Revelation

Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Revelation

All religions can be reduced in essence to revelation, that is to say, one person communing with ‘god’ or his agents to gain knowledge. A religion may be based on a singular revelation, or on a series of revelations from a string of ‘prophets’. Revelation is then passed down as oral tradition, which becomes written tradition, or, as in more ‘modern’ situations, passed directly to written tradition.

 


My question would be, is revelation a valid source of knowledge?

What differentiates revelation from imagination or delusion? 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.


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:pretend?

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
pretend? She's my neighbor. I love her.

What the fuck does that have to do with her god existing vs yours?

 

You said I was pretending to be buddies with someone.

I'm not.

If it has nothing to do with her understanding of God versus mine - why on earth did YOU even make the "pretending to be buddies" accusation? Why would it even matter if I was or wasnt buddies?

 

If it's irrelevant, keep it locked up in a little box labeled "Brian37's Paranoid Projections"  


VanLandingham
VanLandingham's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2011-12-06
User is offlineOffline
You are right

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The Torah, which LDS claims is somehow the basis of their religion, makes it very plain what is or isn't "revelation" or "prophecy".

1). It cannot contradict the Torah.  Period.

2). It must be specific enough that it can be tested for accuracy.

LDS doctrine fails the first test -- the LDS Church re-invented all of both Christian and Jewish theology, and Christian theology is a re-invention of Jewish theology.  They sneak around the "polytheism" claim by either saying that Christianity is also polytheistic, so what's the problem, or they don't actually worship the man-gods that they all aspire to become.

The LDS revelations fail the second test as well -- the LDS Church makes claims which are both prophetic, and historic, and except for prophetic claims that aren't significant enough to matter, fails.  The LDS Church has been back-pedaling for years now that genetic genealogy has proven their Native American origin claims to be false.

 

Thank you. I agree. Divine revelation has failed 12,500,000 good folks who are as devout and believing in the Holy Spirit as you are. What about Catholics, many good Christians say their divine revelation through the pope and sacred tradition are false. What about Protestants, the Catholics say they are false. Christian divine revelation doesn’t work because it doesn’t protect the millions of LDS or whoever else other Christians say are wrong.


 How can god be controlling this when so many innocent people are being led astray through no fault of their own?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:Brian37

Lion IRC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
pretend? She's my neighbor. I love her.

What the fuck does that have to do with her god existing vs yours?

 

You said I was pretending to be buddies with someone.

I'm not.

If it has nothing to do with her understanding of God versus mine - why on earth did YOU even make the "pretending to be buddies" accusation? Why would it even matter if I was or wasnt buddies?

 

If it's irrelevant, keep it locked up in a little box labeled "Brian37's Paranoid Projections"  

We can all be buddies outside debate, you STILL miss my point and or deliberately ignore it.

I am not talking about how you view god vs how she views god. I am talking about the REALITY that you came to one god and she came to another god.

Faking overlap is a cop out. If how she comes to a specific god and how you come to a specific god does not matter then neither of you have any solid position to hold your particular gods.

I've seen this argument before. "God reveals himself to different people in different ways". That is a fucking cop out otherwise your label or her label would not be required.

When anyone does this what they are in reality dodging is ignoring It that human empathy is not dependent on a label.

Your dodge and her dodge is relevant in the context that humans far to often take natural behavior as being magic divinely handed down.

You and I and she CAN be buddies. Just like other atheists I wont be buddies with.

Unlike you I don't base my life on some utopia or fictional god. Your label, her label and my label don't make me blind.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Let's see... the one who believes in invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers says the ones that don't are delusional... what size tinfoil hat do you wear?

The one who believes the universe came from nothing is delusional and void of logic.

Yeah, because the Bible says that the Universe always existed.  See, says so right here --

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

Oh, wait.  It says that before there was a Universe, G-d had to get around to creating it.

I guess that means you're wrong.

Nah, I'm pretty sure I have a better grip on reality than a bronze age goat herding savage in the Sinai...
But, I'm not sure about you.
LC >:-}>

I dunno.  Bible says -- G-d created the Universe from nothing.  Does your "reality" say it was created from something else?  Goat's milk?  Green cheese?  Turtle poop?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
VanLandingham

VanLandingham wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The Torah, which LDS claims is somehow the basis of their religion, makes it very plain what is or isn't "revelation" or "prophecy".

1). It cannot contradict the Torah.  Period.

2). It must be specific enough that it can be tested for accuracy.

LDS doctrine fails the first test -- the LDS Church re-invented all of both Christian and Jewish theology, and Christian theology is a re-invention of Jewish theology.  They sneak around the "polytheism" claim by either saying that Christianity is also polytheistic, so what's the problem, or they don't actually worship the man-gods that they all aspire to become.

The LDS revelations fail the second test as well -- the LDS Church makes claims which are both prophetic, and historic, and except for prophetic claims that aren't significant enough to matter, fails.  The LDS Church has been back-pedaling for years now that genetic genealogy has proven their Native American origin claims to be false.

Thank you. I agree. Divine revelation has failed 12,500,000 good folks who are as devout and believing in the Holy Spirit as you are.
 Well, I don't believe in the Christian =or= LDS concept of a "Holy Spirit".  I'm a Jew.  Strict monotheism -- One G-d, no parts, no divisions, no "persons". 
Quote:
What about Catholics, many good Christians say their divine revelation through the pope and sacred tradition are false. What about Protestants, the Catholics say they are false.
 I'd apply the test that's given in the Torah.  If they pass the test, they are "true revelations", if not, they aren't. Clue -- Christianity can't be derived from the Torah.  Protestant, Catholic, LDS, JW, take your pick, they all flunk to basic test given in Deuteronomy -- if a prophet says something that contradicts the Torah, they are a false prophet and should be ignored or stoned. 
Quote:
Christian divine revelation doesn’t work because it doesn’t protect the millions of LDS or whoever else other Christians say are wrong.
 Christian divine revelation doesn't work because it violates the rules which were established in the base texts they've embraced as the "justification", or whatever, for their religion. Judaism is a booby-trapped religion -- the Torah cannot be changed.  Anything that disagrees with the Torah is false, and that includes god-men running around and getting themselves killed for my salvation.  I have G-d, I don't need someone to die for me, I'm perfectly capable of relating to G-d without any special mediators, especially ones that get killed.


Quote:
How can god be controlling this when so many innocent people are being led astray through no fault of their own?

Who said G-d is controlling this?  The entire =point= of Free Will is for people to buck-up and be adults.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

That's it.  G-d created grapes and yeast and magically we get wine.  So we thank G-d for doing that.  We don't beg for another bottle, as it were.

Never mind the guys who planted, harvested, pressed, barreled and bottled the wine - it was all freaking' magic?

So you prayed to God for providing nothing - still meets the definition of taking God's name in vain.. 

Ah, you've never made wine before, my bad.

Wine really =is= magic.  Wild yeast will infect grapes and turn them into wine, all without people being involved.  It tastes a lot better if people get involved, but before we knew how to make wine on purpose, wine really was a very magical thing.  And still very yummy and intoxicating.

Beer is a bit harder to get right, but wine is dead simple.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No free will in either case?  What, Eve was FORCED to eat the apple?  The serpent wrapped itself around the apple, then crammed it down her throat?  Is that how you see it going down?  A bazillion serpent babies invaded all of the Garden of Eden and threatened to bite her if she tried to eat something other than the apple?  How, for f*ck's sake, did she NOT have free will?

Again, Adam and Eve were incapable of making a knowledgeable decision. Can you make a choice between good and evil without knowing what either are? Can you understand the threat of death if you never saw anything die?

 Do you have free will when you are being steered to an outcome desired by another?

I understand why you don't see this - you believe that God gave you free will because that's what he wants.

Ah, THAT argument.

Yeah, I guess you're a poor robot, incapable of making decisions with incomplete information.  Be sure to tell that to a cop next time you're arrested for something.

"I didn't have complete knowledge of the situation!  Honest!  Not my fault!  My dog ate my homework!"

Please, be an adult.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Why do you guys keep saying 'nothing'?


 

Quote:
I dunno.  Bible says -- G-d created the Universe from nothing.  Does your "reality" say it was created from something else?  Goat's milk?  Green cheese?  Turtle poop?

