Sin before sin?

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

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

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


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. I may be

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

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

Lemme try this.  I think what I'm saying here is the Argument from First Cause of Aquinas.  If the universe is a creation of a God, and time is part of that creation, then the Creator must "pre-exist" time.

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

I agree that the immortality of gods is not a concept new to Judaism.  All religions contain elements of the truth. 

I think that what is unusual in the Abrahamic religions is the combination of an immortal God with a created universe.  The best scientific minds from the time of Aristotle well into the 20th century haeld the view of a "steady state" universe.  The idea of a created universe was certainly looked upon by Greek and Roman thinkers with derision as a superstition.

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

No, it doesn't mean he makes our decisions.  It means that he doesn't interfere with our decisions.  Which is why we, as Christians, try to discern the will of God and act in accordance with that will.   We know that we are capable of acting in a manner contrary to the Divine will.  The Socratic notion that "He who knows the good, does the good" doesn't hold water for exactly that fact.  Jesus was well aware of that fact, as was your buddy Paul. Augustine, Aquinas, and any other reasonable and honest person is fully aware of occassions when they were fully aware of the good, but acted in opposition to it.  That's what we call sin.

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

Thanks for the acknowledgement of that fact.  I would expound further on this, but I'm afraid it would spin off into a whole other discussion and seriously derail this thread.  Perhaps it's be best if we reserved this discussion for another time.  Suffice to say though, that those ills perpetrated by Christians in the name of religion, in the name of God, go a long way towards illustrating my repsonse to point number 2.

 

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:I, myself,

totus_tuus wrote:

I, myself, have spent the better part of my life in the profession of arms.  I have stood a post on freedom's frontiers, and have seen shots exchanged in anger.  I, too, have friends who have given their lives in the service of their country.

 Thanks for you service.

totus_tuus wrote:

I'll even go so far as to say I avoid many Jesuits like the plague since that once great order seems to have forsaken the ideals of Ignatius Loyola, but that would be a discussion for another time, I suppose.

This in fact would make a good discussion another day.

totus_tuus wrote:

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

The Church did in fact rely on several Bible references to discredit Galileo on his position.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

This is not essential to the current thread and I agree the suppression of science by the Church is also another area to discuss another day as well.

 

totus_tuus wrote:

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

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

There is no way to resolve whether evil existed or not prior to the alleged event. As an all-knowing entity God should have known prior to his design and construction of even the angels he had a design flaw. He obviously wanted a design flaw in the angels and man as he is alleged to have  created the current situation. That being the case he wanted evil to exist and therefore was evil himself. Perfect good does not allow evil to prevail or be created or can't. Or again he wasn't all-knowing. 

totus_tuus wrote:

 

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

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

 

The serpent was also in fact part of God's perfect Garden of Eden, so it is inappropriate for it to be evil. How exactly did it sin against God to be a messenger for Satan? That animals die and kill each other is supposed to be a result of Adam and Eve's action. The snake being corrupted prior to this event is another loose end to explain.

The tree does not make this abundantly clear, it's your assumption it has relevance. What of the other tree, the tree of Life that also existed? As to the intent of the author(s) of Genesis who can tell. It is likely they felt there must be a reason for the fall of man. The tree is the centerpiece of the act against God. As in Adapa's cursing the south wind in Sumerian myths. He was called by An to explain his actions. Enki (Ea) told him to beware of An (Anu) if he offered him the bread of life and water of life as it was really the bread of death and water of death. This indicates evil or trickery in the Sumerian belief. His failure to eat the bread of life resulted in man's death. In this story it is his distrust of the God An or suspicion of treachery or evil. Ancient Jewish believers attributed it to the disobedience to God. Same problem with both stories.

 

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

I see the Lilith story as just so much more mythology derived and intermingled with other Near East myths. As to using Apocrypha to support atheist arguments my only use of it is to show there are other myths as well. I claim nothing of the accuracy of any of them. I don't claim for example that Enoch has any accuracy only that it existed as an ancient manuscript. My use is only to show that there were other disparate stories. Many Jewish followers were familiar with Enoch including Gospel writers and John the writer of Revelation. That doesn't mean any of it is based in reality.

totus_tuus wrote:

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

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

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

 

That is even worse than my sub-division of God. I do know what the Church says as you just quoted. Consider then it is even more incomprehensible as he is not doing anything but placating himself. 

totus_tuus wrote:

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

 

Most atheists understand this life is it. We once did not exist and we will again not exist. Jewish belief is they are all the sons of God as God breathed life into Adam. Consider even more, if God made it all it must all be of him. That being the case even Satan and evil beings are of God. Therefore as "I am God as You" says, we are God.

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

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


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
I believe todangst already

jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

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

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

Lemme try this.  I think what I'm saying here is the Argument from First Cause of Aquinas.  If the universe is a creation of a God, and time is part of that creation, then the Creator must "pre-exist" time.

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

I agree that the immortality of gods is not a concept new to Judaism.  All religions contain elements of the truth. 

I think that what is unusual in the Abrahamic religions is the combination of an immortal God with a created universe.  The best scientific minds from the time of Aristotle well into the 20th century haeld the view of a "steady state" universe.  The idea of a created universe was certainly looked upon by Greek and Roman thinkers with derision as a superstition.

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

No, it doesn't mean he makes our decisions.  It means that he doesn't interfere with our decisions.  Which is why we, as Christians, try to discern the will of God and act in accordance with that will.   We know that we are capable of acting in a manner contrary to the Divine will.  The Socratic notion that "He who knows the good, does the good" doesn't hold water for exactly that fact.  Jesus was well aware of that fact, as was your buddy Paul. Augustine, Aquinas, and any other reasonable and honest person is fully aware of occassions when they were fully aware of the good, but acted in opposition to it.  That's what we call sin.

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

Thanks for the acknowledgement of that fact.  I would expound further on this, but I'm afraid it would spin off into a whole other discussion and seriously derail this thread.  Perhaps it's be best if we reserved this discussion for another time.  Suffice to say though, that those ills perpetrated by Christians in the name of religion, in the name of God, go a long way towards illustrating my repsonse to point number 2.

 

1. The First Cause argument either creates an infinite regress or violates the Law of Cause and Effect the very thing that the argument needs to survive).

2. I can't say whether that combination is unique - need to research it.

3. What decisions does man make that God doesn't know he's going to make. God's already planned out all our moves, hasn't he? If we have free will, he's not omniscient.

4. see 3

Feel free to PM or email if you wish to preserve the thread.

"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


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Two_Sandals wrote:totus_tuus

Two_Sandals wrote:
totus_tuus wrote:
When I was a kid, I had a thing for maraschino cherries. Still do. Can't stay away from em. If there's a jar of em around the house, I'm gonna be eating em. From time to time, my folks would have friends over for cocktails (manhattans, I think), which would mean they would buy maraschino cherries. My mom would make it clear that the maraschino cherries were not for us (kids), but for the guests. I remember to this day, eating every maraschino cherry in the house prior to the guests arriving and the aftermath of my actions. Am I to believe that the whole invitiing guests over for drinks thing was just a set up so mom could have dad beat my ass? That bitch!
Thats a different situation though. There is a purpose behind why the cherries are there. There is no conceivable reason for the tree of life to be in the garden of eden except for the fall of man. God didn't place it there for some of his friends to eat from it. He being omniscience knew that if he put it there man would fall.

He knew man would fall because He is all-knowing. That's not the reason the tree was put there. The tree was put there as a means of creating free will. The tree was put there because God wants to be in relationship with people. Love can only exist in a state of free will. Which would you rather have: someone who chooses to love you or someone who "loves" you because you have a gun to their head.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I think we have covered this

I think we have covered this topic quite thoroughly and further discussion will just continue the divergance off the topic (rather evolutionary). We agree to disagree once more.

I do have more questions, TT, such as why you are afraid to die if you believe you will go to heaven. I believe when I die I cease to exist, yet I am not afraid (I don't want to, but not afraid), but maybe another time.

I will keep an eye on this thread, though.

It's always interesting learning about your view points. It is also obvious that you won't convert me as much as I won't deconvert you.

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  TT .... He god ? Oh, a he

  TT .... He god ? Oh, a he is it ?     The thingy is a he ? .....  ummm, a creator to worship, how so ??? BEG ? BOW ? SURRENDER ? PRAY ?  

Religious people are fucking nuts ! Gawed bless their poor frightened souls .... I hear the shouts as balls hit the clite, "Oh my God Oh my god" ...... doggy style .....  Then they blush ? .....       I AM a man, I proudly worship woman ..... godly divine pleasure ....  some worship god of abe ?  Geezzz,  and celibacy too ..... such fools the religious are ....  Come on girls, turn up your love light, save the men ..... no more chains of guilt .....       


