to do with emotion as it has with objectivity. This is of investigation; it is hardly of romance and its attendant emotions of sympathy etc.

How do we reverse such an entrenched belief system you ask? We start by being objective, analytical. We start by examining the narratives we have not yet fed on. We start by putting aside marshy feelings and cherished desires.

On that score, the 'victors' tell us what they did, how they did, why they did etc. They even tell us where found most problems. For example, I was indoctrinated through printed stories and comics in my childhood how the Romans met 'tough' people in Gaul for example. Perhaps you recall them too. That is what they tell us happened. That is precisely my point. Have we read, examined, scrutinized the other side of the coin?

About the conundrum, simple, who 'father'?
From the description of his role, I think you are describing 'teacher' rather than 'father', no? It ceases to be a conundrum and becomes more of a romantic preference that is subject to time and place.

And you absolutely, totally, entirely sound and read like an old acquaintance of mine that I have grown to like debating with. lol.
Miona
#96 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2013 4:49:03 PM
Rank: Hello

Joined: 11/12/2013
Posts: 2
I think its time some of the Bible stories were revised to incorporate factual and accurate information. The Adam, Eve and talking snakes story should be on top of that list. d'oh! d'oh!
D32
#97 Posted : Monday, November 18, 2013 8:37:07 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 808
If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create them?

wilyum wrote:
am wondering,anyone can explain this?


- If God knew that Adam and Even would sin, it means that he also knew that he would have to come in the person of Christ to redeem fallen man. This shows us just how much God loves us humans and great plans and purpose that he has for us, of which we cannot even fathom.

- God had you and I in mind when He created Adam and Eve. If He was afraid of their fall, then neither would we have ever existed, so, He went on and created them, knowing that He would have to pay the penalty for sin, in order to redeem fallen man.

- Earth after it's creation was different from Earth after the fall, in that, after the fall, sin had entered the Earth, and thus death. So, if our first parents did not fall, neither would there be death on Earth.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

James
1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

- There are lots of problems that plague the Earth, due to sin, such as disease, hunger etc..., but the greatest of all plagues is death. Christ paid the penalty for sin for humanity through His death, and overcame death, through His resurrection. All who partake of his grace that is freely offered now, will also partake of the resurrection at the second coming.

- If God knows the end from the beginning, it means that he also knows who will make it and who will not. If that is so, then how much influence do we have in determining our destiny?

- If the attitude is, let me do whatever I want in unrighteousness, because anyways, it's predetermined, then that's precisely the attitude that those who will not make it will have. The attitude of those who will make it, will be such that the individuals will be determined to overcome all temptations that they will encounter.

- The future is not predetermined, it's just that we have knowledge that God already knows what will unfold in the future, but, it's up to us to decide that which will unfold.

- We have tasted life, we have seen the potential of joy and goodness that can be experienced in God's creation, but we know that we are mortals, that one day will be our last, thus the most unspoken desire in all humans, the wish to not die, the wish for immortality, well, God has already made a way to immortality, it is free through Christ. God does not force any to accept, because He is love. If it was not genuine love, then we would not have the right to say no. This is free will.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

- Lucifer became satan when he chose to exercise his free will to disobey God, rebellion, and thus caused the existence of sin for the first time in the universe, which tempted Adam and Eve, thus sin entered Earth. After the cleansing of the universe from sin, when sin will be destroyed in the lake of fire, sin will never rise again the second time, for the whole universe will have had the knowledge of it's fruits.

Nahum 1:9 ... affliction shall not rise up the second time.

We did not choose to exist in the current world, but we can choose to exist eternally, in the coming world, the Earth re-created.
They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds.
Muriel
#98 Posted : Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:16:58 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
Always a pleasure reading from D32.
richdad
#99 Posted : Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:31:55 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/12/2010
Posts: 474
Location: Nairobi
Simply put, God created man in His own image thus man has unlimited power and free will.

He does not influence our choices, though consequences are attached to each and every choice.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Ezekiel 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Deuteronomy 30:15-20 - See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;


Keep it simple
10 Pages«<8910
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2026 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.