Reality says it wasn't 'created' at all. reality indicates that in some form, the universe has 'always' existed. We don't really need a goat herders fantasy with a genital obsession to kick start it.

 

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.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No free will in either case?  What, Eve was FORCED to eat the apple?  The serpent wrapped itself around the apple, then crammed it down her throat?  Is that how you see it going down?  A bazillion serpent babies invaded all of the Garden of Eden and threatened to bite her if she tried to eat something other than the apple?  How, for f*ck's sake, did she NOT have free will?

Again, Adam and Eve were incapable of making a knowledgeable decision. Can you make a choice between good and evil without knowing what either are? Can you understand the threat of death if you never saw anything die?

 Do you have free will when you are being steered to an outcome desired by another?

I understand why you don't see this - you believe that God gave you free will because that's what he wants.

Ah, THAT argument.

Yeah, I guess you're a poor robot, incapable of making decisions with incomplete information.  Be sure to tell that to a cop next time you're arrested for something.

"I didn't have complete knowledge of the situation!  Honest!  Not my fault!  My dog ate my homework!"

Please, be an adult.

I'm not a robot. But your story says Adam and Eve essentially were. Sorry you haven't read that part. You should work on that. I shouldn't know your book better than you do.

Maybe we owe the snake a debt of gratitude - God was certainly no help.

"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


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Hmmm.  That's a pretty weird argument.  If Eve had never done anything she wasn't supposed to do, she'd have free will.  But by doing something she was told NOT to do, she doesn't.

I had this argument with an Orthodox Jew one Sabbath.  Does free will include the ability to choose to sin, or do we only have free will when we =actually= sin?  My argument is that thought without action isn't free will, otherwise our ability to CHOOSE to act doesn't exist.

So this gets back to the matter of whether or not we have "Free Will".  If we do, sooner or later someone actually CHOOSES to act contrary to "G-d's Will" and sins.  It is, quite simply, an inevitability not because we are =compelled= (which wouldn't be free will ...) but because having the ABILITY to choose means that sooner or later, we choose wrong.  Otherwise "Free Will" doesn't =actually= exist, it's just mental masturbation.

I want to know why people choose wrong.  There are forces outside of us that we don't have control over, as well as forces within our brains (neither of which we chose).  Plus, we have very limited power.  As our power over ourselves and the environment increases, so does our free will.

Why should we be punished for things outside of our control?  If I were the most powerful man in the universe, having control over all life and forces of nature, I would be responsible for everything that happens.

If you have that little control over your life, I'd suggest you either call a cop or learn how to exercise more control over your life.

I mean, I realize that your purpose is to attack concepts like "Free Will" so you can blame G-d for your choices, but seriously -- pick a better bogus argument.

But more to the point, G-d DOES NOT have "control" over what you do, that's what "Free Will" is about.  You have a choice -- be a robot, or be a mature adult and accept that when you do something, =you= did it.  Your dog did not eat your homework and that hottie you saw at work did not force you to have sex with her in the mailroom.

 

You sound like a conservative.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but conservative thinking implies claims like, "Everything that happens to you is your fault," "If you don't have something, you don't want it," "You have total control over your entire life (meaning that if you don't have something, you don't want it)," "The victim should always be blamed," etc.  I've read some of your political posts and you appear to be a liberal, but I've seen this kind of thinking among a lot of liberals -- especially the religious ones.

 

On the point of punishing bad behavior: I'm in favor of it.  "Is the person responsible?" is the wrong question.  The proper question is "What do we do with this person now, and how do we rehabilitate him or her?"

 

As far as how much control I have over my life, I have roughly the same amount as most people (my claim was about the free will of all humans, not just myself).  The amount of control most people have is enough to do good most of the time -- we are not robots.  There are more possibilities for free will in between total free will and a total robot nature.

 

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote: Quote:I

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 

Quote:
I dunno.  Bible says -- G-d created the Universe from nothing.  Does your "reality" say it was created from something else?  Goat's milk?  Green cheese?  Turtle poop?

Reality says it wasn't 'created' at all. reality indicates that in some form, the universe has 'always' existed. We don't really need a goat herders fantasy with a genital obsession to kick start it.

Actually, Science says nothing of the sort.  The best theories at present are that the Universe came into existence from complete and total "Nothingness" because the probability of "Something" finally exceeded the probability of "Nothing."  Given enough "Nothing", "Something" really =will= magically appear.  Happens all the time.  It's even happening right now.

There are some "Oscillatory Universe" theories, but that assumes the Universe was "Closed" before and right now, the Universe is looking to be "Open".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 

Quote:
I dunno.  Bible says -- G-d created the Universe from nothing.  Does your "reality" say it was created from something else?  Goat's milk?  Green cheese?  Turtle poop?

Reality says it wasn't 'created' at all. reality indicates that in some form, the universe has 'always' existed. We don't really need a goat herders fantasy with a genital obsession to kick start it.

Actually, Science says nothing of the sort.  The best theories at present are that the Universe came into existence from complete and total "Nothingness" because the probability of "Something" finally exceeded the probability of "Nothing."  Given enough "Nothing", "Something" really =will= magically appear.  Happens all the time.  It's even happening right now.

There are some "Oscillatory Universe" theories, but that assumes the Universe was "Closed" before and right now, the Universe is looking to be "Open".

Here is the problem, you talk a good game but just like Evil Kanevil you try to jump a huge gap and fail.

"Science says"

Yea, and just like every other person who claims a god it somehow ends up justifying the god they claim.

You say science has nothing to do with God.

Why not do the right thing and chalk your superstition up to your own wishes like you rightfully chalk the superstitions of others up to their wishes?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you have that little control over your life, I'd suggest you either call a cop or learn how to exercise more control over your life.

I mean, I realize that your purpose is to attack concepts like "Free Will" so you can blame G-d for your choices, but seriously -- pick a better bogus argument.

But more to the point, G-d DOES NOT have "control" over what you do, that's what "Free Will" is about.  You have a choice -- be a robot, or be a mature adult and accept that when you do something, =you= did it.  Your dog did not eat your homework and that hottie you saw at work did not force you to have sex with her in the mailroom.

You sound like a conservative.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but conservative thinking implies claims like, "Everything that happens to you is your fault," "If you don't have something, you don't want it," "You have total control over your entire life (meaning that if you don't have something, you don't want it)," "The victim should always be blamed," etc.  I've read some of your political posts and you appear to be a liberal, but I've seen this kind of thinking among a lot of liberals -- especially the religious ones.

On the point of punishing bad behavior: I'm in favor of it.  "Is the person responsible?" is the wrong question.  The proper question is "What do we do with this person now, and how do we rehabilitate him or her?"

As far as how much control I have over my life, I have roughly the same amount as most people (my claim was about the free will of all humans, not just myself).  The amount of control most people have is enough to do good most of the time -- we are not robots.  There are more possibilities for free will in between total free will and a total robot nature.

You're confusing "Freedom to Act" with "Entitlement to Outcome", which I'm sure makes me sound more like a Conservative.  Which is fine -- I'm a Classical Conservative, not the fake Neo-Conservative variety.

Free Will does not mean, according to any reasonable definition, that you can choose to buy a Lamborghini (but Brian37 can fart one out of his ass, so I've been told ...) even if you have no money.

Free Will is usually contrasted against some form of Determinism -- that our actions are =caused= by something outside or beyond our control.

Now, you could argue that "Poverty" or "Physical Handicap" is an impediment to Free Will, but that is a logical absurdity -- I also can't flap my arms and fly, regardless of how many of whatever =reasonable= impediments are removed.  It is an absurdity because under such a definition -- Free Will only exists if I can do whatever I imagine -- there can't ever be any such thing as Free Will.

There =are= people who are "thrown" into making choices because they mostly bounce through life unaware, but that's not an argument against Free Will either.  They've made other choices, for the most part -- don't rock the boat, don't make waves, don't take chances, don't be UNCOMFORTABLE.  They've chosen "comfort", and for the most part, if you investigate that, they are aware that they've chosen "comfort".  They might have forgotten, but if you sit down and talk to them, they know that they =chose= to be "comfortable".  And that is also a choice they are free to make.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Lion IRC

Brian37 wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
pretend? She's my neighbor. I love her.