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

Gentlemen, I agree with ronin-dog's opinion that...

Quote:
I think we have covered this topic quite thoroughly and further discussion will just continue the divergance off the topic (rather evolutionary). We agree to disagree once more.

We seem to have begun re-hashing the same points over and over again.  Thanks to my loyal opposition, JCgadfly, my friend ronin-dog, and my former co-religionist pauljohntheskeptic for the engaging discussion. 

We have not nearly solved or nearly adequately answered that riddle which has puzzled mankind for four thousand years, namely the problem of evil.  To expect to do so in a discussion forum on the internet would surely constitute folly on our part.  Let me say though, that I find such discussions enlightning, and oddly enough often find them re-affiriming my faith.  I leave this discussion seeing our differences as being:

1.  Does free will exist?

2.  Did evil pre-exist the Fall of Man?

3.  What was the purpose of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

4.  How did the salvific mission of Jesus Christ correct the fault incurred by the Fall?

I will continue to check this thread for further posts from y'all.  If you feel I have left any salient points unanswered, please feel free to post those points here and I will still respond, but again, I agree with ronin-dog that we've begum to go in circles.

Ronin-dog, your question on my fear of death in light of my belief in immortality seems to me to have some potential for discussion, so I thought that perhaps I'd begin a new thread that subject.  I thought I'd title it "The Undiscovered Country".  Look for it.  I hope to see you there.  As usual, JCGadfly, I know I'll see you there.  Pauljohn, you're quite welcome to join us as well, and it was a pleasure talking to you.

By the way, Pauljohn, I want to apologize if I seemed haughty or arrogant with you.  I think we ruffled each others feathers a bit in this discussion.  Rest assured that, as a proponent of the free exchange of ideas, no insult or slight was intended.  Hope to see you again soon.

Tchuss!

 

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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Two_Sandals wrote:Now the

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

 

Sin requires intent. Intent requires knowledge of good and evil. God forbid adam and

eve this knowledge. Ergo, they could not sin.

 

Without original sin, there is no need for jesus.

 

Thus falls christianity

QED

Next...

 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_fall_commits_an_internal_contradiction

 

 

 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Gentlemen,

totus_tuus wrote:

Gentlemen, I agree with ronin-dog's opinion that...

Quote:
I think we have covered this topic quite thoroughly and further discussion will just continue the divergance off the topic (rather evolutionary). We agree to disagree once more.

 

Ronin-dog, your question on my fear of death in light of my belief in immortality seems to me to have some potential for discussion, so I thought that perhaps I'd begin a new thread that subject.  I thought I'd title it "The Undiscovered Country".  Look for it.  I hope to see you there.  As usual, JCGadfly, I know I'll see you there.  Pauljohn, you're quite welcome to join us as well, and it was a pleasure talking to you.

By the way, Pauljohn, I want to apologize if I seemed haughty or arrogant with you.  I think we ruffled each others feathers a bit in this discussion.  Rest assured that, as a proponent of the free exchange of ideas, no insult or slight was intended.  Hope to see you again soon.

Tchuss!

 

I agree that we have reached an impasse. I do not see that further discussion on this topic to be worthwhile. I will look for your new thread as I am also interested. No hard feelings at all on my part for our mutual unmoveable positions. All good discussions have strong opinions expressed.

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

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Adam n Eve ?  A story of

Adam n Eve ?  A story of what happens when we loose our innocence to then judge our self worth, creating a false separation from god. A message to stay naked and free as one family procreating and accepting all children and people as ONE.

But then came the mark of circumcision prejudice, the "chosen ones" and the institution of marrage (female slavery) to futher our separation as ONE people. Celibacy is hate, promoted by the evil church.   

Post # 32 - I like what Will wrote:  " I don't even understand the value of seeing it as anything but a metaphor to describe the transition from childhood to adulthood. Any other interpretation is completely confusing. If it's a metaphor, then it's a cute metaphorical story outlining the traumatic emotional growth of an innocent child. In the literal God-does-this-Adam-does-this interpretation, you're left with a bunch of questions about how it all worked and what it says about God. It's like trying to literally interpret a dream - it goes nowhere."


 

 


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:Two_Sandals

todangst wrote:

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

 

Sin requires intent. Intent requires knowledge of good and evil. God forbid adam and

eve this knowledge. Ergo, they could not sin.

 

Without original sin, there is no need for jesus.

 

Thus falls christianity

QED

Next...

 

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_fall_commits_an_internal_contradiction

 

 

 

 

 

 

First, sin does not require intent. You don't need intent to break a law. Breaking a law isn't dependant on whether or not you had any knowledge of that law. You can't go to another country and say "I didn't know you couldn't do that."

 

Second, and more importantly, they had knowledge. They were told directly by God not to eat fruit from that tree. When the serpent says "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Eve replied "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" Eve's response clearly and explicitly states that she knew she wasn't supposed to eat the fruit. If you tell a little kid, "Don't eat that cookie" and they eat the cookie when you leave the room, was that not an act of disobedience even if the child has never heard the word 'disobedience'? Of course it is. Disobedience is predicated on knowledge of the word. You don't have to know the word to do the action. All that has to be known for disobedience is that there is a clear direction that is understood by the individual, especially if there is a warned consequence of not listening. Not only did Adam and Eve have a clear direction not to do something, they were told the consequence. They acted in full knowledge that they were doing something God told them not to do.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
edit: "Disobedience is

edit: "Disobedience is predicated on knowledge of the word" should read "Disobedience is NOT predicated on knowledge of the word".


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:edit:

j_day wrote:

edit: "Disobedience is predicated on knowledge of the word" should read "Disobedience is NOT predicated on knowledge of the word".

But it is predicated on knowing what good and evil are, isn't it? God told them not to do something because it was evil - yet he didn't tell them that it was evil or what evil was. That was, after all, the knowledge that god was trying to protect them from and wanted them to get at the same time (so he could condemn them for it). Why put out bait if he didn't set a trap?

"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


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:j_day

jcgadfly wrote:
j_day wrote:

edit: "Disobedience is predicated on knowledge of the word" should read "Disobedience is NOT predicated on knowledge of the word".

But it is predicated on knowing what good and evil are, isn't it? God told them not to do something because it was evil - yet he didn't tell them that it was evil or what evil was. That was, after all, the knowledge that god was trying to protect them from and wanted them to get at the same time (so he could condemn them for it). Why put out bait if he didn't set a trap?

Knowing what good and evil are has nothing to do with it. You don't need to know the classification of the action to commit it. I tell you "Don't kill people or you will go to jail." Adding "by the way, killing is evil" doesn't add any understanding of what you're doing.

Let's review the scenario:

Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden.


Here's the important questions:

What is the instruction: Don't touch the fruit on the tree in the center

Why: Surely you will die.

 

What information is missing? They know what not to do, and they know why. What else do they need to know to make a decision?

 

As far as "setting a trap" and "wanting them to make a decision" that's not why it was there. I addressed this in an earlier post, but the reason it was there is because free will had to be present. Love exists in situations of free will. If free will didn't exist, then we couldn't choose God.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:jcgadfly

j_day wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
j_day wrote:

edit: "Disobedience is predicated on knowledge of the word" should read "Disobedience is NOT predicated on knowledge of the word".

But it is predicated on knowing what good and evil are, isn't it? God told them not to do something because it was evil - yet he didn't tell them that it was evil or what evil was. That was, after all, the knowledge that god was trying to protect them from and wanted them to get at the same time (so he could condemn them for it). Why put out bait if he didn't set a trap?

Knowing what good and evil are has nothing to do with it. You don't need to know the classification of the action to commit it. I tell you "Don't kill people or you will go to jail." Adding "by the way, killing is evil" doesn't add any understanding of what you're doing.

Let's review the scenario:

Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden.

 

Here's the important questions:

What is the instruction: Don't touch the fruit on the tree in the center

Why: Surely you will die.

 

What information is missing? They know what not to do, and they know why. What else do they need to know to make a decision?

 

As far as "setting a trap" and "wanting them to make a decision" that's not why it was there. I addressed this in an earlier post, but the reason it was there is because free will had to be present. Love exists in situations of free will. If free will didn't exist, then we couldn't choose God.

Even if you take that tack, you have God threatening death on people who didn't know what death was. Still not helpful for your case.

Again, free will was not present because God had to have them eat of the tree so he could implement his greater plan of sacrificing himself to himself so he could change one of his laws. He knew what he wanted to do and he set up how he wanted it to happen.

