Sin before sin?

Two_Sandals
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Sin before sin?

Now the entire concept of christianity is based on the how god needed a blood sacrifice of his son in order to subside his wrath against us for eating the forbidden fruit. By sinning and disobeying him, god caused sin to enter the world, as to say the world was without sin prior to that event. How could adam and eve sin, if sin was not yet in the world? This can't be said to be a metaphor, because as i stated christianity is based on this concept.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
I suppose a christian might

I suppose a christian might say the potential for sin was already in the world. So the tree of knowledge/good and evil contained the concept of sin in it which was released when eaten.

Another answer would be,who knows what christianity's ever on about?

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Entertaining that this story

Entertaining that this story even has the slightest realistic value, I would say the first and only sin would be the act of god even putting a tree of knowledge in the garden in the first place.

What the hell were they suppose to eat? So if they can't eat a damn apple, are they allowed to hunt and kill their food? Which would be more of a sin to an all loving god. But the whole thing that gets me about their story is that infamous apple tree. WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH THAT APPLE TREE?????

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually doesn't the story

Actually doesn't the story say there were plenty of trees they could eat from? Anyway, why would God put that tree there other than to play headgames like a sick person would. Besides, if they didn't kno good from evil, how would they know disobedience was wrong? "I told you so" is very insulting to a person as a reason for something, and even as a child I refused to accept it as such.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Two_Sandals
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-03-28
User is offlineOffline
It's just like the greek's

It's just like the greek's pandoras box. A story to explain why there is evil in the world. Unfortunatly people still think its true in spite of logic.

Btw im new on here, nice to meet you guys.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
I wonder of you and I dear

I wonder of you and I dear reader; Man and woman--Adam and Eve, were the subject of this story in Genesis. A warning to us from the authors of the book not to become knowledgeable in our world, not to stray from the teachings of our 'makers' as this would lead us away from 'god'.

And if the story weren't metaphor or analogy and were true to the point of an actual tree with actual fruit that if once eaten man were doomed to be born sinful, why even place the temptation ?

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I would agree with Loc's

I would agree with Loc's point that the potential for sin always existed by witue of the fact that Adam and Eve always had the capability of choosing.  That the tree was some sort of "trap" or "test", I really doubt.  I think that the fruit of the tree was going to be given to them at some time.

I don't think, either. that the point of the story is that we should avoid examination, or knowledge of our world.  Science is as much a revelation of the mind of God as is religion.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
There are two ways that

There are two ways that ancient religions accounted for sin.  Christianity is the later of the two systems.  In older mythologies, evil was an externally existing thing, sometimes personified in a god, and sometimes just existing as a force in the cosmos.  Humans were caught in a struggle between larger forces -- those of good and evil -- and when bad things happened, it was because of an external force exerting itself on poor little humanity.

When gods became patriarchal, and agriculture turned into big cities, evil became a human trait, something inherently flawed within us, that corrupted the otherwise pristine world outside.

The Adam and Eve story, as it is presented, is incomplete.  In older versions of it, Lilith was the first wife of Adam.  The seemingly arbitrary placement of the tree in the garden is largely because the story has been cobbled together from older stories.  Nonetheless, it represents one of the newer myths, placing blame for evil on man instead of accepting it as part of existence separate from man.

(Of course, if Satan had already sinned against God, one can hardly say that man was responsible for bringing sin in the world.  As I recall, the talking snake appeared before Adam ate the apple.)

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
God is an asshole. He not

God is an asshole. He not only put that tree there to tempt them, but being omniscient he knew that they would eat from it! What a set-up!

He's also a liar, I'm sure he said that they would die if they ate from it, but he just kicked them out and let them have sex.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:God is an

ronin-dog wrote:
God is an asshole. He not only put that tree there to tempt them, but being omniscient he knew that they would eat from it! What a set-up!

When I was a kid, I had a thing for maraschino cherries.  Still do.  Can't stay away from em.  If there's a jar of em around the house, I'm gonna be eating em.  From time to time, my folks would have friends over for cocktails (manhattans, I think), which would mean they would buy maraschino cherries.  My mom would make it clear that the maraschino cherries were not for us (kids), but for the guests.  I remember to this day, eating every maraschino cherry in the house prior to the guests arriving and the aftermath of my actions.  Am I to believe that the whole invitiing guests over for drinks thing was just a set up so mom could have dad beat my ass?  That bitch!

Quote:
He's also a liar, I'm sure he said that they would die if they ate from it, but he just kicked them out and let them have sex.

But they did die.  Perhaps mortality was man's intended destiny.  And if not an immediate physical death, they died a spiritual death, a separation from the presence of God, an intimacy with Him, which they had shared prior to the Fall.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
The writer / writers of

  The writer / writers of Genesis was / where obviously having fun with words and poetics , definitely lucky , and probably high, and giggling  ..... and in awe, thinking about GAWED, while putting up with life  !     


Two_Sandals
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-03-28
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:When I was

totus_tuus wrote:
When I was a kid, I had a thing for maraschino cherries. Still do. Can't stay away from em. If there's a jar of em around the house, I'm gonna be eating em. From time to time, my folks would have friends over for cocktails (manhattans, I think), which would mean they would buy maraschino cherries. My mom would make it clear that the maraschino cherries were not for us (kids), but for the guests. I remember to this day, eating every maraschino cherry in the house prior to the guests arriving and the aftermath of my actions. Am I to believe that the whole invitiing guests over for drinks thing was just a set up so mom could have dad beat my ass? That bitch!

Thats a different situation though. There is a purpose behind why the cherries are there. There is no conceivable reason for the tree of life to be in the garden of eden except for the fall of man. God didn't place it there for some of his friends to eat from it. He being omniscience knew that if he put it there man would fall.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:  I think

totus_tuus wrote:
  I think that the fruit of the tree was going to be given to them at some time.

How have you come to this conclusion?  If you accept that there actually was a tree, etc, then you presumably believe the Bible is generally true. To start making things up is actually blasphemy. And then you have to fit it in to the entire Doctrine, and you have to defend it against the many Xian denominations that disagree.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to say that the story is just a myth?

 

 

I am always amazed at people who feel it is quite appropriate to take out the parts of the Bible that they can fit into their personal religion, reject the rest and still claim they believe the Bible.  Anyone else see a contradiction?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Two_Sandals wrote:Now the

Two_Sandals wrote:
Now the entire concept of christianity is based on the how god needed a blood sacrifice of his son in order to subside his wrath against us for eating the forbidden fruit. By sinning and disobeying him, god caused sin to enter the world, as to say the world was without sin prior to that event. How could adam and eve sin, if sin was not yet in the world? This can't be said to be a metaphor, because as i stated christianity is based on this concept.