What the fuck does that have to do with her god existing vs yours?

 

You said I was pretending to be buddies with someone.

I'm not.

If it has nothing to do with her understanding of God versus mine - why on earth did YOU even make the "pretending to be buddies" accusation? Why would it even matter if I was or wasnt buddies?

 

If it's irrelevant, keep it locked up in a little box labeled "Brian37's Paranoid Projections"  

We can all be buddies outside debate, you STILL miss my point and or deliberately ignore it.

Your point was that I was being fake/dishonest - pretending to be buddies. THAT was your point. You wrote it. Own it pal! 

 

We're moving on now.

Brian37 wrote:
...I am not talking about how you view god vs how she views god. I am talking about the REALITY that you came to one god and she came to another god.

There is only one God. You cannot worship a non-existent God.

 

Brian37 wrote:
...Faking overlap is a cop out.

Give it a rest. Or else I'll start accusing you of being a fake atheist - secretly holding doubts - pretending to be something you're not.  I've heard there are atheists hiding in the clergy who do that. The least you can do is give people the benefit of the doubt that MAYBE they actually DO mean what they say. Otherwise dont bother posting @me because I wont even read, let alone respond.

 

Brian37 wrote:
...Unlike you I don't base my life on some utopia or fictional god. Your label, her label and my label don't make me blind.

Unlike you I dont base my life on a belief that there is no soul/God/afterlife.

But if I was an atheist I certainly wouldnt waste my precious, short time here on earth evangelizing for the cause of non-stamp collecting as if it somehow mattered to my DNA in the future sometime. If I was an atheist, my selfish genes wouldnt care what happened after I'm dead.   


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

More like there was no free will in either case. Can't make a knowledgeable choice without knowledge. If they already had they knowledge of good and evil why test them with te tree?

No free will in either case?  What, Eve was FORCED to eat the apple?  The serpent wrapped itself around the apple, then crammed it down her throat?  Is that how you see it going down?  A bazillion serpent babies invaded all of the Garden of Eden and threatened to bite her if she tried to eat something other than the apple?  How, for f*ck's sake, did she NOT have free will?

Again, Adam and Eve were incapable of making a knowledgeable decision. Can you make a choice between good and evil without knowing what either are? Can you understand the threat of death if you never saw anything die?

 Do you have free will when you are being steered to an outcome desired by another?

I understand why you don't see this - you believe that God gave you free will because that's what he wants.

 

 

FurryCatHerder, Eve had diminished free will in the Garden of Eden -- she wasn't a robot being controlled by the serpent.  Maybe the serpent made some good points.  Do you decide to believe every convincing statement, or does some of it happen automatically?  

 

The serpent deceived her, it wasn't equivalent to someone completely overpowering her like in a murder or rape scenario.  The serpent was being sneaky and exploited her psychological and philosophical weaknesses.

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Speaking of "blind"

Faking overlap.

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you have that little control over your life, I'd suggest you either call a cop or learn how to exercise more control over your life.

I mean, I realize that your purpose is to attack concepts like "Free Will" so you can blame G-d for your choices, but seriously -- pick a better bogus argument.

But more to the point, G-d DOES NOT have "control" over what you do, that's what "Free Will" is about.  You have a choice -- be a robot, or be a mature adult and accept that when you do something, =you= did it.  Your dog did not eat your homework and that hottie you saw at work did not force you to have sex with her in the mailroom.

You sound like a conservative.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but conservative thinking implies claims like, "Everything that happens to you is your fault," "If you don't have something, you don't want it," "You have total control over your entire life (meaning that if you don't have something, you don't want it)," "The victim should always be blamed," etc.  I've read some of your political posts and you appear to be a liberal, but I've seen this kind of thinking among a lot of liberals -- especially the religious ones.

On the point of punishing bad behavior: I'm in favor of it.  "Is the person responsible?" is the wrong question.  The proper question is "What do we do with this person now, and how do we rehabilitate him or her?"

As far as how much control I have over my life, I have roughly the same amount as most people (my claim was about the free will of all humans, not just myself).  The amount of control most people have is enough to do good most of the time -- we are not robots.  There are more possibilities for free will in between total free will and a total robot nature.

You're confusing "Freedom to Act" with "Entitlement to Outcome", which I'm sure makes me sound more like a Conservative.  Which is fine -- I'm a Classical Conservative, not the fake Neo-Conservative variety.

Free Will does not mean, according to any reasonable definition, that you can choose to buy a Lamborghini (but Brian37 can fart one out of his ass, so I've been told ...) even if you have no money.

Free Will is usually contrasted against some form of Determinism -- that our actions are =caused= by something outside or beyond our control.

Now, you could argue that "Poverty" or "Physical Handicap" is an impediment to Free Will, but that is a logical absurdity -- I also can't flap my arms and fly, regardless of how many of whatever =reasonable= impediments are removed.  It is an absurdity because under such a definition -- Free Will only exists if I can do whatever I imagine -- there can't ever be any such thing as Free Will.

There =are= people who are "thrown" into making choices because they mostly bounce through life unaware, but that's not an argument against Free Will either.  They've made other choices, for the most part -- don't rock the boat, don't make waves, don't take chances, don't be UNCOMFORTABLE.  They've chosen "comfort", and for the most part, if you investigate that, they are aware that they've chosen "comfort".  They might have forgotten, but if you sit down and talk to them, they know that they =chose= to be "comfortable".  And that is also a choice they are free to make.

 

Some people are shy, for example, and it's harder for them to deal with discomfort, especially social discomfort; they didn't choose their genes or how their genes would develop.  People who choose comfort can be educated in how to take risks, but it's largely out of their control whether or not they will bump into someone smarter than they are or whether they know which books are the right ones to choose and which people are the right ones to believe.

 

I take the approach that education is the best way to boost freedom, because knowledge changes the functioning of the brain.  (Sometimes medication and surgery is necessary, but those sciences have a ways to go.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:jcgadfly

Philosophicus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

More like there was no free will in either case. Can't make a knowledgeable choice without knowledge. If they already had they knowledge of good and evil why test them with te tree?

No free will in either case?  What, Eve was FORCED to eat the apple?  The serpent wrapped itself around the apple, then crammed it down her throat?  Is that how you see it going down?  A bazillion serpent babies invaded all of the Garden of Eden and threatened to bite her if she tried to eat something other than the apple?  How, for f*ck's sake, did she NOT have free will?

Again, Adam and Eve were incapable of making a knowledgeable decision. Can you make a choice between good and evil without knowing what either are? Can you understand the threat of death if you never saw anything die?

 Do you have free will when you are being steered to an outcome desired by another?

I understand why you don't see this - you believe that God gave you free will because that's what he wants.

FurryCatHerder, Eve had diminished free will in the Garden of Eden -- she wasn't a robot being controlled by the serpent.  Maybe the serpent made some good points.  Do you decide to believe every convincing statement, or does some of it happen automatically?  

The serpent deceived her, it wasn't equivalent to someone completely overpowering her like in a murder or rape scenario.  The serpent was being sneaky and exploited her psychological and philosophical weaknesses.

Look, whether or not the serpent exploited her "psychological and philosophical weaknesses", the story moves things along.  Adam and Eve were told what they could and couldn't do.  Eve broke the rules, Adam tried to help cover things up, it's just like raising kids.

Here's the difference -- to me it's a story that comes from my religious tradition.  To you it means serpents are mean, G-d is mean, the world is mean, and Eve gets a free pass because of some excuse you've concocted.  Neither Adam nor Eve have to =literally= have existed for the story to be true, because the story reflects how people deal with choices they make, and it shows that people can, and do, make the "wrong" choice.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian.  Don't try dealing with me like I am one.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
There =are= people who are "thrown" into making choices because they mostly bounce through life unaware, but that's not an argument against Free Will either.  They've made other choices, for the most part -- don't rock the boat, don't make waves, don't take chances, don't be UNCOMFORTABLE.  They've chosen "comfort", and for the most part, if you investigate that, they are aware that they've chosen "comfort".  They might have forgotten, but if you sit down and talk to them, they know that they =chose= to be "comfortable".  And that is also a choice they are free to make.