As religion is based on conditioning (you go to church because your parents went to church, you learned about Jesus because you were shuttled of in a room to be indoctrinated, etc.), one wonders how the free will concept came about to begin with.

"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


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Where does it say they

Where does it say they didn't know what death was? The assumption that Adam and Eve are morons who had no understanding of anything isn't accurate at all.

"Again, free will was not present because God had to have them eat of the tree so he could implement his greater plan of sacrificing himself to himself so he could change one of his laws. He knew what he wanted to do and he set up how he wanted it to happen." God didn't make man sin so that He could free them from sin. That makes absolutely no sense at all. God's plan was to be in relationship with people. Did He know that it was going to be ruined by Adam and Eve? Yes. Does that change His original intention? No. In fact, Jesus dying shows how far God will go to be in relationship with people. He didn't just say "they messed up, screw it, this failed, I'll just kill everybody." He basically said "you messed it up, but I'll try again. And if you mess up again, I'll keep trying." He'll never stop trying. He'll do whatever He can to reach each person.

"As religion is based on conditioning (you go to church because your parents went to church, you learned about Jesus because you were shuttled of in a room to be indoctrinated, etc.), one wonders how the free will concept came about to begin with." Christianity isn't a "religion". Growing up in a Christian home doesn't make you a Christian. You have to CHOOSE to become a Christian. Any person or Christian who thinks they can force or trick someone into becoming a Christian doesn't really have any understanding of what Christianity really is. And instead of making assumptions about people, it's usually better to ask. I didn't go to Sunday School every week. For years in high school, I barely ever went to church, and not once did my mom ever tell me to go or even bring it up. No one in my extended family is Christian. It's not this "family religion" that's been passed down for generations.

By the way, this whole "you were raised in this environment so that's why you are this" or "if you were born in Thailand than you would be Buddhist." Two things wrong with these kinds of assumptions. One, there are people in Muslim nations or anywhere else in the world who are Christian. Two, the notion that your environment determines your beliefs proves how much weight you put into your own. If you tell me that in a different circumstance I would believe something else. Well, if that's true for me, then if you were born in a different place you would have different beliefs. You must not put much weight and value into what you believe because when you say that, you are saying "my beliefs are not culturally transcendent."


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:Where does it

j_day wrote:

Where does it say they didn't know what death was? The assumption that Adam and Eve are morons who had no understanding of anything isn't accurate at all.

"Again, free will was not present because God had to have them eat of the tree so he could implement his greater plan of sacrificing himself to himself so he could change one of his laws. He knew what he wanted to do and he set up how he wanted it to happen." God didn't make man sin so that He could free them from sin. That makes absolutely no sense at all. God's plan was to be in relationship with people. Did He know that it was going to be ruined by Adam and Eve? Yes. Does that change His original intention? No. In fact, Jesus dying shows how far God will go to be in relationship with people. He didn't just say "they messed up, screw it, this failed, I'll just kill everybody." He basically said "you messed it up, but I'll try again. And if you mess up again, I'll keep trying." He'll never stop trying. He'll do whatever He can to reach each person.

"As religion is based on conditioning (you go to church because your parents went to church, you learned about Jesus because you were shuttled of in a room to be indoctrinated, etc.), one wonders how the free will concept came about to begin with." Christianity isn't a "religion". Growing up in a Christian home doesn't make you a Christian. You have to CHOOSE to become a Christian. Any person or Christian who thinks they can force or trick someone into becoming a Christian doesn't really have any understanding of what Christianity really is. And instead of making assumptions about people, it's usually better to ask. I didn't go to Sunday School every week. For years in high school, I barely ever went to church, and not once did my mom ever tell me to go or even bring it up. No one in my extended family is Christian. It's not this "family religion" that's been passed down for generations.

By the way, this whole "you were raised in this environment so that's why you are this" or "if you were born in Thailand than you would be Buddhist." Two things wrong with these kinds of assumptions. One, there are people in Muslim nations or anywhere else in the world who are Christian. Two, the notion that your environment determines your beliefs proves how much weight you put into your own. If you tell me that in a different circumstance I would believe something else. Well, if that's true for me, then if you were born in a different place you would have different beliefs. You must not put much weight and value into what you believe because when you say that, you are saying "my beliefs are not culturally transcendent."

I love Christians who don't read their Bible...

According to the Bible story, there was no mention of death until Yahweh killed some animals to clothe Adam and Eve.

Paul also writes in Romans 5:12-14:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

Put those together and you have no choice but to assume that Adam and Eve had no concept of death prior to the "fall".

Where do you get that Yahweh didn't create the situation for man to sin? He had a plan for a supreme atonement to bring man into a relationship with him, right? There can be no atonement without something to atone for. Why ask for forgiveness if you've done nothing wrong?

One's choosing to be a Christian in a situation where that's all you've been exposed to is a lot like buying a Pepsi from the only machine in the building (and it only having Pepsi loaded in it) and claiming that you "chose" Pepsi.

The above analogy also holds to those Christians in predominantly Muslim countries.  At some point they were indoctrinated into Christianity. They were not born into it - no one is.

As far as your story, you said you "barely went to church". That still exposed you to Christianity.  Chances are, that was the only religion you were exposed to. Choosing from a list of one is not really a choice, is it?

You're absolutely right - your beliefs aren't culturally transcendent. Nobody's are. I hate to disappoint you but your Yahweh had his origins in the Middle East and was brought to other countries by indoctrinators that you like to call "missionaries"

 

"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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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

Ok, a couple of minor pet peeves of mine...

A)Satan == Evil.

There is not one single instance in the Bible of "Satan" being evil or doing anything other than what God has set out for him to do. The word itself means 'adversary', in the sense of someone who calls you to account for your actions, and that's plainly the role the character fills. Satan afflicts Job... because God tells him to test the just man's devotion. Satan tempts Christ in the desert. Why? Quite blatantly so that not only will JC have endured all of the tests that Man endures, but so that he will actively commit himself to his goals, as opposed to simply drifting along. Until this point in the text, there has really been no challenge to Christ. He just wanders around doing whatever, until he goes into the desert and gets metaphorically (and metaphysically) kicked in the butt and told 'get it in gear, boy!' He could have an easy life. He knows that, he's explicitly offered it, and rejects it... but that doesn't happen until Mr. Prosecutor steps in to say 'You hippie bastard. Why don't you just go eat some damn peeled grapes."

Every time this character is encountered, he is adhering to the will of God, and performing the role set out for him. By definition in this context, adhering to the will of God is 'Good'. It is in fact how the bible defines 'good'.

B)Lucifer

Lucifer has no part in the angelic rebellion. Hell (heh), he's not even an angel! It's the damned king of Babylon, and the term doesn't EXIST in the bible until the King James, when it's used to translate 'Phosphoros' from the Greek. That's 1611AD. The Yahwist (J) source for the Torah is estimated at originating around 950BC, the Elohist (E) source, 850BC. So for 2500 years, the heavenly hosts got along perfectly fine w/out a Lucifer. He only got jumped up from 'Dude with a shiny hat' in the last 400. We strive to be rational and accurate here, no? Let's stop fucking attributing angelic status to someone who was only given it by revisionist CoE bishops in the 17th century, huh?

C)War in Heaven

First off, the angelic rebellion occurs after the fall of man. From I Enoch:

I Enoch 6:1-8 wrote:
1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2 And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, 8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.

And secondly: Look! No Lucifer! No Satan! I Enoch goes on to tell how these rogue angels beget giants upon the daughters of men (Nephilim), and teach humanity about agriculture and architecture, blacksmithing, weapons, armor, and warfare (Adam and Even got all the 'good and evil' knowledge, I guess, but none of the 'this is how you plant a goddamn seed' application) Now, sure, you might say 'but wait, if this happens after the Fall of Man, why isn't it in Genesis?' Well... it is, kinda.

I Enoch 10:1-3 wrote:
1 Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, 2 and said to him: Go to Noah and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come 3 upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. And now instruct him that he may escape

So, if we incorporate I Enoch into Genesis (which is already a composite of at least 2 sources, (J) and (E), redacted into (JE) around 750 BC.. and btw, that's at least part of the 'why does Genesis tell the creation of the world twice?' solution), then it fits in pretty easily and demonstrates that the 'sin and wickedness' the world has fallen into just before the Great Flood would be the Angelic Revolt... which happens on Earth, and not in Heaven.

A case, I suppose, could be made that free will exists on Earth but not in Heaven, as well, considering that after the Judgement, the Saved aren't going to be at all sad or upset about their friends, family, children, grandkids, spouses, etc, who don't make the cut.

