Why Call Him God?

[Guest Valk0010]

I defining good as not sin. Also what I mean about the second sentence is imagine, the christian god exists, he creates us without the bible plot, but directly in heaven with the choice to worship him.

I am simply saying, that, the not what god wants path, can be of the table, but various other possibilities that wouldn't say be a sin, can be on the table. I am not thinking in a either or fashion, you are.

[walker]

What type of evidence would convince you? Please excuse me if I’ve asked you this before, but honestly - if you’re not open to the possibility of the supernatural you won’t see any evidence … you’ll only hunt for other explanations. Even if you never really find an explanation, you’ll keep looking. If the supernatural isn’t an option for you, it isn’t. Is the supernatural an option for you?

Either you have evidence or you do not. Do not ask me "What type of evidence would convince you?" but present what evidence you have, if you have any, and see if it can stand up to scrutiny. If you can only present an argument that will convince those that are already convinced then you apparently do not have much of an argument.

 

mwc

Is the supernatural an option for you?Is anyone here “already convinced”? I don’t think so. : ) Some will say “If I saw __________ I would believe”. Some will say seeing __________ would cause them to think about things. It seems you don’t want to think about saying such things because you don’t want to commit to considering the discussion.

 

You want evidence that Jesus existed (as a man). How do we accept that anyone who lived in ancient times existed? Are you going to accept standard criteria, or will you demand different standards?

[walker]

"A Superior Being is beyond my ability to “know and reason and determine what is best, etc.” I can only know anything because God reveals it. What we know is through revelation."

 

"What type of evidence would convince you?"

 

God didn't reveal it to you?

No, God didn't reveal to me what type of evidence might/would convince mwc. Interesting thought though! : )

[NaturalMary63]

 

Is the supernatural an option for you?Is anyone here “already convinced”? I don’t think so. : ) Some will say “If I saw __________ I would believe”. Some will say seeing __________ would cause them to think about things. It seems you don’t want to think about saying such things because you don’t want to commit to considering the discussion.

 

You want evidence that Jesus existed (as a man). How do we accept that anyone who lived in ancient times existed? Are you going to accept standard criteria, or will you demand different standards?

 

I don't need evidence about whether or not there was an historical Jesus. I would need evidence that supernatural events occur, period. There are any number of things an all-powerful supernatural entity could do that would settle the fact of his existence once and for all. But no evidence can be given that anything supernatural has ever occurred. No evidence can be given that supernatural entities of any kind exist.

 

If you have such evidence - and not just questionable ancient texts - but evidence in the here and now that supernatural events happen or such entities exist, that would be the evidence to present. But our point is that you don't; our point is that none such exists. And failing evidence in the supernatural, there's no reason for us to believe in anything supernatural. Including the xian god.

 

In fact, even the free will you claim exists is questionable. It has been shown in studies that the decision is made in the subconscious, over which the individual has no control or knowledge PRIOR to the person performing the action or being aware of the conscious thought. How is it 'choice' if we have no awareness of the decision-making process?

 

I suggest Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves. Or Susan Blackmore's work, some of which is at: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/index.htm.

[mwc]

Is the supernatural an option for you?Is anyone here “already convinced”? I don’t think so. : ) Some will say “If I saw __________ I would believe”. Some will say seeing __________ would cause them to think about things. It seems you don’t want to think about saying such things because you don’t want to commit to considering the discussion.

 

You want evidence that Jesus existed (as a man). How do we accept that anyone who lived in ancient times existed? Are you going to accept standard criteria, or will you demand different standards?

 

What I want is for you to stop tap-dancing and present your evidence for this claim from the "2 Saviors?" thread:

Margee -

 

Briefly - there is one God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all found in the OT (first testament). God (Father, Son, Spirit) saves. In John 1 it says Jesus *was* in the beginning. Jesus always existed and He is found in the OT.

 

I hope your friend is doing well.

You present whatever you think you have as evidence and I'll go right on ahead and evaluate it. That's the deal. That's always the deal.