Some people are shy, for example, and it's harder for them to deal with discomfort, especially social discomfort; they didn't choose their genes or how their genes would develop.  People who choose comfort can be educated in how to take risks, but it's largely out of their control whether or not they will bump into someone smarter than they are or whether they know which books are the right ones to choose and which people are the right ones to believe.

I take the approach that education is the best way to boost freedom, because knowledge changes the functioning of the brain.  (Sometimes medication and surgery is necessary, but those sciences have a ways to go.)

Right, and some people have arms they can flap and fly with, and other people can plunk down a quarter-mill on a Lamborghini, and Brian can fart one out his ass.

That people have innate limitations is a given -- when I was 6 or 7 or so, I was absolutely certain I could point myself into the wind, hold out my arms, and fly, just like the Flying Nun, even though I wasn't Catholic.  Perhaps if I was Catholic it might have worked, but I've never been Catholic, have no plans of being Catholic, and can't go back to being 6 or 7 years old anyway.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Look,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Look, whether or not the serpent exploited her "psychological and philosophical weaknesses", the story moves things along.  Adam and Eve were told what they could and couldn't do.  Eve broke the rules, Adam tried to help cover things up, it's just like raising kids.

Here's the difference -- to me it's a story that comes from my religious tradition.  To you it means serpents are mean, G-d is mean, the world is mean, and Eve gets a free pass because of some excuse you've concocted.  Neither Adam nor Eve have to =literally= have existed for the story to be true, because the story reflects how people deal with choices they make, and it shows that people can, and do, make the "wrong" choice.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian.  Don't try dealing with me like I am one.

I get and respect that perspective, namely that people need to own up, and that the bible should not be interpreted literally by anyone, especially religious individuals.

But the fundamental mechanics of the story are flawed.  Here's god, that freshly created these individuals, he tells them what to do and what not to do, but doesn't instill a moral compass.  I see your explanation that you need not have a moral compass to obey, but I argue that you need one.  Without knowing right from wrong, Eve would not have know that disobeying in itself is wrong.  She only finds that out after the proverbial bite of the apple (which I love btw, when I hear that story I think of red-delicious, YUMMM).  Really poor mechanics in the story.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Lion IRC wrote:

Faking overlap.

 

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

In the story both trees are magical. After eating the first they gain knowledge. If they had not been stopped from eating the second tree they would have "become like us" that is, like the gods who are talking.

If that is not to be considered magic I have to ask what is to be considered magic. A talking snake perhaps? People who were so dumb they did not know they were naked perhaps? A talking, walking god who created people with the design flaw of free will?

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...

 Why would I be joking?

If you look at what "Jewish revelation" looks like and compare it to ancient pagan beliefs, we don't say that the Earth rides through the cosmos on the back of a turtle or elephant or whatever.  We don't claim that the sun is pulled across the sky by someone on a chariot.

The sun was carried by Lucifer, the light bearer, in the Septuagint Job story. He Egyptian name was Ra. The other character in the story is Amun. That Lucifer/Ra carries the light is how there can be light on day one of creation before there is a god to carry it around. The issue does not arise until people realize the stars are suns.

Quote:
We also don't get the =order= of the development of the cosmos or life on Earth wrong -- the Earth wasn't created first as the "center of the Universe", with Man being created before the beasts.  The Universe starts out as this "light" thing and progresses through a series of changes with Man entering the picture last.  "Out of Africa" isn't all that far removed from people who believe that the Garden of Eden was where modern day Jerusalem is located -- that Jerusalem really is the "Bellybutton Of The World".

Pardon but where did you find evolution in the Genesis? And where did you find fruitcakes who believe that about Jerusalem?

Quote:
There are some here who'll insist (right about .... NOW!) that this is just "rationalization", but for that ordering to have been gotten "right" 3,500 years ago -- this isn't "wrong", it's just "simple", and the language of a bunch of goat and sheep herders is NOT 21st century high energy Physics and evolutionary Biology.  These are a Bronze Age people, but those Bronze Age people at least knew that the stars in the Heavens came before they did, and that the "beasts of the field" came before them.

You really can't blame it on the ignorance of filthy goat herders and claim their morality is anything but equally ignorant and filthy. But the creation chronology follows that of Amun of Egypt who created the first couple out of clay. Amun was given the name of a minor Ugaritic god Yahweh when the Septuagint was created.

Quote:
Now, there are people who think "mayim" means "water", like a lake, river or stream, but "mayim" is the root of "shamayim" which is "heavens".  And this is where people who don't understand the original language really start to fall all over themselves -- English is NOT Hebrew.  When Hebrew was brought into the modern world and stopped just being  a sacred language, we had to go out and get ourselves some more words -- some we picked up from English and other European languages, but the closest language to Hebrew with words to spare was Arabic.  That's how limited the language was, even as recently as 100 years ago.

Hebrew is an invented language of Greek influenced Aramaic. There is no reason to expect it have consistent meanings or usages. It was more of a pigin for dealing with the Greeks.

Quote:
Compare this to Christianity, and particularly the modern know-nothing branch that posts stupid images decrying Evolution -- Evolution isn't a threat to me because the Torah is NOT a Science manual.

As you indicated above, it cannot be considered anything more than ramblings of the ignorant for the ignorant even if cats have replaced goats for herding purposes.

Quote:
For Science, I look to Science.  But even =not= being a Science manual, at least I know that before there was Man, there were other animals, and that doesn't disagree with Evolution.  I'm not stuck explaining how Homo Sapien is supposedly a more ancient species than Felis Catus, all praise be unto the great and wonderful Cat.  I don't have to claim that fossils were put there by The Devil to tempt me into disbelieving G-d.  I'm not stuck explaining, as Christians tried to suppress what Scientists found a few hundred years back, that the Sun really =does= orbit the Earth.  I don't have to strain orbital mechanics by pointing out that both orbit a common barycenter, so the Sun, in fact, actually orbits the center of mass of the Earth-Sun system, which is complicated by the masses of all the other planets.

But you are stuck with believing in a Moses who never existed are you not? Which is more stupid? Or is taking the murderous customs of those filthy, ignorant primitives as some kind of moral guidance to your liking? The whole point of claiming being a Jew is other than being a member of a fraternal organization with a lady's auxilliary does have to give the savage and ignorant Torah some standing does it not?

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Lee2216 wrote:
...God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.

This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD,

the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ Exodus 3:14-15


If the Judeans had any inkling of monotheism the like would read, I am the only god you klutz!

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Let's see... the one who believes in invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers says the ones that don't are delusional... what size tinfoil hat do you wear?

The one who believes the universe came from nothing is delusional and void of logic.

Perhaps you would be willing to explain the kind of something used by some god or other to make this universe. The christian line is usually to claim the universe did come from nothing. Where are you coming from? What mechanism do you proposed?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Let's see... the one who believes in invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers says the ones that don't are delusional... what size tinfoil hat do you wear?

The one who believes the universe came from nothing is delusional and void of logic.

Yeah, because the Bible says that the Universe always existed.  See, says so right here --

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

Oh, wait.  It says that before there was a Universe, G-d had to get around to creating it.

I guess that means you're wrong.

Although a hyphenated god may have a special place in your belief system how is the choice of translation as created other than imposing a later theology upon the expression?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quantum weirdness

What mechanism do you propose?

Quantum weirdness/magic.  


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...

Hmmm.  That's a pretty weird argument.  If Eve had never done anything she wasn't supposed to do, she'd have free will.  But by doing something she was told NOT to do, she doesn't.

I had this argument with an Orthodox Jew one Sabbath.  Does free will include the ability to choose to sin, or do we only have free will when we =actually= sin?  My argument is that thought without action isn't free will, otherwise our ability to CHOOSE to act doesn't exist.

So this gets back to the matter of whether or not we have "Free Will".  If we do, sooner or later someone actually CHOOSES to act contrary to "G-d's Will" and sins.  It is, quite simply, an inevitability not because we are =compelled= (which wouldn't be free will ...) but because having the ABILITY to choose means that sooner or later, we choose wrong.  Otherwise "Free Will" doesn't =actually= exist, it's just mental masturbation.