Just another good reason to have no use for Heaven. Eye-wink

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Ok, a couple of

BMcD wrote:

Ok, a couple of minor pet peeves of mine...

A)Satan == Evil.

There is not one single instance in the Bible of "Satan" being evil or doing anything other than what God has set out for him to do. The word itself means 'adversary', in the sense of someone who calls you to account for your actions, and that's plainly the role the character fills. Satan afflicts Job... because God tells him to test the just man's devotion.

I agree completely. Job actually substantiates that Satan does God's assignments as he is going to and fro hanging out in heaven. If he was actually an evil angel, he would have been cast out of paradise, which Job shows he was not.

BMcD wrote:

Satan tempts Christ in the desert. Why? Quite blatantly so that not only will JC have endured all of the tests that Man endures, but so that he will actively commit himself to his goals, as opposed to simply drifting along. Until this point in the text, there has really been no challenge to Christ. He just wanders around doing whatever, until he goes into the desert and gets metaphorically (and metaphysically) kicked in the butt and told 'get it in gear, boy!' He could have an easy life. He knows that, he's explicitly offered it, and rejects it... but that doesn't happen until Mr. Prosecutor steps in to say 'You hippie bastard. Why don't you just go eat some damn peeled grapes."

The Gospels disagree as to what happened. It seems to be different in all of them. Matthew claims it was "the devil", Mark says it was Satan with little info, Luke uses "the devil", and John has nada. Mark's version supports the prosecutor and the other two can mean whatever you'd like. It of course has no basis anyway and was included for showing what a holy man Jesus was allegedly.

BMcD wrote:

Every time this character is encountered, he is adhering to the will of God, and performing the role set out for him. By definition in this context, adhering to the will of God is 'Good'. It is in fact how the bible defines 'good'.

B)Lucifer

Lucifer has no part in the angelic rebellion.

C)War in Heaven

First off, the angelic rebellion occurs after the fall of man. From I Enoch:

And secondly: Look! No Lucifer! No Satan! I Enoch goes on to tell how these rogue angels beget giants upon the daughters of men (Nephilim), and teach humanity about agriculture and architecture, blacksmithing, weapons, armor, and warfare (Adam and Even got all the 'good and evil' knowledge, I guess, but none of the 'this is how you plant a goddamn seed' application) Now, sure, you might say 'but wait, if this happens after the Fall of Man, why isn't it in Genesis?' Well... it is, kinda.

All ancient religions had the gods having sex with mortals resulting in the men of renown such as Hercules (Herakles).

A fun thing to do to Christians is ask them where in the Bible is the war in heaven that resulted in the evil angels being cast into hell. It's of course not in the Bible only in 1 Enoch, and technically they aren't really in a place called hell either. They have been imprisoned.

Continuing from where you left off in 1 Enoch 10:4-16

Quote:

4 and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.' And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening 5 in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may 6,7 not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the 8 Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted 9 through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.' And to Gabriel said the Lord: 'Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in 10 battle: for length of days shall they not have. And no request that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and 11 that each one of them will live five hundred years.' And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves 12 with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is 13 for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and 14 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all 15 generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because 16 they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear: and it shall prove a blessing; the works of righteousness and truth' shall be planted in truth and joy for evermore.

 

As you correctly point out Satan/Lucifer is not involved. These angels are not cast into Hell either but were bound on the Earth. This was to last 70 generations after the 500 years their bastard children lived. What exactly a generation means is indeterminate.

 

My favorite part of 1 Enoch is the torture of the stars,

Quote:
1 Enoch [Chapter 23]

1,2 From thence I went to another place to the west of the ends of the earth. And I saw a burning 3 fire which ran without resting, and paused not from its course day or night but (ran) regularly. And 4 I asked saying: 'What is this which rests not?' Then Raguel, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered me and said unto me: 'This course of fire which thou hast seen is the fire in the west which persecutes all the luminaries of heaven.'

And Enoch was not sexist he of course included female angels,

Quote:

[Chapter 19]

1 And Uriel said to me: 'Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods, (here shall they stand,) till the day of the great judgement in 2 which they shall be judged till they are made an end of. And the women also of the angels who 3 went astray shall become sirens.' And I, Enoch, alone saw the vision, the ends of all things: and no man shall see as I have seen.

BMcD wrote:

A case, I suppose, could be made that free will exists on Earth but not in Heaven, as well, considering that after the Judgement, the Saved aren't going to be at all sad or upset about their friends, family, children, grandkids, spouses, etc, who don't make the cut.

Just another good reason to have no use for Heaven. Eye-wink

Why bother. First you'd have to prove there was actually a physical place called heaven, since the apparent ignorance of stars, the Earth, and the Universe is so obvious I chalk it up to mythology.

 

There's all sorts of other fun things to quote in 1 Enoch, such as God promised to not to destroy the earth ever again, and all would now be righteous.

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

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


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
There was mention of death

There was mention of death by Eve. God had told them they would die if they ate the fruit. This proves that a prior conversation happened. Even though death may not have been experienced, doesn't mean they weren't aware of what it was. You don't have to have cancer or witness it first hand to know what it does. So let's go with the facts according to Genesis. God told them they would die if they ate the fruit. Adam and Eve understood this, as evidenced by Eve's response to the serpent. What happens when you tell a kid something they haven't experienced? They respond with a question such as "why" or "what's that". So if God said "eat the fruit and you will die", it is not unreasonable to assume that they would respond "what's that", having had no prior experience with it. Assuming they did, I'm pretty sure God could explain death to them, even though they had never seen it. They KNEW the rule and they KNEW the consequence.

"Where do you get that Yahweh didn't create the situation for man to sin? He had a plan for a supreme atonement to bring man into a relationship with him, right? There can be no atonement without something to atone for. Why ask for forgiveness if you've done nothing wrong?" His plan was NOT for man to sin and to bring atonement for it. His plan was to be in relationship with people. Man sinned and fell away. God brought atonement for that to make a way for people to be in relationship with Him again.

1. God's original plan- to be in relationship with people

2. Adam and Eve sinned- sin separates people from God

3. God sent Jesus to make atonement for that sin to find a way to bridge the gap that is sin.

 

"You're absolutely right - your beliefs aren't culturally transcendent." So you're saying that your beliefs are strictly a result of your environment? No wonder you think that I believe only what "I've been exposed to".

"One's choosing to be a Christian in a situation where that's all you've been exposed to is a lot like buying a Pepsi from the only machine in the building (and it only having Pepsi loaded in it) and claiming that you "chose" Pepsi." Now I'm going to assume that you are atheist. If you are not, feel free to correct me. So under the assumption that your atheist, this would mean that your parents were atheist since you can only believe what you have been exposed to. Therefore, you were indoctrinated by your parents, so how can you speak out against Christianity if your experience is only atheism?


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:There was

j_day wrote:

There was mention of death by Eve. God had told them they would die if they ate the fruit. This proves that a prior conversation happened. Even though death may not have been experienced, doesn't mean they weren't aware of what it was. You don't have to have cancer or witness it first hand to know what it does. So let's go with the facts according to Genesis. God told them they would die if they ate the fruit. Adam and Eve understood this, as evidenced by Eve's response to the serpent. What happens when you tell a kid something they haven't experienced? They respond with a question such as "why" or "what's that". So if God said "eat the fruit and you will die", it is not unreasonable to assume that they would respond "what's that", having had no prior experience with it. Assuming they did, I'm pretty sure God could explain death to them, even though they had never seen it. They KNEW the rule and they KNEW the consequence.

And how would you explain death to someone with no concept of it? How do you think the explanation to Eve would have gone? And what makes you think that Eve necessarily understood it? It's a totally alien concept until you've experienced something dying.

Quote:
His plan was NOT for man to sin and to bring atonement for it. His plan was to be in relationship with people. Man sinned and fell away. God brought atonement for that to make a way for people to be in relationship with Him again.

1. God's original plan- to be in relationship with people

2. Adam and Eve sinned- sin separates people from God

3. God sent Jesus to make atonement for that sin to find a way to bridge the gap that is sin.

You may well be right... but it does strike me as the very height of arrogance to claim you know what god's master plan is.

Quote:
"You're absolutely right - your beliefs aren't culturally transcendent." So you're saying that your beliefs are strictly a result of your environment? No wonder you think that I believe only what "I've been exposed to".

Sooo... you believe in ideas you've never been exposed to? Neat trick, how'd you manage that?