In fact there had to be a prior event of Satan (Lucifer) and his angels falling from the way of god as Christianity portrays the snake as him. There is of course no mention of such a war or falling out prior to this event. The Jews wisely saw this and created other books such as The Books of Adam & Eve and Enoch to account for some of this discrepancy. None of those books are in the Canon of Christianity or Judaism, so ends are left loose. The last thing said when god had finished creating it all was that it was very good. Somewhere along the line he deviously designed evil into the equation as he proudly takes credit for it in Isaiah 45:7-"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord God do all these things." Evil begets evil, God indicted himself.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Paradox of sin...

That part bothered me since I was a kid... if they were created innocent, how could they know that disobedience was wrong?

Genesis wrote:

3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Thus far, all the serpent did was tell the truth...

The next part to me is the kicker... it seems to say that the snake was right, and god kicked the kids out of the garden because he was afraid they would gain immortality and become rivals...

Genesis wrote:

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah LC, I AM taking

  Yeah LC,  I AM taking sides with the honest snake, god of abe is a lunatic trickster not worth a bit of trust .... In fact,  kill that murderer ! That ain't god I AM god AS YOU , I hope you know ..... 

 .... The bible seems like it was partly inspired as a way for the elders to scare the "kids" into behaving, some what like the "folklore of reincarnation", you better be nice or else ! Santa Clause too ....  What's next ? Science of diet plus exercise, and we are "ONE" , as our brother ancestors, big J/B "intuition" suggested  !   

I AM a bit proud of our J/B !   


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus there is a big

totus_tuus there is a big difference. Your mum did not know that you were going to eat them. God had to know what would happen.

It's like dropping a glass and blaming gravity for it breaking, you knew what would happen, so it is your fault. If your God did exist and he is omnipotent and omniscient, then everything is his fault because he knew what woiuld happen and he had the power to change it.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog

ronin-dog wrote:

totus_tuus there is a big difference. Your mum did not know that you were going to eat them. God had to know what would happen.

It's like dropping a glass and blaming gravity for it breaking, you knew what would happen, so it is your fault. If your God did exist and he is omnipotent and omniscient, then everything is his fault because he knew what woiuld happen and he had the power to change it.

  Good Analogy!

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Two_Sandals wrote:Thats a

Two_Sandals wrote:
Thats a different situation though. There is a purpose behind why the cherries are there. There is no conceivable reason for the tree of life to be in the garden of eden except for the fall of man. God didn't place it there for some of his friends to eat from it. He being omniscience knew that if he put it there man would fall.

The contention that there is no reason for the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is unfounded.  God made all of Creation and pronounced it good, deceit in and of itself is not good.  How do you know that God didn't have it in mind, at some future time, to share the fruit of the tree with Adam and Eve?   I contend that that is indeed the case. 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Two_Sandals wrote:It's just

Two_Sandals wrote:
It's just like the greek's pandoras box. A story to explain why there is evil in the world.

Pandora's box is more about how women (and thus trouble) came into the world, but there's certainly a parallel. Both stories are more understandable as metaphors anyway. When you're an infant, you haven't gained knowledge, but once you have the knowledge, you know you're naked, and you have to leave the abundance and protection of childhood. Trying to understand myth literally is far too difficult.

The idea of original sin is so distasteful because it's another mechanism of control. If you're told you've sinned, and the only way to get better is to subscribe to the notion that you have to pay the church to keep you in good stead, that's pretty convenient for the church.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote:How have you

daedalus wrote:
How have you come to this conclusion?

God made the plants, each according to their own kind and pronounced them good.  Deceit, for its own sake is not good, therefore the tree must have had some purpose.  Is it my interpretation?  Yes.  Is it any less valid than your conspiracy theory?  No.

Quote:
If you accept that there actually was a tree, etc, then you presumably believe the Bible is generally true.

I accept that there was some act which our original ancestors were forbidden to perform, in which act they particiapted of their own free will.  As for the truth of Scriptures, I believe that "that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings  for the sake of salvation." (Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Nov 1965)  This does not require me to literalistically interpret every word of the Bible.

Quote:
To start making things up is actually blasphemy.

Heresy, actually, I would think.  But I've made nothing up.  My intepretation in no way violates the spirit of the text.

Quote:
And then you have to fit it in to the entire Doctrine, and you have to defend it against the many Xian denominations that disagree.

I have no authority to define an dogma of doctrine.  My interpretation of the text violates no teaching of the Catholic Church.  I have no worries about any other denomination which has no roots any deeper than 500 years.

Quote:
Wouldn't it be easier to say that the story is just a myth?

Much.  But it would be contrary to what I know to be the truth.  It would be akin to believing in a 6000 year old universe instead of a 15 billion year old universe because it's easier, but again, it just ain't so.

Quote:
I am always amazed at people who feel it is quite appropriate to take out the parts of the Bible that they can fit into their personal religion, reject the rest and still claim they believe the Bible.

I actually think that you're the one separating the story of the Fall from the story of Creation and not reading the text as a whole.  Please demonstrate where my interpretation does any violence whatsoever to the text.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:The

totus_tuus wrote:

The contention that there is no reason for the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is unfounded.  God made all of Creation and pronounced it good, deceit in and of itself is not good.  How do you know that God didn't have it in mind, at some future time, to share the fruit of the tree with Adam and Eve?   I contend that that is indeed the case. 

I can't believe you're saying all this stuff about that make-believe tree, lol. And I never knew this god had a mind?

I'm not trying to sound mean or anything; But the next time you think of The Apple Tree Of Knowledge just stop and really think about the whole fable and how ridiculous it all sounds.

If someone walked up to you and asked you why do we pass away, or why women have menstrual cycles? Please tell me you wouldn't bring up this storying about a man and a woman on an apple hunt...

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Ronin-dog, it's great to see

Ronin-dog, it's great to see you again.

ronin-dog wrote:
totus_tuus there is a big difference. Your mum did not know that you were going to eat them. God had to know what would happen.

My friend, if there is any being this side of eternity approaching omniscience, its is without a doubt, the human mother.  She knew that there was a distinct possibility, and while I admit that it's not omniscience, her abilities were eerily close.

If God didn't intend for us to have knowledge of good and evil, why create a tool for introducing it to us in the first place?  Clearly, the methodology of our attining that knowledge was not what he intended, but that we recieved that knowledge was clearly his intent.  If this act ruined His creation, He could have simmply started all over agin, but He didn't.  I mean, it's not like He doesn't have enought ime on His hands to brew up another universe.

Quote:
It's like dropping a glass and blaming gravity for it breaking, you knew what would happen, so it is your fault. If your God did exist and he is omnipotent and omniscient, then everything is his fault because he knew what woiuld happen and he had the power to change it.

Exactly!  Which he did through the saving mission of Jesus Christ.  No we're getting somewhere.  LOL!

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Slimm wrote:I can't believe

Slimm wrote:
I can't believe you're saying all this stuff about that make-believe tree, lol.

Please see my second paragarph in response to Daedakus above.  I'm not a biblical literalist.

Quote:
And I never knew this god had a mind?

He's a rational being, reasoning requires a mind.