Speaking of imposing later, Christian theology upon the text sin implies some sort of moral behavior. The OT is nothing but contractual rules requiring the performance of rituals and avoidance of taboos in return for certain promised rewards. It is contractual not moral.

Your free will rationale does demonstrate it is a design flaw. Sooner or later means ultimate failure for all. That is a pretty design feature.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...

If you have that little control over your life, I'd suggest you either call a cop or learn how to exercise more control over your life.

I mean, I realize that your purpose is to attack concepts like "Free Will" so you can blame G-d for your choices, but seriously -- pick a better bogus argument.

But more to the point, G-d DOES NOT have "control" over what you do, that's what "Free Will" is about.  You have a choice -- be a robot, or be a mature adult and accept that when you do something, =you= did it.  Your dog did not eat your homework and that hottie you saw at work did not force you to have sex with her in the mailroom.

Perhaps if your hyphenated god lead by example it would make more sense. It could apologize for including free will, admit it was serious mistake and consider it all even with a do-over.

Instead we have this pervert with a prurient interest in who and what people screw. Perhaps it is jealously because it is asexual, that it has to multiply by mitosis.

Maybe if it started treating people like adults instead of things like the insultingly juvenile ten commandments. Does it really think people are so infantile they didn't know about theft and murder and perjury before it came along? Does it have to be so supercilious as to pretend to take credit for such elementary ideas? Perhaps it thinks it came up with something new but if it does you folks really need to find a new god with at least elementary intelligence. Perhaps if it had just copied from the code of Hammurabi that was around centuries before the gaff on the commandments it would not be so bad.

And then just where does it get off commanding summary public execution for so many trivial, meaningless things? It is disgusting.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Why would I be joking?

If you look at what "Jewish revelation" looks like and compare it to ancient pagan beliefs, we don't say that the Earth rides through the cosmos on the back of a turtle or elephant or whatever.  We don't claim that the sun is pulled across the sky by someone on a chariot.

The sun was carried by Lucifer, the light bearer, in the Septuagint Job story. He Egyptian name was Ra. The other character in the story is Amun. That Lucifer/Ra carries the light is how there can be light on day one of creation before there is a god to carry it around. The issue does not arise until people realize the stars are suns.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?  Not that I mind reading the LXX all that much, but you need to provide chapter and verse for this "Lucifer" nonsense.  I read English a lot faster than Greek, so I went and read an English translation of the LXX version of Job and found nothing of the sort.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Hebrew is an invented language of Greek influenced Aramaic. There is no reason to expect it have consistent meanings or usages. It was more of a pigin for dealing with the Greeks.

You're on crack.  Hebrew is an Afro-Asiatic language, while Greek is Indo-European.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...

I dunno.  Bible says -- G-d created the Universe from nothing.  Does your "reality" say it was created from something else?  Goat's milk?  Green cheese?  Turtle poop?

 

Actually Genesis is silent regarding what your hyphenated god used. The opening line only says created the plural heavens and the earth. It doesn't say what else existed in the beginning. Why must you torah thumpers read into the text things that are not there?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...

 Well, I don't believe in the Christian =or= LDS concept of a "Holy Spirit".  I'm a Jew.  Strict monotheism -- One G-d, no parts, no divisions, no "persons".

So you copy the Muslim idea of indivisible. Why would you think that is other than a primitive, ignorant idea of camel herders? If you want to apologize for the Torah as not being a science manual the same must be done as not being a theology text. How could illiterate, ignorant, flea-infested savages have grasped theology?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...

Actually, Science says nothing of the sort.  The best theories at present are that the Universe came into existence from complete and total "Nothingness" because the probability of "Something" finally exceeded the probability of "Nothing."  Given enough "Nothing", "Something" really =will= magically appear.  Happens all the time.  It's even happening right now.

There are some "Oscillatory Universe" theories, but that assumes the Universe was "Closed" before and right now, the Universe is looking to be "Open".

You have a lot of reading to do on the subject before you have something credible to say about science says on the subject. At the moment there are several theories about what existed before bang time. Not a single one says nothing.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

...

FurryCatHerder, Eve had diminished free will in the Garden of Eden -- she wasn't a robot being controlled by the serpent.  Maybe the serpent made some good points.  Do you decide to believe every convincing statement, or does some of it happen automatically?  

The serpent deceived her, it wasn't equivalent to someone completely overpowering her like in a murder or rape scenario.  The serpent was being sneaky and exploited her psychological and philosophical weaknesses.

Look, whether or not the serpent exploited her "psychological and philosophical weaknesses", the story moves things along.  Adam and Eve were told what they could and couldn't do.  Eve broke the rules, Adam tried to help cover things up, it's just like raising kids.

Your hyphenated god also lied when it said IN THAT DAY you will die. It said what it said. It does not need believers to make excuses for it. It flat out lied. Pretending to find a hidden meaning to die does not make either you or it sound credible. Beside, how could A&E know what die meant?

And you again avoid the clearly stated reason for the prohbition, to prevent A&E from becoming gods. That is exactly what it said. Eat of the tree of life and become like us. That is why they were kicked out of the garden because that is the reason given. It says what it says.

Quote:
Here's the difference -- to me it's a story that comes from my religious tradition.  To you it means serpents are mean, G-d is mean, the world is mean, and Eve gets a free pass because of some excuse you've concocted.  Neither Adam nor Eve have to =literally= have existed for the story to be true, because the story reflects how people deal with choices they make, and it shows that people can, and do, make the "wrong" choice.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian.  Don't try dealing with me like I am one.

So you "elevate" the story to the level of uneducated goat herders and yet you appear to take it seriously. It is also odd you think it was the wrong choice. Free will. What good is the power if you don't use it? With the fruit they became godlike just not completely gods lacking living forever from the other tree. 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Why would I be joking?

If you look at what "Jewish revelation" looks like and compare it to ancient pagan beliefs, we don't say that the Earth rides through the cosmos on the back of a turtle or elephant or whatever.  We don't claim that the sun is pulled across the sky by someone on a chariot.

The sun was carried by Lucifer, the light bearer, in the Septuagint Job story. He Egyptian name was Ra. The other character in the story is Amun. That Lucifer/Ra carries the light is how there can be light on day one of creation before there is a god to carry it around. The issue does not arise until people realize the stars are suns.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?  Not that I mind reading the LXX all that much, but you need to provide chapter and verse for this "Lucifer" nonsense.  I read English a lot faster than Greek, so I went and read an English translation of the LXX version of Job and found nothing of the sort.

The method that applies to all other ancient gods is to compare their characteristics to see that they are the same or different. Both Ra and Lucifer carried the sun. Both spent time in the underworld. Therefore they are the same. It is related to the later mythology of Amun-Ra as a single deity.

You don't think these stories and gods appeared in a vacuum do you?

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Hebrew is an invented language of Greek influenced Aramaic. There is no reason to expect it have consistent meanings or usages. It was more of a pigin for dealing with the Greeks.

You're on crack.  Hebrew is an Afro-Asiatic language, while Greek is Indo-European.

You should consider both the Septuagint and the "hebrew" translation. The translation is filled with the same Koine Greek stylings of the Septuagint. Before Koine Greek was discovered this argument was used to claim the Septuagint was the perfectly accurate translation. But when a cache of Koine Greek documents was discovered back in the 1890s the argument reversed and the obvious was confirmed and it was obvious the "hebrew" contained the erronious translations. Considering there is no sign of a literate culture in bibleland until about a century after the arrival of the Greeks it has been known for over a century it could not have been created in bibleland.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Ktulu wrote:
...

I get and respect that perspective, namely that people need to own up, and that the bible should not be interpreted literally by anyone, especially religious individuals.

But the fundamental mechanics of the story are flawed.  Here's god, that freshly created these individuals, he tells them what to do and what not to do, but doesn't instill a moral compass.  I see your explanation that you need not have a moral compass to obey, but I argue that you need one.  Without knowing right from wrong, Eve would not have know that disobeying in itself is wrong.  She only finds that out after the proverbial bite of the apple (which I love btw, when I hear that story I think of red-delicious, YUMMM).  Really poor mechanics in the story.