 

To help you understand the concept of evidence I went over to Google dictionary and I typed in "evidence" and here's just a portion of what it returned (the formatting didn't survive but maybe you're capable of looking the term up yourself if that's an issue):

Dictionary

 

Add star ev·i·dence Verb /ˈevədəns/

 

Synonyms:

verb: prove, show, testify, demonstrate, evince, manifest, indicate, witness, attest

noun: proof, testimony, witness, attestation, obviousness

 

evidencing present participle; evidenced past tense; evidenced past participle; evidences 3rd person singular present

Be or show evidence of

that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings

 

Add star ev·i·dence Noun /ˈevədəns/

evidences plural

 

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

 

Information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court

without evidence, they can't bring a charge

 

Signs; indications

there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

 

 

Related phrases

 

evidence-based

Denoting disciplines of health care that proceed empirically with regard to the patient and reject more traditional protocols

 

internal evidence

Evidence derived from the contents of the thing discussed

 

negative evidence

Evidence for a theory provided by the nonoccurrence or absence of something

 

secondary evidence

Something, in particular documentation, which confirms the existence of unavailable primary evidence

 

state's evidence

Evidence for the prosecution given by a participant in or accomplice to the crime being tried

 

Now quit telling me what evidence I may, or may not, accept and just present any/all evidence you may have so it can be evaluated.

 

mwc

[walker]

Adam and Eve had relationship with God - they weren’t ignorant of His Ways. They could always freely choose, and after a period of time they freely chose to disobey God and eat from the tree. Adam understood what he was doing - he was choosing to decide for himself what was good and what was evil.

So what exactly does the phrase "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" mean to you?

 

What did they get when they ate the fruit, besides punishment for eating it? What kind of magic thing did the fruit give them?

 

The literal meaning is "wisdom," is it not?

 

So did Adam and Eve have wisdom to make the right choice, between good and evil, before they ate the fruit that would give them wisdom? The snake is continuously eating its own tail...

The tree of knowledge - “knowledge” (noun) is from the root word “yada” - a verb meaning “to know, to perceive, to discern”. So “knowledge” carries the sense of “perceiving, discerning, defining” what is “good” (bringing benefit and welfare) and what is “evil” (bringing misery and injury). Eating from the tree was the desire to discern/define what is good and what is evil independently, thereby not accepting, trusting, and obeying God’s definitions/guidance. Adam’s action of taking the fruit was a result of his decision that he could independently discern what is beneficial and what is harmful. This decision brought consequences. No punishment from God - their action brought consequences on its own. No magic in the fruit. And “wisdom” is not the best meaning, for it misses the sense of “discerning, defining”.

[walker]

I defining good as not sin. Also what I mean about the second sentence is imagine, the christian god exists, he creates us without the bible plot, but directly in heaven with the choice to worship him.

O-K - "good" is God's Way, following His guidance, etc. "Sin" is actually pictured as "missing the mark". "Good" would hit the mark.

 

What exactly do you mean when you say "Bible plot"?

[walker]

Correctly interpreted it, no wonder a majority of people when he jesus lived, thought he was batshit.

Jesus ticked off a lot of Jewish leaders/teachers. I think what made most of them mad was that they saw He was right, and most of them were too proud to admit it. Crazy rabbis aren't a threat if they're really crazy.

[Ouroboros]

The tree of knowledge - “knowledge” (noun) is from the root word “yada” - a verb meaning “to know, to perceive, to discern”. So “knowledge” carries the sense of “perceiving, discerning, defining” what is “good” (bringing benefit and welfare) and what is “evil” (bringing misery and injury). Eating from the tree was the desire to discern/define what is good and what is evil independently,

So the tree or the fruit didn't change them. They already had the knowledge and ability to choose wisely (discern) before they ate. The fruit didn't really change that fact? Is that what you're saying?

 

So why did they suddenly realize they were naked if they already had that ability to discern it?

 

thereby not accepting, trusting, and obeying God’s definitions/guidance. Adam’s action of taking the fruit was a result of his decision that he could independently discern what is beneficial and what is harmful. This decision brought consequences. No punishment from God - their action brought consequences on its own. No magic in the fruit. And “wisdom” is not the best meaning, for it misses the sense of “discerning, defining”.