Quote:
I'm not trying to sound mean or anything; But the next time you think of The Apple Tree Of Knowledge just stop and really think about the whole fable and how ridiculous it all sounds.

It's nothing more than an easy way to explain a difficult concept to a simple people.

Quote:
If someone walked up to you and asked you why do we pass away, or why women have menstrual cycles? Please tell me you wouldn't bring up this storying about a man and a woman on an apple hunt...

As for death, I would indeed take the position that death entered the world through a willful act of disobedience on the part of our orginal parents towards a deity.  Yes, indeed.

As for menstrual cycles, I'd probably take a more biological approach.  I've explained it several times already with pretty good results.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
WOW

WOW


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Slimm

totus_tuus wrote:

Slimm wrote:
And I never knew this god had a mind?

He's a rational being, reasoning requires a mind.

I know, all those "He's" wrote the bible...

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Slimm wrote:WOWI'm sure you

Slimm wrote:

WOW

I'm sure you can now appreciate why my favourite theist is LosingStreak06, whose object of worship is a smoothie. Way more interesting.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Two_Sandals
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-03-28
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:The

totus_tuus wrote:
The contention that there is no reason for the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is unfounded.  God made all of Creation and pronounced it good, deceit in and of itself is not good.  How do you know that God didn't have it in mind, at some future time, to share the fruit of the tree with Adam and Eve?   I contend that that is indeed the case. 

If God had some other plan with the tree of life but it was unable to come to pass due to the meddling of man, than he is not omniscient nor omnipotent. If you will concede that point than you theory is plausible.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
He could have also made the

He could have also made the tree really high and impossible to climb - that way he could still bring the fruit down but they couldn't take it. And by the way, if reproduction didn't happen until "after the fall", how the fuck was there fruit in the first place?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Ronin-dog,

totus_tuus wrote:

Ronin-dog, it's great to see you again.

ronin-dog wrote:
totus_tuus there is a big difference. Your mum did not know that you were going to eat them. God had to know what would happen.

My friend, if there is any being this side of eternity approaching omniscience, its is without a doubt, the human mother.  She knew that there was a distinct possibility, and while I admit that it's not omniscience, her abilities were eerily close.

If God didn't intend for us to have knowledge of good and evil, why create a tool for introducing it to us in the first place?  Clearly, the methodology of our attining that knowledge was not what he intended, but that we recieved that knowledge was clearly his intent.  If this act ruined His creation, He could have simmply started all over agin, but He didn't.  I mean, it's not like He doesn't have enought ime on His hands to brew up another universe.

Quote:
It's like dropping a glass and blaming gravity for it breaking, you knew what would happen, so it is your fault. If your God did exist and he is omnipotent and omniscient, then everything is his fault because he knew what woiuld happen and he had the power to change it.

Exactly!  Which he did through the saving mission of Jesus Christ.  No we're getting somewhere.  LOL!

1. Don't you still have the problem of God telling Adam and Eve that it would be evil for them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil without the humans having any knowledge of what good or evil was? If they already had such knowledge and could make a free choice why bring the tree down at all?

2. Because of (1) God had to send Jesus (also God) in order to save us from himself.  Strange that a omnimax being would engage in such foolishness.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Two_Sandals

totus_tuus wrote:

Two_Sandals wrote:
Thats a different situation though. There is a purpose behind why the cherries are there. There is no conceivable reason for the tree of life to be in the garden of eden except for the fall of man. God didn't place it there for some of his friends to eat from it. He being omniscience knew that if he put it there man would fall.

The contention that there is no reason for the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is unfounded.  God made all of Creation and pronounced it good, deceit in and of itself is not good.  How do you know that God didn't have it in mind, at some future time, to share the fruit of the tree with Adam and Eve?   I contend that that is indeed the case. 

Whether there was a purpose to the tree is irrelevant to the point here. The actual important points are:

1) God knew that if he created Satan, he would make Adam and Eve fall for temptation

2) God knew if he placed the tree there, Adam and Eve would eat of it.

3) Despite the fact that God knew, without a doubt it would happen, he still put it there and got angry when they did, in fact, eat from it like he knew they would.

 

So, either:

1) God wanted them to sin and thus introduced the temptation, sin, and the punishment, thus God created, introduced, and allowed sin to enter human life

2) God really didn't know it was going to happen so he's not omniscient

3) God couldn't help it, so he's not omnipotent

 

Of course to this goes back to Epicurus's problem of evil.


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Slimm

HisWillness wrote:

Slimm wrote:

WOW

I'm sure you can now appreciate why my favourite theist is LosingStreak06, whose object of worship is a smoothie. Way more interesting.

LMAO!!!

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 I don't even understand

 I don't even understand the value of seeing it as anything but a metaphor to describe the transition from childhood to adulthood. Any other interpretation is completely confusing. If it's a metaphor, then it's a cute metaphorical story outlining the traumatic emotional growth of an innocent child. In the literal God-does-this-Adam-does-this interpretation, you're left with a bunch of questions about how it all worked and what it says about God. It's like trying to literally interpret a dream - it goes nowhere.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Hi totus_tuus,long time no

Hi totus_tuus,long time no post on the same thread... Hope you are well and happy. You still have me a bit dumbfounded with how you seem to be the most calm, rational christian on this site, apart from how you seem to totally believe in the bible and your religion even though you agree with some of the critisisms thrown at it.  Smiling You said:"If God didn't intend for us to have knowledge of good and evil, why create a tool for introducing it to us in the first place?  Clearly, the methodology of our attining that knowledge was not what he intended, but that we recieved that knowledge was clearly his intent. " Um, why not just give it to us then? Why the drama (I know, I know, not his plan)? How can the methodology not be what he intended if he is omniscient? He must have actually intended it to happen this way or he is not all knowing/all powerful.  

It's like dropping a glass and blaming gravity for it breaking, you knew what would happen, so it is your fault. If your God did exist and he is omnipotent and omniscient, then everything is his fault because he knew what woiuld happen and he had the power to change it.

 

"Exactly!  Which he did through the saving mission of Jesus Christ." 

Um, so he let them screw it up. mucked around with everything for a while, killed everyone in a flood, stuffed around a bit more for a few thousand years (or whatever), then sent his son who is himself down to be brutally tortured and killed to atone for the sin he let happen, only we only have this sin cleared if we say we love him? This was his plan all along? Well it had to have been if everything happens according to god's plan...

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Don't you

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Don't you still have the problem of God telling Adam and Eve that it would be evil for them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil without the humans having any knowledge of what good or evil was? If they already had such knowledge and could make a free choice why bring the tree down at all?

To tell you the truth, I do have a bit of a problem with that.  Have never been able to work out a suitable answer.  The best I can do is to credit Adam and Eve with enouh sense to recognize a directive from God as something to which they must adhere, as to their motivation without a recognition of the concept of good and eveil, I'm at a loss.