Quote:

Except you are imposing a later theology upon the story. Morality, right and wrong are things not found in the story as written. The story is what it is and says what it says.

Neither is there any morality in Prometheus stealing fire from the gods or the secret of steel from Crum for that matter.

This is simply the serpent attempting to help A&E on their way to becoming gods. That is the story it tells. The gods will strike down those who presume to become gods. Gods are basically insecure creatures who fear competition.

In any event the principle god in this story is not presented as having any more moral standing than any Greek god. In fact it never gains any moral standing in all the Septuagint. It is all obeying rules which are not considered other than artibrary and/or capricious. There is no pretension following them is for anything other than the quid pro quo that god offered. Speaking of lying, it rarely kept its part of the bargain but was hot shit on punishing those who violated his rules -- usually by taking it out on the family of the transgressor. Obviously that god has no comprehension of morality even at the level of a human infant. Consider it a sociopath.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

More like there was no free will in either case. Can't make a knowledgeable choice without knowledge. If they already had they knowledge of good and evil why test them with te tree?

No free will in either case?  What, Eve was FORCED to eat the apple?  The serpent wrapped itself around the apple, then crammed it down her throat?  Is that how you see it going down?  A bazillion serpent babies invaded all of the Garden of Eden and threatened to bite her if she tried to eat something other than the apple?  How, for f*ck's sake, did she NOT have free will?

Again, Adam and Eve were incapable of making a knowledgeable decision. Can you make a choice between good and evil without knowing what either are? Can you understand the threat of death if you never saw anything die?

 Do you have free will when you are being steered to an outcome desired by another?

I understand why you don't see this - you believe that God gave you free will because that's what he wants.

FurryCatHerder, Eve had diminished free will in the Garden of Eden -- she wasn't a robot being controlled by the serpent.  Maybe the serpent made some good points.  Do you decide to believe every convincing statement, or does some of it happen automatically?  

The serpent deceived her, it wasn't equivalent to someone completely overpowering her like in a murder or rape scenario.  The serpent was being sneaky and exploited her psychological and philosophical weaknesses.

Look, whether or not the serpent exploited her "psychological and philosophical weaknesses", the story moves things along.  Adam and Eve were told what they could and couldn't do.  Eve broke the rules, Adam tried to help cover things up, it's just like raising kids.

Here's the difference -- to me it's a story that comes from my religious tradition.  To you it means serpents are mean, G-d is mean, the world is mean, and Eve gets a free pass because of some excuse you've concocted.  Neither Adam nor Eve have to =literally= have existed for the story to be true, because the story reflects how people deal with choices they make, and it shows that people can, and do, make the "wrong" choice.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian.  Don't try dealing with me like I am one.

They don't need to literally exist for it to be a bad story sending out the wrong moral message.

If you are given a rule you don't understand (including, in this case, the concept of what a rule is) do you follow it blindly? Do you tell an infant who can't understand you a rule and then slam it against the wall when it breaks that rule?

Where moral knowledge was concerned, Adam and Eve were infants. If they had full moral knowledge beforehand why tempt them with the tree?

Dictators would love you because you buy into the might makes right game wholeheartedly. 

So to you, the story is meaningless and God is unnecessary - why do you worship one then?

"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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Look, whether or not the serpent exploited her "psychological and philosophical weaknesses", the story moves things along.  Adam and Eve were told what they could and couldn't do.  Eve broke the rules, Adam tried to help cover things up, it's just like raising kids.

Here's the difference -- to me it's a story that comes from my religious tradition.  To you it means serpents are mean, G-d is mean, the world is mean, and Eve gets a free pass because of some excuse you've concocted.  Neither Adam nor Eve have to =literally= have existed for the story to be true, because the story reflects how people deal with choices they make, and it shows that people can, and do, make the "wrong" choice.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian.  Don't try dealing with me like I am one.

They don't need to literally exist for it to be a bad story sending out the wrong moral message.

If you are given a rule you don't understand (including, in this case, the concept of what a rule is) do you follow it blindly? Do you tell an infant who can't understand you a rule and then slam it against the wall when it breaks that rule?

Where moral knowledge was concerned, Adam and Eve were infants. If they had full moral knowledge beforehand why tempt them with the tree?

Dictators would love you because you buy into the might makes right game wholeheartedly. 

So to you, the story is meaningless and God is unnecessary - why do you worship one then?

It doesn't at all send out the wrong moral message.

Yes, where Adam and Eve were concerned they =were= "infants".  And guess what -- no one has ever been born with all the knowledge they will ever acquire, including what is "right" and "wrong" and why rules of any sort might exist, and what happens when they are broken.

You see a tree, a serpent and a woman making a choice she didn't understand.  I see people having to deal with choices between "right" and "wrong" and understanding that the "wrong" choice can have consequences.

You want people to =not= have Free Will, or to give a free pass to anyone who lacks "complete" information.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Look, whether or not the serpent exploited her "psychological and philosophical weaknesses", the story moves things along.  Adam and Eve were told what they could and couldn't do.  Eve broke the rules, Adam tried to help cover things up, it's just like raising kids.

Here's the difference -- to me it's a story that comes from my religious tradition.  To you it means serpents are mean, G-d is mean, the world is mean, and Eve gets a free pass because of some excuse you've concocted.  Neither Adam nor Eve have to =literally= have existed for the story to be true, because the story reflects how people deal with choices they make, and it shows that people can, and do, make the "wrong" choice.

I'm not a Fundamentalist Christian.  Don't try dealing with me like I am one.

They don't need to literally exist for it to be a bad story sending out the wrong moral message.

If you are given a rule you don't understand (including, in this case, the concept of what a rule is) do you follow it blindly? Do you tell an infant who can't understand you a rule and then slam it against the wall when it breaks that rule?

Where moral knowledge was concerned, Adam and Eve were infants. If they had full moral knowledge beforehand why tempt them with the tree?

Dictators would love you because you buy into the might makes right game wholeheartedly. 

So to you, the story is meaningless and God is unnecessary - why do you worship one then?

It doesn't at all send out the wrong moral message.

Yes, where Adam and Eve were concerned they =were= "infants".  And guess what -- no one has ever been born with all the knowledge they will ever acquire, including what is "right" and "wrong" and why rules of any sort might exist, and what happens when they are broken.

You see a tree, a serpent and a woman making a choice she didn't understand.  I see people having to deal with choices between "right" and "wrong" and understanding that the "wrong" choice can have consequences.

You want people to =not= have Free Will, or to give a free pass to anyone who lacks "complete" information.

It's not about all knowledge - It's about moral knowledge.  I do wish you'd figure that out.

You see a man and a woman given a rule about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil assuming that they already have knowledge of good and evil (that God hadn't given them).

It's would be like me coming to you and saying "a.wrio asro; e.kgetl; ena ghslg ang;leh. fghz;ogusdgaeklugh!" and then shooting you because you didn't understand what I meant.

"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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Lion IRC wrote:There is only

Lion IRC wrote:

There is only one God. You cannot worship a non-existent God.

Well, it's really quite possible to worship a non-existent God...

All the people in the past and present who worship gods you don't think exist "worship a non-existent God" (or gods).

Lion IRC wrote:

But if I was an atheist I certainly wouldnt waste my precious, short time here on earth evangelizing for the cause of non-stamp collecting as if it somehow mattered to my DNA in the future sometime. If I was an atheist, my selfish genes wouldnt care what happened after I'm dead.

Your genes are still selfish regardless of whether or not you're an atheist. Obviously, you are capable of overriding or ignoring your selfish genes and doing things to help others even if it costs you. If you were an atheist, this capability would not change. Of course, you may lose your motivation to use it, but the capability still remains.

Brian37 does what he does because he thinks it will help humanity.

Do you, along with Furry, really think that atheists have no real (or authoritative, ultimate, absolute, etc.) reason to be moral? What about atheists who are moral (according to your standards)? Are they just stupid or deluded for wanting to help people?

Lion IRC wrote:

Unlike you I dont base my life on a belief that there is no soul/God/afterlife.

Why do you base your life on a belief that there is a soul/God/afterlife? I am honestly interested in your reasons. Understanding someone else's point of view is key to being able to accept and live with his or her differences.