Quote:
"One's choosing to be a Christian in a situation where that's all you've been exposed to is a lot like buying a Pepsi from the only machine in the building (and it only having Pepsi loaded in it) and claiming that you "chose" Pepsi." Now I'm going to assume that you are atheist. If you are not, feel free to correct me. So under the assumption that your atheist, this would mean that your parents were atheist since you can only believe what you have been exposed to. Therefore, you were indoctrinated by your parents, so how can you speak out against Christianity if your experience is only atheism?

I dunno about him, but I'm an atheist. I was raised Catholic. I attended Catholic school. I've looked into other Christian sects. I'm still an atheist. You know what? I was exposed to atheist ideas when I started reading and investigating religious thought, including Catholic religious thought. I was exposed to other atheist ideas when I pursued logic and philosophy, and applied critical thinking to the ideas I'd come across. Even the thoughts I came to on my own are thoughts I have been exposed to. I exposed myself to them. If you think you can believe in an idea you haven't been exposed to, once again, I'd love to know how. How do you believe something you've never been exposed to?

Personally, I don't think he's saying 'if you believe something, that must be the only thing you've ever known', but rather 'if you have only been exposed to one idea, then it's not likely you'll believe something else... because you don't know there's anything else to believe. It comes back to that: How do you believe something you've never been exposed to? Please demonstrate this ability.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
IMO, as is all I AM is an

IMO, as is all I AM is a god opinion , is, "Original Sin" is the ignorance we are all born into, not realizing this and we are god, and so a wise man wrote , "No god before me" , for I AM what I AM,  as YOU >>>> to mean the end of all superstition, and god idol worship and self separation .....    OR well, so it should be ..... any hoot   says me, G O D  .....      


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"And how would you explain

"And how would you explain death to someone with no concept of it? How do you think the explanation to Eve would have gone? And what makes you think that Eve necessarily understood it? It's a totally alien concept until you've experienced something dying."

Why would the serpent say "Surely you won't die"? I don't think it would use that as a tactic to convince her to eat the fruit if she had no concept of death. The serpent has to try and undo the threat of God even though it wouldn't have carried any weight with Eve if she didn't understand? If she didn't understand what death was, she wouldn't have been afraid of it, so the serpent wouldn't have to convince her that that wouldn't happen.

"You may well be right... but it does strike me as the very height of arrogance to claim you know what god's master plan is."

It's in the Bible. Reading the Bible and re-telling what God has already said isn't arrogant. It's not hard to know what it is when He reveals it Himself, pretty much over and over.

"Sooo... you believe in ideas you've never been exposed to? Neat trick, how'd you manage that?"

If you notice I said "been exposed to" because I was referencing the fact that I was "shuttled off to a room to be indoctrinated." I was going off the idea that having Christian parents means I've never been exposed to anything in the "real world". Seeing as I went to public school my whole life and am now attending a non-Christian college, it wouldn't make sense that I've never been exposed to any other ideas.

"I dunno about him, but I'm an atheist. I was raised Catholic. I attended Catholic school. I've looked into other Christian sects. I'm still an atheist. You know what? I was exposed to atheist ideas when I started reading and investigating religious thought, including Catholic religious thought. I was exposed to other atheist ideas when I pursued logic and philosophy, and applied critical thinking to the ideas I'd come across. Even the thoughts I came to on my own are thoughts I have been exposed to. I exposed myself to them."

So you were Catholic and now your atheist? How can that be? You can't just change your beliefs can you? **Note: I'm being sarcastic. The point is this...you were raised something, then you changed your mind. However, I was introduced to something by my parents, and I CHOSE to become a Christian, that somehow means that I only had one choice.

 

 

You mentioned the word arrogant earlier. This isn't directed toward anyone specific, but, the only thing that is arrogant, is people who think that "religious" people have never been exposed to anything other than what their daddy or mommy tells them and that they are the only people in the world who have been exposed to numerous ideas. It's arrogant to think that they are the only ones with open minds, that they are the only ones who contain this thing called logic, that religious people are robots that only believe what they're told and that they are the only people with the ability to think. Like I have no way of exposing myself to any other ideas because I was raised with certain beliefs as a child. Anyone, religious or not, who thinks they are smarter than someone because of their beliefs about God, they are the ones who are arrogant. Someone not believing in God is not smarter than me because I believe in God and I am not smarter than someone because they don't believe in God. Intellectual capability and religious ideology are not dependent on one another. They have no causal relationship.

If you were raised atheist, don't tell me that I'm only Christian because my parents were Christian because that would mean you are only atheist because your parents were atheist. If you weren't raised atheist, but are now, then that means that even though you were raised something you could change your mind. To think that I don't have the same capability is arrogant. Either way, it doesn't make you look to good.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:There was

j_day wrote:

There was mention of death by Eve. God had told them they would die if they ate the fruit. This proves that a prior conversation happened. Even though death may not have been experienced, doesn't mean they weren't aware of what it was. You don't have to have cancer or witness it first hand to know what it does. So let's go with the facts according to Genesis. God told them they would die if they ate the fruit. Adam and Eve understood this, as evidenced by Eve's response to the serpent. What happens when you tell a kid something they haven't experienced? They respond with a question such as "why" or "what's that". So if God said "eat the fruit and you will die", it is not unreasonable to assume that they would respond "what's that", having had no prior experience with it. Assuming they did, I'm pretty sure God could explain death to them, even though they had never seen it. They KNEW the rule and they KNEW the consequence.

"Where do you get that Yahweh didn't create the situation for man to sin? He had a plan for a supreme atonement to bring man into a relationship with him, right? There can be no atonement without something to atone for. Why ask for forgiveness if you've done nothing wrong?" His plan was NOT for man to sin and to bring atonement for it. His plan was to be in relationship with people. Man sinned and fell away. God brought atonement for that to make a way for people to be in relationship with Him again.

1. God's original plan- to be in relationship with people

2. Adam and Eve sinned- sin separates people from God

3. God sent Jesus to make atonement for that sin to find a way to bridge the gap that is sin.

 

"You're absolutely right - your beliefs aren't culturally transcendent." So you're saying that your beliefs are strictly a result of your environment? No wonder you think that I believe only what "I've been exposed to".

"One's choosing to be a Christian in a situation where that's all you've been exposed to is a lot like buying a Pepsi from the only machine in the building (and it only having Pepsi loaded in it) and claiming that you "chose" Pepsi." Now I'm going to assume that you are atheist. If you are not, feel free to correct me. So under the assumption that your atheist, this would mean that your parents were atheist since you can only believe what you have been exposed to. Therefore, you were indoctrinated by your parents, so how can you speak out against Christianity if your experience is only atheism?

BMcD covered this - he explained it better than I did. Thanks.

As for my parents being atheists, no. However, you forget the possibility that I could have been exposed to atheism in some other part of my culture like say...here at this site. Of course, atheism is the default state because no one is born a theist.

"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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:"And how would

j_day wrote:

"And how would you explain death to someone with no concept of it? How do you think the explanation to Eve would have gone? And what makes you think that Eve necessarily understood it? It's a totally alien concept until you've experienced something dying."

Why would the serpent say "Surely you won't die"? I don't think it would use that as a tactic to convince her to eat the fruit if she had no concept of death. The serpent has to try and undo the threat of God even though it wouldn't have carried any weight with Eve if she didn't understand? If she didn't understand what death was, she wouldn't have been afraid of it, so the serpent wouldn't have to convince her that that wouldn't happen.

"You may well be right... but it does strike me as the very height of arrogance to claim you know what god's master plan is."

It's in the Bible. Reading the Bible and re-telling what God has already said isn't arrogant. It's not hard to know what it is when He reveals it Himself, pretty much over and over.

"Sooo... you believe in ideas you've never been exposed to? Neat trick, how'd you manage that?"

If you notice I said "been exposed to" because I was referencing the fact that I was "shuttled off to a room to be indoctrinated." I was going off the idea that having Christian parents means I've never been exposed to anything in the "real world". Seeing as I went to public school my whole life and am now attending a non-Christian college, it wouldn't make sense that I've never been exposed to any other ideas.

"I dunno about him, but I'm an atheist. I was raised Catholic. I attended Catholic school. I've looked into other Christian sects. I'm still an atheist. You know what? I was exposed to atheist ideas when I started reading and investigating religious thought, including Catholic religious thought. I was exposed to other atheist ideas when I pursued logic and philosophy, and applied critical thinking to the ideas I'd come across. Even the thoughts I came to on my own are thoughts I have been exposed to. I exposed myself to them."

So you were Catholic and now your atheist? How can that be? You can't just change your beliefs can you? **Note: I'm being sarcastic. The point is this...you were raised something, then you changed your mind. However, I was introduced to something by my parents, and I CHOSE to become a Christian, that somehow means that I only had one choice.