Quote:
2. Because of (1) God had to send Jesus (also God) in order to save us from himself.  Strange that a omnimax being would engage in such foolishness.

Don't forget though, that Christ is also fully Man as well as fully God.  His sacrafice was made as a Man, on our behalf.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
sandwhiches wrote:Whether

sandwhiches wrote:
Whether there was a purpose to the tree is irrelevant to the point here. The actual important points are:

Not at all.  The purpose of the tree is the crux of the matter.  That the intent of God was bollixed up by an act of human willfullness is what causes the problems, and has ever since.  God knew what the outcome would be, but had to allow His creation (man) to use the will God provided to make their own decision.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Hi

ronin-dog wrote:
Hi totus_tuus,

long time no post on the same thread... Hope you are well and happy.

Thanks, my firend.  I am well.  My best to you and yours.

Quote:
You still have me a bit dumbfounded with how you seem to be the most calm, rational christian on this site,...

Oh, believe me, I can become quite passionate at times.  LOL.   But my faith is not blind, I believe there is a good deal of rationality behind it.  I have travelled the faith spectrum from cradle Catholic to fervent Catholic to nearly atheism to warm and fuzzy Prtotestant to fervent Catholic.

Quote:
...apart from how you seem to totally believe in the bible and your religion even though you agree with some of the critisisms thrown at it.  Smiling

First, let me adddress my views on the Scriptures.  In keeping with Catholic teachings regarding Divine Revelation, I view Scriptures as one of three sources of Divine Revelation, along with Sacred Tradition (ie, those teachings passed on by Jesus Christ and the Apostles orally to the safekeeping of the Church), and the Magesterium of the Church (ie, the teaching authority of the Pope, in communion with the bishops).

As far as the veracity of the Scriptures, I believe that these writings were inspired by God, and that they contain only those truths which He wished to be conveyed for our salvation.  While I believe these writings to be divinely inspired, I realize that some stories (ie, Creation, the Fall) to be alllegorical, others historical, some poetry, I realize that the Old Testament contain truths which are provisional and imperfectly understood.  I am not a biblical literalist by any stretch of the imagination.  I don't so much riticize the Scriputres as I criticize dubious interpretations of them particularly by those who claim individual interpretations based on the whim of the Holy Spirit.  Personal interpreatations without benefit of a central teaching authority are the reason for the plethora of Christian denominations extant today.

I have some company coming in a bit.  In my next post, I'll explain why I so readily accept criticism of my religion.  Later.

 

 

 

  

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:I would

totus_tuus wrote:

I would agree with Loc's point that the potential for sin always existed by witue of the fact that Adam and Eve always had the capability of choosing.  That the tree was some sort of "trap" or "test", I really doubt.  I think that the fruit of the tree was going to be given to them at some time.

I agree completely. If god is all-knowing there is no need to test lowly human beings. The common rationalization for god sending tthe angels to sodom and gehmorrah to test the cities' inhabitants for their worth is somewhat ridiculous for an all-knowing being, for example. This must mean that the tree of knowledge was planted in the anticipation that mankind would eat from the fruit and sin. This must then logically lead to the conclusion that sin entering the world was part of the grand plan.

I believe your last statement is somewhat illogical because if god is all-knowing then the tree could not have been intended to be given to mankind at some later point. Hence the tree served the purpose it was intended to and at the prescribed moment.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Don't you still have the problem of God telling Adam and Eve that it would be evil for them to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil without the humans having any knowledge of what good or evil was? If they already had such knowledge and could make a free choice why bring the tree down at all?

To tell you the truth, I do have a bit of a problem with that.  Have never been able to work out a suitable answer.  The best I can do is to credit Adam and Eve with enouh sense to recognize a directive from God as something to which they must adhere, as to their motivation without a recognition of the concept of good and eveil, I'm at a loss.

Quote:
2. Because of (1) God had to send Jesus (also God) in order to save us from himself.  Strange that a omnimax being would engage in such foolishness.

Don't forget though, that Christ is also fully Man as well as fully God.  His sacrafice was made as a Man, on our behalf.

 

I am an ex-christian relapsed Catholic heretic so I do understand how the church interprets for its members. Something that struck me years ago was just how silly the entire concept of christian belief is when you start at the beginning and try to explain it. It sounds so mythical little different than any other myth of ancient ignorant people. The Sumerians were by and large very advanced for a society, women had rights, laws were documented and yet they have the same silly notions about gods. If you do a comparison of ancient beliefs and I include Judaism and Christianity both in this they all have ignorant ideas of how things actually are in the universe. When you can look a Catholicism in such a fashion the blatant contradictory beliefs and issues that require you to use smoke and mirrors to accept will just hit you like a 2 X 4 someday.

Consider the games and 2 stepping you are doing:

1)You are trying to understand the story of the tree of knowledge with the implication God planned to have man fail

or he wasn't all-knowing.

2)You have to already plan evil into creation or side step it despite the all was good comment by God. So explain the design flaw of Satan/Lucifer/Snake. All was good. Maybe it was only good in the Garden of Eden or on Earth? God 's prior design attempt, the angels/Lucifer isn't mentioned but somehow evil already exists to tempt Eve. What a lot of card shuffling this is to cover up. Is this story any less strange, bizarre, mythical when compared to other stories of how man lost immortality? No, it's just as strange. See Sumerian myths of Adapa who lost immortality for man. Or read any other myth, they all read like this.

3)You are justifying that God subdivides a part of himself calls it his son, adds a chunk of human DNA and has it killed to satisfy his need to forgive man. Plot this out on a piece of paper to see how weird and whacked it really is. Better yet use Play-dough. Cut a wad off, call it God. Subdivide it into 2 pieces. Add some DNA to one (spit on it) call it Jesus, hit it, stab it, and then smack it back into the other piece. Is it any different? No. So what was the point of that?

 

4)In order to avoid the blatant errors of the Bible you are dodging it by saying some is allegorical, some is historical and some is misinterpreted or misunderstood. As a Catholic, you can dodge even more by saying the Church thinks for you and tells you what to believe, because that is the actual truth.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for the interruption.I

Sorry for the interruption.

I was going to explain a bit about why I accelt criticisms of my Church and religion, but I see others have concerns that I must address, so on this score lemme just say that Jesus Christ established a Chruch, the purpose of which was to bring salvation to sinners.  Although that Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and Christ has promised that the gatesof Hell would not prevail against it, He left it in the charge of the self-same sinners it was meant to save.  That those people, in their humanity, have sinned in the name of religion goes without saying.

ronin-dog wrote:
Um, why not just give it to us then? Why the drama (I know, I know, not his plan)? How can the methodology not be what he intended if he is omniscient? He must have actually intended it to happen this way or he is not all knowing/all powerful.

I'll explain this as simply as I can.  I dunno.  LOL.  I really don't know how to get around th omniscience thing other than to say that not being omniscient, I have no idea how it works.  I have heard some theologians theorizing that God, a being outside of time, lives in an "eternal now" which I would think would be even more confusing than linear time since everything that ever happened and ever will happen would be happening at once.  Talk about confusing.