This may not matter, but my avatar picture is of me 4 years ago when I was 17. It was the best picture of me I could find on my computer. The reason I'm saying this is because I've had several fundamentalist, evangelical Christian preachers ignore my ideas just because I was a lot younger than them. Something about the Bible saying "foolishness is wrapped up in the heart of a child" and "the fool says in his heart there is no God". 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Where do you come up with this nonsense?  Not that I mind reading the LXX all that much, but you need to provide chapter and verse for this "Lucifer" nonsense.  I read English a lot faster than Greek, so I went and read an English translation of the LXX version of Job and found nothing of the sort.

The method that applies to all other ancient gods is to compare their characteristics to see that they are the same or different. Both Ra and Lucifer carried the sun. Both spent time in the underworld. Therefore they are the same. It is related to the later mythology of Amun-Ra as a single deity.

"I made it up" would have been a lot more honest, and a lot more accurate.

The same as your claim that there was no literate culture in "bible land" before the Greeks -- even the Documentary Wild Guess crowd understands that there was culture in Eretz Yisrael from long before the Greeks showed up.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Hebrew is an invented language of Greek influenced Aramaic. There is no reason to expect it have consistent meanings or usages. It was more of a pigin for dealing with the Greeks.

You're on crack.  Hebrew is an Afro-Asiatic language, while Greek is Indo-European.

You should consider both the Septuagint and the "hebrew" translation. The translation is filled with the same Koine Greek stylings of the Septuagint. Before Koine Greek was discovered this argument was used to claim the Septuagint was the perfectly accurate translation. But when a cache of Koine Greek documents was discovered back in the 1890s the argument reversed and the obvious was confirmed and it was obvious the "hebrew" contained the erronious translations. Considering there is no sign of a literate culture in bibleland until about a century after the arrival of the Greeks it has been known for over a century it could not have been created in bibleland.

What does that have to do with your insane claim that Hebrew is an invented language that's derived from Greek influence Aramaic?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Well, I

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Well, I don't believe in the Christian =or= LDS concept of a "Holy Spirit".  I'm a Jew.  Strict monotheism -- One G-d, no parts, no divisions, no "persons".

You don't believe in the Triune God? The Torah teaches it. Is not Elohim a plural noun? Plural pronouns are at times used by God when referring to Himself, as in Genesis 1:26. You don't believe in the concept of the holy spirit? The Torah teaches it. How do you explain Genesis 1:2? God's spirit is spoken of in the scriptures as a personality of His own, yet identified as God. Christianity is strict monotheism as well, one God, three distinct co-equal persons.

 
FurryCatHerder wrote:
I have G-d, I don't need someone to die for me, I'm perfectly capable of relating to G-d without any special mediators, especially ones that get killed.
 What do you mean you have God? Is it by following all the commandments, or is it by God's grace through faith and repentance? How exactly are your sins atoned for if Jesus didn't need to be crucified? What do you mean by relating to God? No one can get to God except through Jesus Christ.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


VanLandingham
VanLandingham's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2011-12-06
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

VanLandingham wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

Who said G-d is controlling this?  The entire =point= of Free Will is for people to buck-up and be adults.

 

Wow – now I understand, you are Jewish.


FYI, most Christians say the Holy Spirit is overseeing “divine revelation”.

 

You are also right about free will and acting as an adult, however (and I cannot address Jewish beliefs) Christianity allows a person the choice of many belief systems, so radically different as to even the nature of god and man and the path to salvation, at the same time claiming exclusive divine revelation. The individual faces a choice without sufficient information because it is impossible to know which of version is “true”.

 

You and I agree that none of them are prophets but if you accept Christianity and are looking for the true version, the concept of divine revelation doesn’t communicate which prophet or interpretation of the bible is correct. Therefore the Christian belief that divine revelation is guided by the Holy Spirit simply proves the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist as a god.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Adam and Eve story is a

The Adam and Eve story is a poorly conceived story 'teaching' bad 'moral' messages:

1. That disobeying the orders of an authority figure is automatically a 'sin'. So "I was just following orders" is a great defence?

2. Punishing the descendants for the "sins of their fathers" is ok.

It is an attempt to justify the idea of "original sin", which is a half-assed attempt to justify why "bad things happen to good people". The Buddhist idea of past lives and karma is an alternative attempt.

=======

Science tells us much about God(s) and the psychology behind such beliefs. Evolution suggests how the instincts and intuitions that are behind them emerged, and why. The origin of such beliefs in the evolved instincts, which we all share to varying degrees, also easily accounts for many similarities in the visions/revelations which helped give rise the various belief systems.

Ideas of the Supernatural can inherently never be 'proved' - if they could be, they would cease to be Supernatural, as has happened through out history, as when we came to understand things like lightening.

The only things in scripture that could come close to demonstrating something that had serious implications for non-believers would be highly specific and accurate, unambiguous prophecies, but there are none of those.

Even if there were, there would still be nothing there that 'proved' the existence of an all-powerful, sentient, universe-creaing being. And even less to 'prove' it was 'good' or a moral reference.

The scriptures are even more consistent with an 'evil' prankster God who just enjoys tormenting and teasing us, fooling us, playing with us, so there is no way they can 'prove' the claimed God or Gods exist, and have the attributes claimed for them.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:FurryCatHerder

Lee2216 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Well, I don't believe in the Christian =or= LDS concept of a "Holy Spirit".  I'm a Jew.  Strict monotheism -- One G-d, no parts, no divisions, no "persons".

You don't believe in the Triune God? The Torah teaches it. Is not Elohim a plural noun? Plural pronouns are at times used by God when referring to Himself, as in Genesis 1:26. You don't believe in the concept of the holy spirit? The Torah teaches it. How do you explain Genesis 1:2? God's spirit is spoken of in the scriptures as a personality of His own, yet identified as God. Christianity is strict monotheism as well, one God, three distinct co-equal persons.

Sigh.

No, there is no such thing as a "Triune G-d".  G-d is "Echad" (see Deut 6:4), which means "One" in the sense of "Unique" and "Complete", "Indivisible".

G-d's "arm" is also spoken of, as is G-d's "hand".  Is there some "arm" or "hand" entity in that polytheistic pantheon you've got going?  Because if there isn't, there's no reason for a "spirit" entity either.

The word that's translated as "Spirit" is the same word that's used for "breath" or "wind" or "air".  The "spirit" is in our "breathing" -- that's why when someone breathes their last they say "they gave up the ghost".

Christianity is anything BUT monotheistic -- and if you'd like to engage in a bit of one-on-one, I'd be more than happy to oblige, but this thread has gotten a bit busy and crowded.

The short proof is that you can't exchange the "persons" and have the Gospels make any sense.  The "Son" got Mary pregnant, who gave birth to the "Holy Spirit" and the "Father" was then crucified and died for our "sins".  You =can= do this with other instances where there really is only one person -- Mom's Husband got her pregnant then my Father taught me how to ride a bicycle and (insert my father's name here) picked me up after I road my bicycle into the back of a car I managed to hit because I couldn't ride a bicycle in a straight line.

You can do this with other people, too -- exchanging "Barack Obama", "President", "Chief Executive" and "Commander in Chief" for whatever Barack Obama happens to be up to this week.  Try that with your Christian pantheon -- it falls flat immediately.

Lee2216 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
I have G-d, I don't need someone to die for me, I'm perfectly capable of relating to G-d without any special mediators, especially ones that get killed.
 What do you mean you have God? Is it by following all the commandments, or is it by God's grace through faith and repentance? How exactly are your sins atoned for if Jesus didn't need to be crucified? What do you mean by relating to God? No one can get to God except through Jesus Christ.

I mean that G-d, Ha'El Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu, the Lord G-d, the Holy One, Blessed is He, is my Rock and my Redeemer.  If I sin against someone else, I deal with them and clean up my mess -- G-d is completely incapable of forgiving any sin I commit against another person.  If I sin against G-d, it's between G-d and I.  No middle man (or woman or spirit or dead guy) needed.

Sins CANNOT be atoned for by anyone else.  It is utterly and completely impossible.  My mistakes ("sins&quotEye-wink are mine and mine alone to deal with and learn from.