 

 

You mentioned the word arrogant earlier. This isn't directed toward anyone specific, but, the only thing that is arrogant, is people who think that "religious" people have never been exposed to anything other than what their daddy or mommy tells them and that they are the only people in the world who have been exposed to numerous ideas. It's arrogant to think that they are the only ones with open minds, that they are the only ones who contain this thing called logic, that religious people are robots that only believe what they're told and that they are the only people with the ability to think. Like I have no way of exposing myself to any other ideas because I was raised with certain beliefs as a child. Anyone, religious or not, who thinks they are smarter than someone because of their beliefs about God, they are the ones who are arrogant. Someone not believing in God is not smarter than me because I believe in God and I am not smarter than someone because they don't believe in God. Intellectual capability and religious ideology are not dependent on one another. They have no causal relationship.

If you were raised atheist, don't tell me that I'm only Christian because my parents were Christian because that would mean you are only atheist because your parents were atheist. If you weren't raised atheist, but are now, then that means that even though you were raised something you could change your mind. To think that I don't have the same capability is arrogant. Either way, it doesn't make you look to good.

 

1. Why would the serpent say "you won't surely die"? Perhaps because the writer needed to have the character say something that opposed what he put in the Eve character's mouth?

2. Some plan..."Kissing Hank's Ass" made more sense.

3. You may have had an open mind but you decided to close it once you found something that made you feel good. That's normal. I never said you had no opportunity to expose yourself to other ideas (though you did say that about me and my agnostic atheism). All I said was you can only have a belief based on what you've been exposed to. I admit I probably said it poorly. You seemed to be saying that coming to God was a natural choice that anyone in the world (even if they had not been exposed to knowledge of Yahweh) can make.

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:There was

j_day wrote:

There was mention of death by Eve. God had told them they would die if they ate the fruit. This proves that a prior conversation happened. Even though death may not have been experienced, doesn't mean they weren't aware of what it was. You don't have to have cancer or witness it first hand to know what it does. So let's go with the facts according to Genesis.

All Genesis does is indicate a writer presented his concept of a story he had heard. As it is the beginning of the belief system for Yahweh it should present convincing evidence for its validity. It however only shows mythical ideas to explain the world. It has just as poor evidence as do the myths of Egypt and Sumer that predate this by at least a thousand years. You seem to accept the printed word of ancient savages as reality only because it has been printed and somehow survived the ages. This does not give it the power of legitimacy any more than the story of Adapa from the myths of Sumer. You obviously reject some of the ancient mythical stories that survive to the present and accept those of Christians though they are just as far-fetched upon dissection. Claiming Genesis contains facts is too far of a stretch for me. The talking snake convinced me this was a myth along with the rest of the unrealistic backdrop of the alleged Paradise.

j_day wrote:

"Where do you get that Yahweh didn't create the situation for man to sin? He had a plan for a supreme atonement to bring man into a relationship with him, right? There can be no atonement without something to atone for. Why ask for forgiveness if you've done nothing wrong?" His plan was NOT for man to sin and to bring atonement for it. His plan was to be in relationship with people. Man sinned and fell away. God brought atonement for that to make a way for people to be in relationship with Him again.

If this has any basis it indicated Yahweh was minimum schizophrenic or suffered from APD. His actions in this entire event indicate contradictory motivations and strangeness accountable of someone with a mental illness.

j_day wrote:

1. God's original plan- to be in relationship with people

You have no way to know this.

j_day wrote:

2. Adam and Eve sinned- sin separates people from God

It appears he continues to harass "his people" just as the other gods of the ancient savages at least according to the myths in the Hebrew Bible.

 

j_day wrote:

3. God sent Jesus to make atonement for that sin to find a way to bridge the gap that is sin.

Such a stretch you have made. A snake talks an ancient savage into eating fruit. God sent part of himself to be executed in a bloody execution to save these evil people's remote descendants from the actions they had nothing to do with.

It's like your great grandfather robbed a train in Kansas in 1877 and you are therefore guilty of that robbery as you are related.

 

I am another ex-Catholic who attended parochial schools as well as a Jesuit University. The more I learned of religion and history the less likely it seemed to me. I don't make the claim that Christians have closed minds, rather they are so far down a path they can't see the road isn't what they thought. Someday you may notice the contradictory beliefs take you no where or you may not.

 

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

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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:Why would the

j_day wrote:

Why would the serpent say "Surely you won't die"? I don't think it would use that as a tactic to convince her to eat the fruit if she had no concept of death. The serpent has to try and undo the threat of God even though it wouldn't have carried any weight with Eve if she didn't understand? If she didn't understand what death was, she wouldn't have been afraid of it, so the serpent wouldn't have to convince her that that wouldn't happen.

Ah, but as you said:

Quote:
There was mention of death by Eve. God had told them they would die if they ate the fruit. This proves that a prior conversation happened.

So, assume for a moment that Eve doesn't 'get it' when it comes to death. As the serpent, do you use the exact same words God used when you're talking to her, or do you use other terms, and risk that she might get the clue of just what God was talking about?

Generally speaking, if you want to keep a third party in the dark when you disagree with someone else, you use the same words, the same turns of phrase, changed only as much as you need to in order to refute them. Broader explanations give more chance for understanding.

Quote:

It's in the Bible. Reading the Bible and re-telling what God has already said isn't arrogant. It's not hard to know what it is when He reveals it Himself, pretty much over and over.

Except that the Bible's a document that's been revised many, many times, to the point where Genesis contradicts itself (most visibily in the dual telling of the Creation story, where in one version Adam is created alone and Eve is made a significant time later, and in the other 'male and female, He created them'). Now, while it's very easy to say 'ok, some narrative details got confused over time, but not the central message'... Consider this: if either Adam's created alone.. or if they were, as indicated, created innocent of sex ('be fruitful and multiply' wouldn't come until after the Fall), then how is it possible for God's master plan to be  to have a relationship with mankind without the transgression/atonement cycle?

Quote:
If you were raised atheist, don't tell me that I'm only Christian because my parents were Christian because that would mean you are only atheist because your parents were atheist. If you weren't raised atheist, but are now, then that means that even though you were raised something you could change your mind. To think that I don't have the same capability is arrogant. Either way, it doesn't make you look to good.

I agree, that would most definitely be arrogant. But I'm not sure, as I said, and as he seems to have agreed, that that was what he actually meant. Looks to me like there was a little bit of crosstalk/miscommunication there.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Two_Sandals

totus_tuus wrote:

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

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

To fit that purpose he would've kept it locked away, or not even created, or atleast designed the tree to not bear fruit until the time was right.
As it was, God left the tree to Adam and Eve's access when they weren't ready for it. Talk about an accident waiting to happen!
If your mum had been omnipotent and omniscient then there'd have been no way that you'd've gotten hold of those cherries!


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"You have no way to know

"You have no way to know this." and "Such a stretch you have made." That would be logical, IF I made it up. Except for the fact that God reveals His plan over and over and over in the Bible. Either people have never read the Bible, so they have no business quoting it or telling what it says, or they need to re-read it and actually process what it's saying. It's not hard to understand when you read it and you actually use this thing called your brain.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"most visibily in the dual

"most visibily in the dual telling of the Creation story, where in one version Adam is created alone and Eve is made a significant time later, and in the other 'male and female, He created them"

I think there is a misunderstanding in the word "contradiction". First version says God created Adam and then sometime later made Eve. Second version says God created them, male and female. The second one has NO contradiction to the first one. Did God create male and female? Yes. The second one gives no time frame to contradict the first one. Imagine I take a wood-shop class. First version: I made a shelf board and sometime later I made a bird feeder. Second version: I made a shelf board and a bird feeder. Second one does not contradict the first one. I did in fact create both of them. The second version is just devoid of time, also known as a summary.

 

"Consider this: if either Adam's created alone.. or if they were, as indicated, created innocent of sex ('be fruitful and multiply' wouldn't come until after the Fall)"

Genesis 2:24 "pre-fall" talks about sex. "Become one" means united sexually in marriage. Also Genesis 3:16 God says "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children." This reveals the plan to have children existed "pre-fall". God can't increase the pain if there was no standard on what the pain would be.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The Buybull is bullshit.

The Buybull is bullshit.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:"You have no way

j_day wrote:

"You have no way to know this." and "Such a stretch you have made." That would be logical, IF I made it up. Except for the fact that God reveals His plan over and over and over in the Bible. Either people have never read the Bible, so they have no business quoting it or telling what it says, or they need to re-read it and actually process what it's saying. It's not hard to understand when you read it and you actually use this thing called your brain.