Quote:
Um, so he let them screw it up. mucked around with everything for a while, killed everyone in a flood, stuffed around a bit more for a few thousand years (or whatever), then sent his son who is himself down to be brutally tortured and killed to atone for the sin he let happen, only we only have this sin cleared if we say we love him? This was his plan all along? Well it had to have been if everything happens according to god's plan...

Pretty much.  But again bear in mind that God's time is not our time.  Certainly an eternal being has a different take on time than those trapped within a timeline.  Further, God never denies Man his free will, his ability to choose.  God wants his Creation to love him willingly, not automatically.  Even those whom He calls He doesn't call against their will, although from time to time He provides persuasive measures.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cali_atheist wrote:I agree

cali_atheist wrote:
I agree completely. If god is all-knowing there is no need to test lowly human beings. The common rationalization for god sending tthe angels to sodom and gehmorrah to test the cities' inhabitants for their worth is somewhat ridiculous for an all-knowing being, for example. This must mean that the tree of knowledge was planted in the anticipation that mankind would eat from the fruit and sin. This must then logically lead to the conclusion that sin entering the world was part of the grand plan.

We're in agreement only so far as that we agree that God intended man to eat of the fruit, not in a sinful manner, ie as the result of an act of disobedience.  Rather, he intended that we should eat of it in a manner and in a time after we had been prepared for the consequences of that action. 

This is in total keeping with what we see in the world around us today.  God allowed us to unlock the secret of the atom, this has been a great boon to mankind providing energy and medical advances.  On the other hand, it has also given us the power to exterminate the planet.

One of the surest ways God says He loves us is by the gift of wine, but abuse leads to drunkeness and alcoholism.

The same goes for a fine cigar and the risk of cancer, great meals and overeating.  I could go on and on.

Why did God fuel the Universe using nuclear power, why did He create alcohol, tobacco if He knew of the potential of abuse?

Out of love.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Occam's Razor. The

  Occam's Razor. The "saving" message in those times of hyper superstition was "We are one with the cosmos (father) "   To know this is truth, and so the Christ is now in you too. You are now "saved" and know you are eternal as god is eternal .... End of message.  


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Let's see, if I wanted to

Let's see, if I wanted to emulate God's actions toward Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden perhaps I would do something sensible like place a loaded 44 magnum handgun in a small room where two five year old children were playing. Then I would tell them, :

"Don't pick up that gun.  If you do something awful will happen to you ! "

Then I would wait in the next room. 

Suddenly a loud BOOM is heard.  Then I rush in to find one of the children laying on the floor with part of its face missing.

"Didn't I tell you not to pick up that gun !!!"  I scream.

Although I am distressed at their disobedience I can absolve myself of all responsibility because it was their choice to play with the gun. I didn't force them to do it.  I simply supplied all the elements necessary for the tragedy to occur with full knowledge that their curiosity would eventually come in to play. 

 

There's not a judge in the land that would convict me of criminally negligent homicide....is there ?

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I am an ex-christian relapsed Catholic heretic so I do understand how the church interprets for its members. Something that struck me years ago was just how silly the entire concept of christian belief is when you start at the beginning and try to explain it. It sounds so mythical little different than any other myth of ancient ignorant people. The Sumerians were by and large very advanced for a society, women had rights, laws were documented and yet they have the same silly notions about gods. If you do a comparison of ancient beliefs and I include Judaism and Christianity both in this they all have ignorant ideas of how things actually are in the universe. When you can look a Catholicism in such a fashion the blatant contradictory beliefs and issues that require you to use smoke and mirrors to accept will just hit you like a 2 X 4 someday.

Thanks for the homily, but you seem to assume that this is my first rodeo, and that I have not examined the world in which I live or the faith which I embrace.  I have examined them both and my findings are obvious, while I will not go into detail in the interest of keepin this thread on track, allow me to say that I have found the existence of a divine being rational, that of the divinities from which to choose, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was by far the most reasonable.  Historically. I hav examined the record and found, like John Henry Cardinal Newman, that to "be deep in history is to cease being Protestant."

I've been hit with half a dozen 2x4's.  The first drove me to my knees in His presence.  The second knocked me outta the doors of His Church and into the desert for 20 years.  The third back to Him to seek His help.  The next to His Word to find truth.  The fifth to the fullness of that truth in the one Church established by His Son, Jesus Christ.  And the last into the place I never thought that I would find myself, and that is in the service of that Son.

Now that the homilies are outta the way...

Quote:
1)You are trying to understand the story of the tree of knowledge with the implication God planned to have man fail or he wasn't all-knowing.

See my discussion of nuclear power, alcohol, food and tobacco above. 

Quote:
2)You have to already plan evil into creation or side step it despite the all was good comment by God. So explain the design flaw of Satan/Lucifer/Snake. All was good. Maybe it was only good in the Garden of Eden or on Earth? God 's prior design attempt, the angels/Lucifer isn't mentioned but somehow evil already exists to tempt Eve. What a lot of card shuffling this is to cover up. Is this story any less strange, bizarre, mythical when compared to other stories of how man lost immortality? No, it's just as strange. See Sumerian myths of Adapa who lost immortality for man. Or read any other myth, they all read like this.

The whole Satan thing is again the result of free will rebelling against God. Surely evil existed before the Fall of Man.  That is quite clear fro the text of Genesis.  Other wise why the creation of a "tree" bearing the "fruit" which would impart this knowledge to Man?  God's Creation is good, not all the results of the actions of the inhabitants of that Creation are.

Quote:
 3)You are justifying that God subdivides a part of himself calls it his son, adds a chunk of human DNA and has it killed to satisfy his need to forgive man. Plot this out on a piece of paper to see how weird and whacked it really is. Better yet use Play-dough. Cut a wad off, call it God. Subdivide it into 2 pieces. Add some DNA to one (spit on it) call it Jesus, hit it, stab it, and then smack it back into the other piece. Is it any different? No. So what was the point of that?

All I'd have then is a wet piece of play-dough (or a biblical cure for blindness).  It's quite different.  Man has a much greater intrinsic value thatn spit and play-dough.  The play-dough didn't create a humanity which rejected (and rejects) it.  The spit didn't suffer separation from the goodness it was intended to share.

So Jesus Christ, God Himself, becomes Man and shares the pains and experiences of Men.  The rift was caused by Man's action, thus a man, Jesus Christ, had to pay the price, but no Man, not the best of our species was worthy to bear that punishment, to pay that price.  What do I have that God could possibly find pleasing?  So, He who paid the price, the same Jesus Christ, had to be divine as well as human.

Quote:
4)In order to avoid the blatant errors of the Bible you are dodging it by saying some is allegorical, some is historical and some is misinterpreted or misunderstood. As a Catholic, you can dodge even more by saying the Church thinks for you and tells you what to believe, because that is the actual truth.

