Holes to punch in Creation? [rough draft]

RaspK
RaspK's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Holes to punch in Creation? [rough draft]

I know this may seem more like a TODO list, but here it is: a number of legitimate (I think) arguments vs. the Bible.

  • Humanity is made unto the image of God:
  1. Is it in terms of properties or form?
  2. If it's in properties, shouldn't humans know what sin is?
  3. If it's in form, aren't we referring to the physical, since a form is, by definition, physical?

  • Animals are not subject to morality, lacking a soul:
  1. If so, then why assert that humans would not sin without knowledge of sin?
  2. Is it that animals cannot sin due to non-critical thought (i.e. like confusion between animus and anima)?
  3. Is it not that animals cannot sin because they do not know instead?

  • Adam and Eve eat the Forbidden Fruit and, thus, are cast out of Eden:
  1. If you need to know what sin is in order to sin, how did they sin by gaining that knowledge?
  2. Does this not constitute that knowledge is, by definition, a sin?
  3. If, instead, arrogance is the source of sin, how did it happen (i.e. they would not be arrogant if they did not know of arrogance)?


A Christian (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Alright first things first:

Alright first things first: Humanity is made unto the image of God:  Not in form.  This is evident once you realize that both males and females are human, and not the same in physical form, and since there is variety in both sexes -  Only 1 God, not billions.
 

If by properties, you mean knowledge, that doesn't make very much sense...  The soul of a human is what is made in the image of God.  That doesn't mean our souls are Gods, its just like a statue of a person is made in the image of a person.

As animals are not sentient beings, they can't sin.

 

Animals are not subject to morality, lacking a soul:

Where in the Bible does it say humans would not sin without the knowledge of sin?  Perhaps it does, but I'm not aware of the verse or chapter.

 

Adam and Eve eat the Forbidden Fruit and, thus, are cast out of Eden:

The arguments here are built on the conjecture of the first, so until those are confirmed these can barely be considered hypothesises.

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
raspk,Was there supposed to

raspk,

Was there supposed to be a response from a theist or are you just expressing your thoughts?  I ask because (a) have you even read the bible and (b) nothing of what you put seems like an argument, just curiosity on details that you didn't pick up on if you said yes to part a.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
RaspK wrote:I know this may

RaspK wrote:

I know this may seem more like a TODO list, but here it is: a number of legitimate (I think) arguments vs. the Bible.

  • Humanity is made unto the image of God:
  1. Is it in terms of properties or form?
  2. If it's in properties, shouldn't humans know what sin is?
  3. If it's in form, aren't we referring to the physical, since a form is, by definition, physical?

 

Initially, I think it's best to clarify what relevance my answering these questions has to the status of my theism - I don't identify as a the kind of person one would generally call a christian creationist. I follow no dogma in either category and I do not have any affiliation with nominal religion regarding creed or character. I'm a free thinker and my brand of theism is probably best described as philosophical panentheism. So, in relation to my beliefs, creation mythology and other theological revelation has intrinsic truth value whereby I believe that there is substance to the claims of an order which may be described as 'divinely spiritual' having involvement in the establishment of sacred tracts.

And to the question, I would answer that the image implied by Genesis of God which man is not distinct in terms of form or property, it is therefore, both

In that case it follows directly that I agree with you on 2, humans do know what sin is, I would submit that we are able to know that knowledge of sin or error is intrinsic to humanity via the permutations of the human experience known as emotion. Emotion is spontaneous and reactive, emotion, you could say, is in direct communication with subjective and objective human experience and therefore it forms part of human awareness of it's condition. There are emotions in the gestalt of human experience which deal directly with the condition of percieved error or evil - namely guilt, shame, compassion - in this way we can link the emotional awareness of humans to the direct awareness of the nature of sin.

To point 3 - the image in form is physical as you have proposed, however I submit that we would err to limit this description with a concept of human physicality which is incomplete. The standard anthropomorphic concept is just such a limited description. Humans as discrete biological beings which begin and end at classical material extremities is false regardless of your epistemology. If you are a materal monist then your actual being is defined as an emergent pattern from the sum of all universal interactions converging at your position in time and space. Therefore you are the universe, you are not distinct from it because you are not determined in a vacuum distinct from it. Likewise if you are a dualist or neutral monist your being is determined from the seat of your unconscious mind, not just your conscious one, therefore to define oneself confined within the limits of human conscious sentience is incorrect. 

In this way, either way, as a neutral monist I have the luxury of claiming both, we are completely and undeniably created in the image of a pan or panen- deity.