If you were using YOUR brain you would easily see there is a problem, many problems, with the bible.

I think you merely believe what you are being told.

If adam and eve had knowledge of right and wrong then what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil for?

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:"You have no way

j_day wrote:

"You have no way to know this." and "Such a stretch you have made." That would be logical, IF I made it up. Except for the fact that God reveals His plan over and over and over in the Bible. Either people have never read the Bible, so they have no business quoting it or telling what it says, or they need to re-read it and actually process what it's saying. It's not hard to understand when you read it and you actually use this thing called your brain.

 

You obviously don't know what a parochial school is do you? Or a Catholic Jesuit University either. I have read at least 6 different versions of the Bible, many times completely through as I took notes. I have processed this information taking into account the other knowledge I have of ancient history, science, mythology and detailed religious classes. After careful and detailed analysis, reasoning, study and processing said information I concluded it's based in mythology. What I am is an ex-Christian non-believer who knows every bit of the Bible far better than most believers. I used my brain and determined that the stories with strange effects are poorly done Sci-Fi or myths. You however are looking at the Bible with out of focus glasses wishing it was true.

The point you ignored when I said "you have no way to know this" was how could you have any idea what God's original plan entailed. You are but a misinformed descendant of the supposed Adam. Unless of course you are a resurrected saint, a prophet with a direct line to God, or an angel. Are You? If not you are interpreting this from the texts which only tells you a story written by a writer. Even if you think God inspired the writer, he didn't tell his inner most motivations for his alleged actions in Genesis as if on a therapists couch detailing his thoughts and plans. I realize that there are other verses in other places that were all written after the events of Genesis that attempt to explain these actions. The point being in Genesis God did not open his mind to reveal what his original plans were or weren't.

The stretch was this: The stories in Genesis have as much bearing on reality as any other myth of ancient savages. It is complicated by God has been offended by his created mortals. He desires to have them free from this offense. He constructs a several thousand year plan to send part of himself down and pretend to be a mortal. He has it all arranged so he is executed in a sacrifice. The sacrifice of himself to himself thus releases the offense for the long dead fruit eating criminals.

 

How was that again?

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

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks again J P the skeptic

Thanks again J P the skeptic for your posts .....

  Ummm,  j_day , "use your brain" ..... looking for some wisdom ? What if I said Jesus was also an atheist, ONE with GOD ? After all , your Jesus is your own design. Me and God and Jesus are the same , ONE. I AM Jesus too ! 

 Wisdom     Using the brain? YES yes,  AWAKE ! Hey, check out this Angel, shes loves Jesus too, and you and me and all the world !  .... she is a Buddha / Jesus fan, that would be atheist you know ? .....

   Keep her close ..... and keep caring ..... 

"Wisdom of the Buddha" 8 min,   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsb-woP3jI

 Geezzzz, ALL we are is what we perceive , our god, our universe, our heros, our reality is >YOU< . There is nothing more than what you are , what you know. Is there more ? Yes, as you know there is more ..... there is then more ..... Awake to the AWE of you , GOD is you .....  Now what , pray ? Make dogma up ? Why ? There is nothing greater than you , NOTHING. To think otherwise is fear, and then comes religion dogma. Why turn the Bible of ancient inventive literature into Dogma Godma crap ...... On your knees ?  Fuck that. Stop the guilt and fear and separation and superstition.     Spooky,  god is looking at you ? .....  Yeah , see god in the mirror ! 

   L O L , save a Xain ! Give them atheist Jesus , all is ONE,  no MASTER, no division.

 


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"What I am is an

"What I am is an ex-Christian non-believer who knows every bit of the Bible far better than most believers."

So you went from having a relationship with Jesus to thinking He doesn't exist. How is that possible? You went from knowing that God exists to knowing that He doesn't?

 

"The point being in Genesis God did not open his mind to reveal what his original plans were or weren't"

Nowhere in any previous post did I say God revealed his plan in Genesis. Several times I said "the Bible". There's 65 other books that contain other information about God.

 

Now I can explain things in the Bible that you think don't make sense. Obviously you can not believe what I say, but that doesn't mean I can explain it. But I have a question for you. How in your world with no God do you explain miracles?


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
If you read my previous

If you read my previous posts, I never said they had knowledge of right and wrong. They had knowledge of the command, and they had knowledge of the punishment.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:If you read my

j_day wrote:

If you read my previous posts, I never said they had knowledge of right and wrong. They had knowledge of the command, and they had knowledge of the punishment.

I'll give you they had knowledge of the command but they had no concept of what the punishment was. Remember your bible - death didn't come into the picture until after the Fall. If the Bible is right, they had never seen anything die.

It would be like me explaining quantum mechanics to my dog. He'd give me great eye contact but he wouldn't understand a word.

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:"What I am is an

j_day wrote:

"What I am is an ex-Christian non-believer who knows every bit of the Bible far better than most believers."

So you went from having a relationship with Jesus to thinking He doesn't exist. How is that possible? You went from knowing that God exists to knowing that He doesn't?

It's obviously possible. I realized the basis of God-belief was mired in mythology. The basis for Christianity was Judaism. It is comprised of contradictory events and myths. Ancient history and archeology indicates major issues with the Bible. There are outright complete fabrications and fiction used to prove Christianity from the Hebrew Bible. If it was only 1 or 2 small problems it could be chalked up to translation errors. There are far too many issues for that. Jews or correctly Judahites are essentially no different than any of the rest of the Canaanites. They didn't invade from Egypt but rather settled in the area as all the rest. Israel and Judah may have had a common king at one time but little more. As in "X Files", the truth is out there. Yahweh and Ba'al are essentially the same god of Canaan, a volcano and thunder god.

These comments are only details, I have studied ancient history of the Middle East for over 30 years since I left college. The Bible when considered together with ancient history is essentially shown to be misconstrued reality. Essentially it's a form of ancient propaganda.

 

j_day wrote:

"The point being in Genesis God did not open his mind to reveal what his original plans were or weren't"

Nowhere in any previous post did I say God revealed his plan in Genesis. Several times I said "the Bible". There's 65 other books that contain other information about God.

Actually I took your comment from post #71. You simply made an unsupported statement:

 

j_day wrote:

1. God's original plan- to be in relationship with people

As Genesis is the beginning, it is here where the basis is to be found. All of the rest of the Bible was written after these events. That the rest has conjecture as to God's intent is a given, that it has anything at all to do with "God's original plan" is an assumption.

 

j_day wrote:

Now I can explain things in the Bible that you think don't make sense. Obviously you can not believe what I say, but that doesn't mean I can explain it. But I have a question for you. How in your world with no God do you explain miracles?

You can explain only that which you perceive based on your position that you see God events as factual. Each explanation you give I can counter as why it is inaccurate, not based in reality, simply misinterpreted or not pertinent.

Miracles in what way. The according to the Gospel miracles that are essentially legends? Or events that happen in the modern world which aren't understood. A person survives a 12 story fall from a building for example? That sounds miraculous but statistically with billions of people it will happen. If the United Nations building suddenly changed into solid gold perhaps that might be a miracle. Or it may have an explanation from technology.

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

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


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
As far as "inaccuracies" in

As far as "inaccuracies" in the Bible, there are just as many websites that provide answers to those inaccuracies than websites who bring up those inaccuracies.

http://www.tektonics.org/

If one website says "this isn't true because...." and another says "here's why this is true...." you can't say that the Bible is inaccurate. You have the right to believe that, but there's an answer to everything you see as an inaccuracy. Rejecting an answer doesn't make it untrue. This is why debating to "change someone's mind" doesn't really do anything. I'm just here to provide answers to what people see as inaccurate. Your rejection or acceptance of those answers is up to you.

 

Anyway, as far as miracles go. What about someone who has brain cancer that was healed without any treatment?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:As far as

j_day wrote:

As far as "inaccuracies" in the Bible, there are just as many websites that provide answers to those inaccuracies than websites who bring up those inaccuracies.

http://www.tektonics.org/

If one website says "this isn't true because...." and another says "here's why this is true...." you can't say that the Bible is inaccurate. You have the right to believe that, but there's an answer to everything you see as an inaccuracy. Rejecting an answer doesn't make it untrue. This is why debating to "change someone's mind" doesn't really do anything. I'm just here to provide answers to what people see as inaccurate. Your rejection or acceptance of those answers is up to you.

 

Anyway, as far as miracles go. What about someone who has brain cancer that was healed without any treatment?

What about it? The human body can do some really amazing things. Spontaneous remissions aren't exactly unheard of.

Why bring in the Invisible Cloud Being?