That different genres of literature exist in the Bible is obvious upon even a cursory examination of the text.  The book of Job for example, is wonderful Hebrew poetry.  It is a greatly insightful examination of the problem of evil from a theological standpoint, yet I sincerely doubt that Job ever existed.   Genesis accurately conveys, through allegory, that God created a universe.  To accept that He did so in some week long period, a mere 6,000 years ago flies in the face of what can be proved through the reason with which God provided us.

I'm 46 years old.  I have responsibilities in the world and not a lot of time to think.  The Church has the capacity to think in centuries and the time to do so.  Its sole purpose is the salvation of mankind and pondering how to accomplish that salvation.  So yeah, I examine what I can, but I turn to the Church with her centuries of thought and treasury of knowledge for guidance.  A free-thinker like yourself should appreciate the existence of an organization which has been free to think for two thousand years. 

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Atheist Jesus trashed

   Atheist Jesus trashed the temple church ....

   Prophet "Prozac death wish" is much wiser than any Xain Jesus ! 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Thanks

totus_tuus wrote:

 

Thanks for the homily, but you seem to assume that this is my first rodeo, and that I have not examined the world in which I live or the faith which I embrace.  I have examined them both and my findings are obvious, while I will not go into detail in the interest of keepin this thread on track, allow me to say that I have found the existence of a divine being rational, that of the divinities from which to choose, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was by far the most reasonable.  Historically. I hav examined the record and found, like John Henry Cardinal Newman, that to "be deep in history is to cease being Protestant."

I've been hit with half a dozen 2x4's.  The first drove me to my knees in His presence.  The second knocked me outta the doors of His Church and into the desert for 20 years.  The third back to Him to seek His help.  The next to His Word to find truth.  The fifth to the fullness of that truth in the one Church established by His Son, Jesus Christ.  And the last into the place I never thought that I would find myself, and that is in the service of that Son.

Now that the homilies are outta the way...

Everyone has significant emotional events or physical damage that occurs to them throughout their life. It's what you do afterwords. Many reach for religion, many for drugs, many have internal strength to see them through life. Strong willed people can find their way without the crutch of drugs or religion. This thread is examining the concept that god was enraged at man because of his disobedience. He therefore created the need of justification as in a feudal lord demanding satisfaction. As we couldn't provide sufficient vindication or payment for our indiscretion he supposedly created the substitute sacrifice of Jesus.

totus_tuus wrote:

See my discussion of nuclear power, alcohol, food and tobacco above.

totus_tuus wrote:

One of the surest ways God says He loves us is by the gift of wine, but abuse leads to drunkeness and alcoholism.

The same goes for a fine cigar and the risk of cancer, great meals and overeating.  I could go on and on.

Why did God fuel the Universe using nuclear power, why did He create alcohol, tobacco if He knew of the potential of abuse?

Out of love.

Actually it was the Sons of God, the fallen angels from Genesis 6 (also in great detail in the Books of Enoch) that showed man how to utilize tools, make jewelry, swords,  makeup etc. There is nothing to debate about perceived gifts of God, as I don't see God as reality. All things can be abused by man, given time we will have robot hookers and wives.

totus_tuus wrote:

The whole Satan thing is again the result of free will rebelling against God. Surely evil existed before the Fall of Man.  That is quite clear fro the text of Genesis.  Other wise why the creation of a "tree" bearing the "fruit" which would impart this knowledge to Man?  God's Creation is good, not all the results of the actions of the inhabitants of that Creation are.

It is not quite clear that evil existed as it is not in the Bible, you infer that it had occurred from the temptation of Eve by the serpent. Genesis does not tell you the serpent was Satan either, this is from later periods. The idea Satan rebelled and there was a war in heaven is in Enoch and the Books of Adam & Eve Apocrypha books written between 300-400 BCE.

totus_tuus wrote:

All I'd have then is a wet piece of play-dough (or a biblical cure for blindness).  It's quite different.  Man has a much greater intrinsic value thatn spit and play-dough.  The play-dough didn't create a humanity which rejected (and rejects) it.  The spit didn't suffer separation from the goodness it was intended to share.

You obviously are not into analogy that takes you outside your box. one more try:

God subdivides a piece of himself and calls it his only begotten son. This piece is implanted in a human. We have no idea if this piece relied on the egg of the human Mary or not, no information on this. It is likely a complete embryo implant. God is pissed at us so he wanted a sacrifice. This piece of himself was sent here and lives among humans as one. God repressed part of his mental process as is done in computer programs so he didn't know who he was until he was older. As this piece was God when he was dying he knew he wasn't really dying permanently since he can't really. So this is a sacrifice?

 

totus_tuus wrote:

So Jesus Christ, God Himself, becomes Man and shares the pains and experiences of Men.  The rift was caused by Man's action, thus a man, Jesus Christ, had to pay the price, but no Man, not the best of our species was worthy to bear that punishment, to pay that price.  What do I have that God could possibly find pleasing?  So, He who paid the price, the same Jesus Christ, had to be divine as well as human.

A sacrifice is you running out in the street to push a little kid out of the way knowing you will be hit by the car. Not God killing part of himself that can't die permanently.

totus_tuus wrote:

 Genesis accurately conveys, through allegory, that God created a universe.  To accept that He did so in some week long period, a mere 6,000 years ago flies in the face of what can be proved through the reason with which God provided us.

 

At least you see that.

totus_tuus wrote:

I'm 46 years old.  I have responsibilities in the world and not a lot of time to think.  The Church has the capacity to think in centuries and the time to do so.  Its sole purpose is the salvation of mankind and pondering how to accomplish that salvation.  So yeah, I examine what I can, but I turn to the Church with her centuries of thought and treasury of knowledge for guidance.  A free-thinker like yourself should appreciate the existence of an organization which has been free to think for two thousand years. 

 

I'm not impressed, I'm older than you. My friends were dying in Viet Nam before you were in pre-school. I am very familiar with the Catholic Church, I have a graduate degree from a Jesuit University. I have had nuns, priests, and obviously Jesuit priests for professors. I went to parochial schools, I was an altar boy, etc, once very actively involved in the Church. I have studied religion, the works of many theologians, church history and more. I have also studied ancient history, other religions, as well as science & engineering. I am not a college student just discovering the world. If you don't think for yourself, your deserve what you get. Accepting the great wisdom of the Catholic Church means the Earth is the center of the Universe. Until the admission of error by John Paul II over Gailieo's "mutual imcomprehension".

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Thanks pauljohn, wish you

  Thanks pauljohn, wish you get on to preaching the "atheistic" bible jesus (buddha) .... 


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
God does not live outside

God does not live outside time. That was made up by religious folk trying to dodge the "where did god come from?" question. I'm not aware of it being stated in the bible at all although I'm sure there is some passage that could be misinterpreted that way. Time is the dimension that seperates events and changes in position. Without time nothing can happen.