Quote:

  • Animals are not subject to morality, lacking a soul:
  1. If so, then why assert that humans would not sin without knowledge of sin?
  2. Is it that animals cannot sin due to non-critical thought (i.e. like confusion between animus and anima)?
  3. Is it not that animals cannot sin because they do not know instead?

I don't believe that animals do not have a soul, at the least they are part of any human's being and soul, we do not exist without them.  Supposing you wish me to describe a difference between humans and animals in terms of my theology it is this - the conscious animal mind and physical being is structured differently to the human mind because animals emerge from the common thread of this existence, from God, at a different level to humans. The animal condition emerges at a convergence of conditions distinct from one at which a human emerges. Where the human I emerges the surrounding conditions in combination with the arising conditions (for brevity I will use 'coordinates' in future to refer to this combination) mimic those of our "god" being to which we aspire theologically, therefore human coordinates are "godlike" coordinates the condition of these coordinates is phenomenally sentient and phenomenally potent. Animal coordinates correspond to a physical position of sentience and potential overwhelmed by that of humans. This does not mean they don't have a soul, it means they are a different part of one, not the driver seat part - therefore not God's image. Animals then are subject to a morality appropriate to their order of power and sentience which naturally due to the extremes of power and knowledge available to us does not closely resemble the degree to which humans are be responsible for their actions.

 

Quote:

  • Adam and Eve eat the Forbidden Fruit and, thus, are cast out of Eden:
  1. If you need to know what sin is in order to sin, how did they sin by gaining that knowledge?
  2. Does this not constitute that knowledge is, by definition, a sin?
  3. If, instead, arrogance is the source of sin, how did it happen (i.e. they would not be arrogant if they did not know of arrogance)?

You do not need to know what sin is in order to do it, either knowledge or ability can arise independently of each other.  So yes, Adam and Eve could sin without knowing that they had done that is logically plausible IMHO.

Preempting your follow up question to this, one of my main objections to chritsian institutionalised religion is the melodrama over the concept of sin. The anthropomorphised limited concept of the human condition dictates unreasonably on the subject of the human condition in "original sin". Genesis does not say humans fell from grace, the bible does not say humans fell from grace, christian dogma says this without basis. The book this 'fall from grace' is suposedly taken from is ironically filled with reassurances that humans are still in the grace of god as to having knowledge of good and evil, it is not a theological truth that knowledge has taken grace from humanity. It is rather, the point that humans with knowledge are capable of taking this "grace" from themselves. 

To cut a long story short, basically people make too big a deal of original sin (and original redemption for that matter) these are simply representations of embedded selections in the interactions surrounding one's coordinate position. They describe our condition accurately as they are, without extraneous dogma and interpretation. It is not intrinsically disgraceful that we our existence is positioned within the possible world emerging from the original pursuit of knowledge, nor is it intrinsically special either that we are positioned likewise in relation to a divine exemplar, it just is. This is the condition and Genesis/NT is philosophically explanatory, not autocratic or dictatorial.

2. Yes, this is the likely reality, however I do not subscribe to the melodramatic dogma of sin peculiar to christian institutions so I can say that and also say that my existence emerges into knowledge in the due course of things, the 'sin' of genesis comprises who I am, thereforewho I am would not be to be destroyed by sin if it weren't for the sin of knowledge existing.  The sin is therefore a grace on my human existence in this coordinate, for such 'time' as this coordinate is relevant to my identity.

3 - is of no consequence to my theism at all, I am not in mortal conflict with my deity.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


RaspK
RaspK's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Regarding my position on the matter...

I have read the Bible and, as mentioned earlier, I mean to expound more thoroughly on these points, which are not, to be more precise, made against the exact content of the Bible, as much as in the Apologetics and what is hence being stated.

Despite this, I mean to argue on one point: the human form. First of all, you would be interested to remember that God supposedly made the vessel that would become Adam in his image; I don't see how it makes sense to draw a parallel with souls and what have you being similar to a human sculpting a statue, as this puts emphasis in the physical form, and thus provides no meaningful answer to my question if it's trying to refute that argument.

Secondly, it's interesting to point out that, again supposedly, the Bible has some scientific answers, or some allegorical; I'm interested to hearing why either women are made to be the reasons for humanity's downfall (if it's allegorical), essentially showing that women fell for the tricks of St'n, and then they dragged them along and away from the graces of the Lord; alternatively, why is man created first, if it does not mean that, in Judaic tradition, man is more important than woman (evidenced with yet more vehemence in other passages)? And, of course, you know that biology points that our earliest animal ancestors, way before mankind could even have been, were all bearing just X chromosomes, meaning that, if we dismiss the notion that these Judaic passages are effectively there in order to diminish women then the Bible comes in sharp contrast with reality, right?