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:As far as

j_day wrote:

As far as "inaccuracies" in the Bible, there are just as many websites that provide answers to those inaccuracies than websites who bring up those inaccuracies.

Actually I don't think I've ever used a website to find Bible accuracy issues. I have looked at websites that have such information though I usually find I already knew about the issue from my own research. I've done my research the hard way in libraries and in actual books including a very large library at a well known Jesuit University. I have dozens of history books, books on ancient religion, many versions of the Bible including 6 bound versions and 60 + on CD. My criticism is from first person research and is not from taking the word of someone else.

j_day wrote:

If one website says "this isn't true because...." and another says "here's why this is true...." you can't say that the Bible is inaccurate. You have the right to believe that, but there's an answer to everything you see as an inaccuracy. Rejecting an answer doesn't make it untrue. This is why debating to "change someone's mind" doesn't really do anything. I'm just here to provide answers to what people see as inaccurate. Your rejection or acceptance of those answers is up to you.

Yes I know the web is filled with smoke and mirrors. My basis is different then yours. I hold that the god stories handed down are not true regardless of what god or religion. You hold Christian belief to be true as the book tells you so. The Bible is one of many books surviving the years. As a Christian you have concluded the Jews are wrong in their beliefs and distorted it into something else entirely. Why do they not accept your beliefs in Jesus as the messiah, do you know?

j_day wrote:
Anyway, as far as miracles go. What about someone who has brain cancer that was healed without any treatment?

It's not good enough for me as an example. If we knew all there was to know about cancer and it's cure or why suddenly remission occurs it would be possible to use it. As there are still too many unknowns ascribing the sudden recovery of a cancer patient to a God caused miracle is not justified.

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

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


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:As far as

j_day wrote:

As far as "inaccuracies" in the Bible, there are just as many websites that provide answers to those inaccuracies than websites who bring up those inaccuracies.

http://www.tektonics.org/

If one website says "this isn't true because...." and another says "here's why this is true...." you can't say that the Bible is inaccurate.

Actually, that's exactly what you can do if the "here's why this is true" is inaccurate, fallacious or just plain madness.

Where did the water for the flood go?  Does the moon give off its own light?  Are bats birds?  Is the value of pi 3?  These are all questions that the bible either does not answer or answered wrong.  Not just inaccurately, but wrong.

When a thermometer gives wrong answers, we do not explain away the errors by saying that perhaps there was a transcription error when the plant drew on the degree marks, or that our understanding of the thermometer is incomplete due to our faulty human minds; we say it is inaccurate or unreliable and either correct for it or get a new one.  If we do that for something as stupid-simple as a thermometer, why not with something purported to be of the utmost importance?

Quote:

You have the right to believe that, but there's an answer to everything you see as an inaccuracy. Rejecting an answer doesn't make it untrue.

Horse before the cart; we reject it BECAUSE it's untrue.  Nice try, though.

Quote:

This is why debating to "change someone's mind" doesn't really do anything. I'm just here to provide answers to what people see as inaccurate. Your rejection or acceptance of those answers is up to you.

It "doesn't really do anything" when the people you're arguing against are such dishonest cowards that they cannot admit a mistake they happen to enjoy.  Science can answer questions in a way that means anyone who asks the question in the same way will get the same answer.  Believers can't even agree on what the questions are, let alone give you an accurate, consistent answer.

Quote:

Anyway, as far as miracles go. What about someone who has brain cancer that was healed without any treatment?

What is miraculous about a mammal's ability to heal itself?  Long ago, our branch of the evolutionary tree lost the ability to regenerate limbs and (most) organs, but we gained an immune system in its place.  You are claiming that an excellent immune system is somehow proof of divine intervention in the physical world?  Yes, brain cancer is almost invariably fatal.  The key is "almost" invariably fatal.

Having a village full of children who lost their lower legs to land mines have them spontaneously regrow, now THAT might be a miracle.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Quote:Anyway,

shikko wrote:

Quote:

Anyway, as far as miracles go. What about someone who has brain cancer that was healed without any treatment?

 

Having a village full of children who lost their lower legs to land mines have them spontaneously regrow, now THAT might be a miracle.

I agree, that would have possibilities to be a miracle, though as skeptical as I am I probably have to witness it myself.

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

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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:If adam and eve

aiia wrote:

If adam and eve had knowledge of right and wrong then what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil for?

j_day wrote:

If you read my previous posts, I never said they had knowledge of right and wrong. They had knowledge of the command, and they had knowledge of the punishment.

But why would they obey a command if they didnt know it was wrong to disobey? A 'command' is meaningless without knowledge of compliance and noncompliance, the difference being that to comply is right and to not comply is wrong.

And as mentioned before,  how could they know that death was a punishment if they didnt know right and wrong? 'Punishment' is also meaningless without knowledge of right and wrong.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

shikko wrote:

Quote:

Anyway, as far as miracles go. What about someone who has brain cancer that was healed without any treatment?

 

Having a village full of children who lost their lower legs to land mines have them spontaneously regrow, now THAT might be a miracle.

I agree, that would have possibilities to be a miracle, though as skeptical as I am I probably have to witness it myself.

 

Just out of curiosity, let's say that did happen. A village of children lose their legs and then they spontaneously regrow, and you witnessed it. What would your response to that be? Would you believe there's a God or would you still need proof? If you saw something that you knew was God, would you follow Him?


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"'Punishment' is also

"'Punishment' is also meaningless without knowledge of right and wrong."

That's not entirely true. Let's say you go to a country that you've never been to before. Right and Wrong is different in different countries (ie eating cows in India). So you're in a different country and you're walking down the street and you see this amazing statue. So you walk up to it and standing 10 feet away is a guy holding a gun and he says "Don't touch that or I'll shoot you". Would you touch it because you have no clue if it's "wrong" to touch the statue? You have no idea what his motive is for telling you not to touch it. But according to you, the punishment of him shooting you wouldn't deter you. What would is knowing if that's "wrong" to do it.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote: Just out of

j_day wrote:

 Just out of curiosity, let's say that did happen. A village of children lose their legs and then they spontaneously regrow, and you witnessed it. What would your response to that be? Would you believe there's a God or would you still need proof? If you saw something that you knew was God, would you follow Him?

I would admit I saw a supposed miracle if I watched legs spontaneously grow on a village of children that I clearly knew had lost them. That however still is not enough to give credit for a God. Why assume the alleged miracle was of a God? Perhaps a starfish genetic mutation drug. Perhaps other reasons. Further inquiry would be required. The problem is people jump to conclusions as to causes they don't understand and call it God. Upon further examination other reasons are found. As I said I would have to see it to decide if it was a miracle. That however doesn't take me to the step you go to next, that it would be of God. More would be required for that.

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

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


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic....You

pauljohntheskeptic....

You said that you used to be a Christian. What specifically made you think or realize that the Bible was full of fairy-tales or lies?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote: "'Punishment'

j_day wrote:

"'Punishment' is also meaningless without knowledge of right and wrong."
That's not entirely true. Let's say you go to a country that you've never been to before.

 

Adam: Hey Eve, what’s a country?

 

Eve: I don’t know, where’d you hear about this thing called country?

 

Quote:
Right and Wrong is different in different countries (ie eating cows in India). So you're in a different country and you're walking down the street and you see this amazing statue. So you walk up to it and standing 10 feet away is a guy holding a gun and he says "Don't touch that or I'll shoot you". Would you touch it because you have no clue if it's "wrong" to touch the statue? You have no idea what his motive is for telling you not to touch it.

 

Adam: Hey Eve, what’s a gun?

 

Eve: Who the hell knows, and what’s shooting? What’s a statue? This is weird.

 

Quote:
But according to you, the punishment of him shooting you wouldn't deter you.
What would is knowing if that's "wrong" to do it.


Huh?


“What would is knowing if that's "wrong" to do it.”????????

 

That last sentence of yours indicates I am correct in that you do have a language problem.

 

Punishment is a penalty for some offense. Here are 3 words adam and eve would not understand [as you don’t seem to understand either] – punishment, penalty, & offense.
In order to comprehend the concept of these words a person must have a comprehension of right and wrong.

 

So again, if adam and eve knew about right and wrong what is the purpose of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

 

But then again, if adam and eve did not understand the concept of right and wrong why are they being punished by this magic ‘god thing’ that is supposed to know all and see all?
Unless, of course this ‘god thing’ is not omniscient and if this ‘god thing’ is not omniscient, how can it be a ‘god thing’?

 

 

You’ll probably have to read this several times because it seems you have a very difficult time in understanding the problem, so take your time and get it right.


 
 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.