There is a big obsession with us loving god. He must be very insecure. He wants us to love him out of free will, but will punish us for eternity if we don't, even if we are otherwise good people. That is not a healthy relationship.

One of the surest ways God says He loves us is by the gift of wine, but abuse leads to drunkeness and alcoholism.

The same goes for a fine cigar and the risk of cancer, great meals and overeating.  I could go on and on.

Why did God fuel the Universe using nuclear power, why did He create alcohol, tobacco if He knew of the potential of abuse?

Out of love.

This is one hell of a way to show love, by allowing the one you love to hurt themselves. Not the way I treat my wife.

The Church has the capacity to think in centuries and the time to do so.  Its sole purpose is the salvation of mankind and pondering how to accomplish that salvation. 

But even the last pope admitted that the church has done many horrible things in the past and made many mistakes. The problem with it's sole purpose being the salvation of mankind (especially for non-christians) is that the church interprets salvation as being that of our soul. They are not interested in fixing the real world and their policies are still causing world-wide harm.

The Magisterium is just a group of people elected by their own. There is still a whole lot of politics, backstabbing etc that goes into choosing them.

I regard the Bible as being a collection of fictional stories. The majority of which are actually quite horrific. The god portrayed in the bible is a really nasty piece of work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:God does not

ronin-dog wrote:
God does not live outside time. That was made up by religious folk trying to dodge the "where did god come from?" question.

Not so.  God's existence outside of time is a logical inference from what we know of science.  If nature began with the beginning of time (which itself occurred at the moment of quark confinement if my meager understading of quatum theory is correct), and God is the initiator of that nature, then he must have existed "prior to" (in quotes because any temporal description before the existence of time is kinda tough) that event occurring.  This is a concept which can be seen in the text of Genesis, as well as in the Psalms.  I illustrate below, but will be unable to cite chaapter and verse in the interest of time.

In Genesis1:2, the earth was a void, "without form", until the Spirit of God moves over the waters.  I think a more accurate translation from the Hebrew here would be "chaos".  Why?  Because there is no time to drive events everything is occuring in a confused (to us) muddle.  Then there is light, after which the completion was day one.  Not "a" day, not "last Thursday" but "day one", the first day.  After which day follows day in the sequence which we know.

In Exodus 3:14, God gives Moses his explicit name, which is usually translated into English as "I am who am".  In Hebrew, the splling consists of only four letters, but includes the letters of the verb "to be" in al three of its tenses , ie, I was, I am, I will be". 

In the Psalms, David praises the timelessness of God.  "A thousand ages in your sight are as a watch in the night."

The Hebrew commentators realized this, these concepts are outlined in the writings of Maimonides and Nahmanides.  Augustine saw the significance of these passages, as did Aquinas.

So you can see that not only does an eternal being of necessity dwell outside of time, but the author of Genesis poisnts out something else equally astounding, a fact whcih ran counter to the scince of the day.  That is, that contrary to Airistotolean thinking that the universe was eternal, there was a beginning.  This is a scientific fact etsablished within the last 70 years.

Quote:
There is a big obsession with us loving god. He must be very insecure. He wants us to love him out of free will, but will punish us for eternity if we don't, even if we are otherwise good people. That is not a healthy relationship.

Quote:
This is one hell of a way to show love, by allowing the one you love to hurt themselves. Not the way I treat my wife.

Anything other than this,  a God who made decisions for us, who coddled us in all our doings would be co-dependence.  That's unhealthy.

Quote:
But even the last pope admitted that the church has done many horrible things in the past and made many mistakes. The problem with it's sole purpose being the salvation of mankind (especially for non-christians) is that the church interprets salvation as being that of our soul. They are not interested in fixing the real world and their policies are still causing world-wide harm.

I make the same admission. 

And it is true that the Church's primary responsibility is for Man's soul.  But Catholicism holds that both faith and works are necessary for the salvation of man.  To that end, she established the first modern health care systems, the first modern university system, libraries, scriptoria, monasteries for the comfort of travellers and to alleviate the suffering of the poor.  Her monks and nuns have copied books, ministered to the physical needs of the poor, nursed the sick, cleared forests, harnessed rivers and drained swamps. 

The Church further  holds  that scientiic knowledge also reveals truths about God.  To this end, laypersons and priests have made signaificant contributions to human knowledge, Copernicus, Galileo, Mendel, Le Maitre, were all sons of the Church.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:ronin-dog

totus_tuus wrote:

ronin-dog wrote:
God does not live outside time. That was made up by religious folk trying to dodge the "where did god come from?" question.

Not so.  God's existence outside of time is a logical inference from what we know of science.  If nature began with the beginning of time (which itself occurred at the moment of quark confinement if my meager understading of quatum theory is correct), and God is the initiator of that nature, then he must have existed "prior to" (in quotes because any temporal description before the existence of time is kinda tough) that event occurring.  This is a concept which can be seen in the text of Genesis, as well as in the Psalms.  I illustrate below, but will be unable to cite chaapter and verse in the interest of time.

In Genesis1:2, the earth was a void, "without form", until the Spirit of God moves over the waters.  I think a more accurate translation from the Hebrew here would be "chaos".  Why?  Because there is no time to drive events everything is occuring in a confused (to us) muddle.  Then there is light, after which the completion was day one.  Not "a" day, not "last Thursday" but "day one", the first day.  After which day follows day in the sequence which we know.

In Exodus 3:14, God gives Moses his explicit name, which is usually translated into English as "I am who am".  In Hebrew, the splling consists of only four letters, but includes the letters of the verb "to be" in al three of its tenses , ie, I was, I am, I will be". 

In the Psalms, David praises the timelessness of God.  "A thousand ages in your sight are as a watch in the night."

The Hebrew commentators realized this, these concepts are outlined in the writings of Maimonides and Nahmanides.  Augustine saw the significance of these passages, as did Aquinas.

So you can see that not only does an eternal being of necessity dwell outside of time, but the author of Genesis poisnts out something else equally astounding, a fact whcih ran counter to the scince of the day.  That is, that contrary to Airistotolean thinking that the universe was eternal, there was a beginning.  This is a scientific fact etsablished within the last 70 years.

Quote:
There is a big obsession with us loving god. He must be very insecure. He wants us to love him out of free will, but will punish us for eternity if we don't, even if we are otherwise good people. That is not a healthy relationship.

Quote:
This is one hell of a way to show love, by allowing the one you love to hurt themselves. Not the way I treat my wife.

Anything other than this,  a God who made decisions for us, who coddled us in all our doings would be co-dependence.  That's unhealthy.

Quote:
But even the last pope admitted that the church has done many horrible things in the past and made many mistakes. The problem with it's sole purpose being the salvation of mankind (especially for non-christians) is that the church interprets salvation as being that of our soul. They are not interested in fixing the real world and their policies are still causing world-wide harm.

I make the same admission. 