Sin especially cannot be atoned for by the death of an un-kosher animal which was brutally tortured.  All sacrificial animals =must= be of a kosher kind (the "cloven hooves, chews cud" variety, or else one of the bird species listed in the Torah) and must be 100% free of any disease or blemish at the time it is killed.  Furthermore, NO SACRIFICE can be made at any place other than on the Temple Mount, on the altar, by the Temple priests.  Anything else, including the torture of a Jewish man and his execution by Roman soldiers far removed from the Temple isn't just invalid, it is 100% forbidden and abhorrent.

To say that you are sinning by following Christianity is a gross understatement.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:The Adam and

BobSpence wrote:

The Adam and Eve story is a poorly conceived story 'teaching' bad 'moral' messages:

1. That disobeying the orders of an authority figure is automatically a 'sin'. So "I was just following orders" is a great defence?

2. Punishing the descendants for the "sins of their fathers" is ok.

It is an attempt to justify the idea of "original sin", which is a half-assed attempt to justify why "bad things happen to good people". The Buddhist idea of past lives and karma is an alternative attempt.

So, it's perfectly okay to commit any crime or inter-personal offense you might want, for any reason you might want to commit it, because obey social rules is just "following orders" and that's a bad thing?

And no, Jews don't do the "sins of the fathers" thing.  We're all born -- you included -- without any kind of "original sin".  What you do wrong is up to you to fix, what your parents do wrong is up to them.  If you have children, their mistakes are theirs to deal with.

We're not Christians ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

The Adam and Eve story is a poorly conceived story 'teaching' bad 'moral' messages:

1. That disobeying the orders of an authority figure is automatically a 'sin'. So "I was just following orders" is a great defence?

2. Punishing the descendants for the "sins of their fathers" is ok.

It is an attempt to justify the idea of "original sin", which is a half-assed attempt to justify why "bad things happen to good people". The Buddhist idea of past lives and karma is an alternative attempt.

So, it's perfectly okay to commit any crime or inter-personal offense you might want, for any reason you might want to commit it, because obey social rules is just "following orders" and that's a bad thing?

And no, Jews don't do the "sins of the fathers" thing.  We're all born -- you included -- without any kind of "original sin".  What you do wrong is up to you to fix, what your parents do wrong is up to them.  If you have children, their mistakes are theirs to deal with.

We're not Christians ...

Again, note the difference.

"Social rules" - put together by a society where the members a bound by them  and rule breakers are punished for breaking them.

"God rules " put together by a capricious being who is not bound by them.

Oh wait...you worship God but you aren't bound by his rules either?

Make up your mind please.

"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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
VanLandingham

VanLandingham wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Who said G-d is controlling this?  The entire =point= of Free Will is for people to buck-up and be adults.

Wow – now I understand, you are Jewish.

FYI, most Christians say the Holy Spirit is overseeing “divine revelation”.

I think "who is controlling divine revelation" is mostly irrelevant so long as the "divine revelation" meets the requirements laid out in the Torah.  The requirements are simple --

1). It cannot contradict the Torah.

2). It must come true, unambiguously so, if it is a prophecy.

Christianity fails on both accounts -- it's a direct contradiction of the Torah, and the key prophecies didn't come true.  To wit, assuming the gospel accounts of Jesus' execution are correct, he died sometime between 3 and 6 pm on a Friday and before 6pm the next day (Saturday) his dead body had come back to life and was off visiting people.  That's not =any= complete days, much less three days and three nights.  It's only "three days and three nights" because the Roman's who used that to justify the invention of a new religion didn't realize that Jewish days start at sun down and last until the next sun down.  Which is to say, the "first day" of the week is Saturday after the upper limb of the sun passes below the horizon (some authorities say that three stars must be visible to be "sure", but that's a safeguard against accidentally doing something forbidden on the Sabbath).  It is not at midnight between Saturday and Sunday.

Quote:
You are also right about free will and acting as an adult, however (and I cannot address Jewish beliefs) Christianity allows a person the choice of many belief systems, so radically different as to even the nature of god and man and the path to salvation, at the same time claiming exclusive divine revelation. The individual faces a choice without sufficient information because it is impossible to know which of version is “true”.

The differences between Jewish "denominations" are extremely small and mostly revolve around just how strict one is in following the various rules.  On the subject of the nature of G-d, Jews are either of one accord (there is one and exactly one G-d) or not (there is no such thing as G-d, but if there were such a thing, there'd still be one and only one).

Quote:
You and I agree that none of them are prophets but if you accept Christianity and are looking for the true version, the concept of divine revelation doesn’t communicate which prophet or interpretation of the bible is correct. Therefore the Christian belief that divine revelation is guided by the Holy Spirit simply proves the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist as a god.

My older brother is a Fundamentalist Whack-Job Christian who had been an Atheist for 6 or 8 years before discovering that he could find more hot-babes if he started loving up on Jesus than if he dissed Jesus.  I was never Fundamentalist or Whack-Job enough for him, so I was always destined to go to Hell, despite never having been an Atheist, not even for a picosecond.

But the basic test -- which "revelation" is true -- still has to conform to the rules laid out in the Torah.  There are so many key Christian doctrines that =don't= that none of them are remotely true.

None.

I don't blame Christians for being mislead -- their leaders did everything they could to keep them in the dark, including murdering any Jews that tried explaining the truth, or even just resisting Christianity.  Now that I don't have to worry about being murdered by some Christian leader, I'm more than happy to do my part to straighten them out Smiling

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So, it's perfectly okay to commit any crime or inter-personal offense you might want, for any reason you might want to commit it, because obey social rules is just "following orders" and that's a bad thing?

And no, Jews don't do the "sins of the fathers" thing.  We're all born -- you included -- without any kind of "original sin".  What you do wrong is up to you to fix, what your parents do wrong is up to them.  If you have children, their mistakes are theirs to deal with.

We're not Christians ...

Again, note the difference.

"Social rules" - put together by a society where the members a bound by them  and rule breakers are punished for breaking them.

"God rules " put together by a capricious being who is not bound by them.

Oh wait...you worship God but you aren't bound by his rules either?

Make up your mind please.

What's the difference between "Social Rules" and "G-d's Rules"?  Or are you saying that since G-d said "Do not murder" that murder is "Okay"

I'd really like to understand which "rules" we're talking about here, because the concept of "We get to ignore whatever your god said" seems to be a very common one and I'm trying to figure out if that means you get to rob, murder, rape, perjure, etc. because G-d said you shouldn't.

I'd also like to know how "Might Makes Right" is okay for people (that's the only way to enforce social rules ...) and not for some abstract entity called "G-d".

"Might Makes Right" truly is =the= only morality under Atheism.  Some day I'll get you to understand that and then maybe you'll decide it sucks more than you'd like to have pretended it didn't.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's not

jcgadfly wrote:

It's not about all knowledge - It's about moral knowledge.  I do wish you'd figure that out.

You see a man and a woman given a rule about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil assuming that they already have knowledge of good and evil (that God hadn't given them).

It's would be like me coming to you and saying "a.wrio asro; e.kgetl; ena ghslg ang;leh. fghz;ogusdgaeklugh!" and then shooting you because you didn't understand what I meant.

 

I know!  I know!!!

 

"Don't run we are your friends!"

All the while they are blowing up buildings and shooting anything that moves.

Sounds like most ideas of god/s/dess that I have run into.

 

A little more seriously, I'm with you.  Eve is supposed to understand the consequences of her actions before she understands consequences.  Suppose you are raising a toddler, and you have been a kind,  loving patient parent, never raising your voice, never swatting her fanny.  And one day, she has been fussy and crying and screaming most of the day.  She is not teething, she is not ill, she us just difficult.  Until finally she has hit your last nerve and you yell back.  See the look on her face.  Hear the screams of temper turn to true sobs of emotional pain.  It most have been like that for Eve.

Have you no compassion for her?  For that 2 year old who has had the meaning of consequences just forcibly demonstrated to her?

And for this, women were reviled and seen as "the weaker sex", able to force men to do what they are pretty sure they should not.  Therefore needing a man to control her, forced into marriage and endless child bearing, unable to own property and make legal contracts.  And this is a good consequence?  Not in my universe.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.