On the matter of souls, however, I am again trying to fend off apologetics that make no sense to me: I've heard that animals don't have souls, that animals are not sentient, and yet more stuff. But, surprisingly, the only reading that makes sense, without all the apologetic claims, are these: plants are not creatures; animals don't have souls; both humans and animals simply die when they do so, without an afterlife (note that there is no mention of Heavenly Kingdom and Pearly Gates in Judaic scripture, nor of Hell); and humans were cast of Eden (an apparently material kingdom or site) because they did not heed the words of God not to eat from some tree. All apologetic claims are built on these foundations with more and more claims laid on top from Christian traditions and denominations.


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
RaspK wrote:I know this may

RaspK wrote:

I know this may seem more like a TODO list, but here it is: a number of legitimate (I think) arguments vs. the Bible.

  • Humanity is made unto the image of God:
  1. Is it in terms of properties or form?
  2. If it's in properties, shouldn't humans know what sin is?
  3. If it's in form, aren't we referring to the physical, since a form is, by definition, physical?

 A short definition (and subject to qualification) might be that humans possess all of the attributes of God that may be communicated to his creatures

RaspK wrote:

  • Animals are not subject to morality, lacking a soul:
  1. If so, then why assert that humans would not sin without knowledge of sin?
  2. Is it that animals cannot sin due to non-critical thought (i.e. like confusion between animus and anima)?
  3. Is it not that animals cannot sin because they do not know instead?

The bible says very little about animals.  Not sure who says animals lack a soul .

RaspK wrote:

  • Adam and Eve eat the Forbidden Fruit and, thus, are cast out of Eden:
  1. If you need to know what sin is in order to sin, how did they sin by gaining that knowledge?
  2. Does this not constitute that knowledge is, by definition, a sin?
  3. If, instead, arrogance is the source of sin, how did it happen (i.e. they would not be arrogant if they did not know of arrogance)?

Sin is sin. You don't need to what sin is to sin.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote:RaspK

WillieBop wrote:

RaspK wrote:

I know this may seem more like a TODO list, but here it is: a number of legitimate (I think) arguments vs. the Bible.

  • Humanity is made unto the image of God:
  1. Is it in terms of properties or form?
  2. If it's in properties, shouldn't humans know what sin is?
  3. If it's in form, aren't we referring to the physical, since a form is, by definition, physical?

 A short definition (and subject to qualification) might be that humans possess all of the attributes of God that may be communicated to his creatures

RaspK wrote:

  • Animals are not subject to morality, lacking a soul:
  1. If so, then why assert that humans would not sin without knowledge of sin?
  2. Is it that animals cannot sin due to non-critical thought (i.e. like confusion between animus and anima)?
  3. Is it not that animals cannot sin because they do not know instead?

The bible says very little about animals.  Not sure who says animals lack a soul .

RaspK wrote:

  • Adam and Eve eat the Forbidden Fruit and, thus, are cast out of Eden:
  1. If you need to know what sin is in order to sin, how did they sin by gaining that knowledge?
  2. Does this not constitute that knowledge is, by definition, a sin?
  3. If, instead, arrogance is the source of sin, how did it happen (i.e. they would not be arrogant if they did not know of arrogance)?

Sin is sin. You don't need to what sin is to sin.

 

1. Wouldn't the omnimax god be able to communicate all his properties to his creatures?

2. So god punishes people without telling them what it was they did wrong? Not an entity worth worshiping, this Yahweh.

"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


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Wouldn't

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Wouldn't the omnimax god be able to communicate all his properties to his creatures?

2. So god punishes people without telling them what it was they did wrong? Not an entity worth worshiping, this Yahweh.

 

1. Couldn't and won't are two different things.

 

2.  Huh? what?  Yes if you hate justice worshiping God probably not up your alley.


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

WillieBop wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Wouldn't the omnimax god be able to communicate all his properties to his creatures?

2. So god punishes people without telling them what it was they did wrong? Not an entity worth worshiping, this Yahweh.

 

1. Couldn't and won't are two different things.

 

2.  Huh? what?  Yes if you hate justice worshiping God probably not up your alley.

So God could reveal himself to his creation but he chooses not to - sounds like a right jackass to me.

If you've read the Bible at all, you'd discover that your God doesn't give a rip about justice. It interferes with the boner he gets from indiscriminate killing.

Do you, perchance, have kids? Do you tell them why something they did was wrong or do you just whup their behinds and let them figure it out?

If you tell them the reasons for their punishment, you're better than God.

If you don't, please refrain from having more kids. The world doesn't need more fundy psychos.

Edited for KEWK

"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