And it is true that the Church's primary responsibility is for Man's soul.  But Catholicism holds that both faith and works are necessary for the salvation of man.  To that end, she established the first modern health care systems, the first modern university system, libraries, scriptoria, monasteries for the comfort of travellers and to alleviate the suffering of the poor.  Her monks and nuns have copied books, ministered to the physical needs of the poor, nursed the sick, cleared forests, harnessed rivers and drained swamps. 

The Church further  holds  that scientiic knowledge also reveals truths about God.  To this end, laypersons and priests have made signaificant contributions to human knowledge, Copernicus, Galileo, Mendel, Le Maitre, were all sons of the Church.

 

TT,

1. I may be reading it wrong but it seems as though God's existence outside of time is a logical inference if you beg the question.

It reads like, "If nature began with the beginning of time and God existed outside of time then God existed outside of time".

Put that together with the immortality of gods was not a new concept in the world of that time and you get...nothing unusual.

2. God doesn't make our decisions for us - he simply knows precisely what we're going to do and when we'll do it. Wait...that means he did make all our decisions for us...crud.

3. Granted, though the Church was a little slow in accepting Galileo and Copernicus into the family... And they were responsible for destroying their share of libraries, hospitals, etc. as well.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I'm

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I'm not impressed, I'm older than you. My friends were dying in Viet Nam before you were in pre-school. I am very familiar with the Catholic Church, I have a graduate degree from a Jesuit University. I have had nuns, priests, and obviously Jesuit priests for professors. I went to parochial schools, I was an altar boy, etc, once very actively involved in the Church. I have studied religion, the works of many theologians, church history and more. I have also studied ancient history, other religions, as well as science & engineering. I am not a college student just discovering the world. If you don't think for yourself, your deserve what you get. Accepting the great wisdom of the Catholic Church means the Earth is the center of the Universe. Until the admission of error by John Paul II over Gailieo's "mutual imcomprehension".

Allow me to address the last part of your post first, since time is short right now, and I need to clarify my intent.

I did not mean to impress you with my age.  My point was actually to emphasize my youth relative to the amount of time the Church as an institutuion has had to ponder the human condition.

As far as pedigrees, mine would not compare to yours.  I lack much of a college education, I am however, a well read man.  I, myself, have spent the better part of my life in the profession of arms.  I have stood a post on freedom's frontiers, and have seen shots exchanged in anger.  I, too, have friends who have given their lives in the service of their country.  I'll even go so far as to say I avoid many Jesuits like the plague since that once great order seems to have forsaken the ideals of Ignatius Loyola, but that would be a discussion for another time, I suppose.

The Church never taught as a matter of faith that the earth is the center of the universe.  She censured Galileo for teaching that such was the factual case without observable proof, which was not available til much later.  In fact, she further rejected Galileo's claim that the Sun, not the earth was the center of the universe.  Had she acquiesed to Galileo's teaching, I would now be in the unenviable position of defending that contention against the scientific probability that the universe probably has no center whatsoever.  By the way, Galileo never abandoned the Church, attending daily Mass, and praying regularly with his daughter who became a nun.

Now, back to the business at hand...

Quote:
This thread is examining the concept that god was enraged at man because of his disobedience. He therefore created the need of justification as in a feudal lord demanding satisfaction. As we couldn't provide sufficient vindication or payment for our indiscretion he supposedly created the substitute sacrifice of Jesus.

Or...that through man's bumbling cooperation with the Devil, pre-existing evil from the spiritual realm was lett loose into God's physical creation which could only be set right by an act of cooperative act by Man and God.  that Man and God perfomred this cooperative act in the person of Jesus Christ, true Goad and true Man. 

Quote:
Actually it was the Sons of God, the fallen angels from Genesis 6 (also in great detail in the Books of Enoch) that showed man how to utilize tools, make jewelry, swords,  makeup etc.

OK

Quote:
All things can be abused by man, given time we will have robot hookers and wives.

Let's hope not.  The ultimate realization of the culture of materialism though, I guess.  There would be no need for those messy emotions, only motions to satisfy what is physically.

[quote[It is not quite clear that evil existed as it is not in the Bible, you infer that it had occurred from the temptation of Eve by the serpent. Genesis does not tell you the serpent was Satan either, this is from later periods. The idea Satan rebelled and there was a war in heaven is in Enoch and the Books of Adam & Eve Apocrypha books written between 300-400 BCE.

It is quite clear that evil pre-existed God's physical creation, the tree makes that point abundantly clear.  That evil hasn't invaded that realm makes it necessary that the serpent is the bearer of that evil.  The dating of Hebrew Apocrypha is that of the written forms.  Surely they, like Genesis, existed as an oral tradition well before being written down.  As such, it seems to me it would be difficult to say with any accuracy which stories pre-dated which, if the pre-date each other at all.

That other Hebrew Apocrypha is suitable to support atheist arguments earlier on (ie, the whole Lilith story), but inacceptable when they support a theist argument astounds me.

Quote:
You obviously are not into analogy that takes you outside your box. one more try:

God subdivides a piece of himself and calls it his only begotten son. This piece is implanted in a human. We have no idea if this piece relied on the egg of the human Mary or not, no information on this. It is likely a complete embryo implant. God is pissed at us so he wanted a sacrifice. This piece of himself was sent here and lives among humans as one. God repressed part of his mental process as is done in computer programs so he didn't know who he was until he was older. As this piece was God when he was dying he knew he wasn't really dying permanently since he can't really. So this is a sacrifice?

Quite frankly, because your anaolgy sucked, but I've been guilty of the same.  This time around, your explanation is much better, but still flawed.

God is individsible.  Where the Father is, there is the Son.  Where the Son is, there is the Sprirt.  The Son is begotten from all time.  Co-existent with the Father from eternity.

Biologically, however the conception of Jesus took place, He is fully God and fully Man.

Jesus Christ knew at least from the age of 12 of His divinity.  "Do you not know that I must be about my Father's business."

The same Resurrection awaits me, yet I fear my mortal demise.  In the words of the Bard of Avon, " ...That fear of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne not traveller returns fills us with a certain dread..."  True, Jesus' knowledge of His Resurrection was absolute, my belief in this is much more tentative, but that He dreaded the event is evident from the testimony of the Gospels.  Through the rejection of God's love, through a lack of trust in that love, sin enetered the world.  Through a selfless act of love by a Man, things were set to rights.  That the same man, Jesus Christ, was God is astounding.  That the Creator would deign to become one of the Created, that he should consent to so much as suffer a hang nail on behalf of those who rejected His love in the beginning is overwhelming.

Quote:
A sacrifice is you running out in the street to push a little kid out of the way knowing you will be hit by the car. Not God killing part of himself that can't die permanently.

None of us die "permanently".  Jesus did the same, threw himself into harm's way on our behalf.  Jesus, as Paul points out, is only the "first fruit" of the Resurrection.

Quote:
At least you see that.

Yup.  We even have electric lights and them flush terlets here at the house.  LOL!

 

 

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II