My understanding from any lecture or sermon I've heard in the past regarding this topic is that the fruit brought about the ability and knowledge, not that they had the ability and knowledge before they ate.

 

If they already knew they were naked, why did they realize they were naked after eating the fruit?

 

Other interpretations I've heard is that the fruit gave them a conscience, the ability to know what is good and evil.

 

Basically two different views: 1) the fruit gave them knowledge (science), which can be used for good and evil, or 2) the fruit gave them knowledge about what good and evil is and discern it (conscience).

 

But I never heard before that the fruit didn't do anything at all...

[litassio]

However, God did inspire the writers - and He spoke through their individual personalities and situations. The revelation is accurate - the second testament sometimes brings more clarity to revelation in the first.

Did you come to the first conclusion by purely personal conviction or did you accept it by following the conclusion of another person?

And if you accepted the authority of another person in this, then who was he/she?

[walker]

Yes, I believe all have free choice, including babies who die shortly after being born. No, I’m not alone in this belief.

 

How does that work, forgive me for asking? How does a newborn baby choose? Do you mean there are others who believe that questionable statement, too?

In post 68 I said “Free choice, boiled down to its simplest meaning, is either falling in love with God or rejecting Him. When we die we meet God, and we respond to Him one way or the other. A possible illustration of this idea is thinking of meeting someone for the first time - often people just “click” and immediately like each other and feel like they’ve known each other for years. But sometimes there is just something about someone that feels wrong - the chemistry isn’t there and the two just don’t see things similarly.”

 

A baby, a “soul” will meet God and respond with his/her heart. Sure, others believe this. And, I’ve attended many different churches and none of them believed babies go to hell.

[NaturalMary63]

A baby, a “soul” will meet God and respond with his/her heart. Sure, others believe this. And, I’ve attended many different churches and none of them believed babies go to hell.

 

Well, my mother was told (by a catholic church) that her dead miscarried babies were in limbo or purgatory or something - but, definitely not heaven. That was in the 1950's, but still.

[walker]

Walker,

 

you are absolutely right on cue on that

 

If we trust them to be loyal and good, and intelligent, we can often say “I don’t get it, but I trust them.” Think of a child with a great and wise dad - he doesn’t need to understand everything his dad does to trust his dad.

 

How about think of a child with a egotistical and abusive dad, probably saying exactly the same thing. A great wise dad would have explained the situation and leave the understandings to the kid,.

 

Children love abusive parents but they don’t necessarily trust them … they fear them. Children aren’t capable of understanding all an adult understands. We’re not capable of understanding all that God understands either.

 

You claimed your god to be a god of perfection, a perfectly good, mericiful, loving etc etc that cannot be any sort of imperfection. By allowing evil when he can prevent it, the Acts of Omission would have enough to blemish the imperfection.

 

It isn’t a sin of omission for us to allow a friend or adult child to make their own choices. It’s not a sin of omission to not help fund a drug habit. It would be a sin of omission to see a friend beaten up and not get medical help.

 

You know, suffering does not simply equal evil. People often even choose to suffer for a purpose. Would this make suffering sometimes a good thing?

 

I am in a manufacturing line, and I do pure white product sometimes. A little speckle of dirt could render the piece as 2nd grade, no explanations, no reasons necessarily when it is not a pure white product. I can tell my consumers "You don't understand the manufacturing process, the unexpected power outage or short of materials whatever" it is STILL not a perfectly pure white.

 

That’s an excellent illustration of sin and holiness.

 

your daughter can do all good and help all orphanages in the world and save a billion kids, but a single wrongful death of an innocent child would blemish the perfect record of god. THAT IS PERFECTION

 

My daughter suffered a lot, but her suffering strengthened her - it had a purpose. Now she is able to help educate children in situations that are painful to see. And the innocent child in Africa? He no longer knows suffering. If he were alive he would probably still be suffering. Physical death is not the worst thing that can happen.

"Perfection" means "complete, mature". Have you eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Have you decided you can discern good and evil on your own? (see post 81)

[Galien]

I don't believe in the "burn in hell" thing. I believe that particular language in scripture is not literal. Scripture is Jewish literature so I believe it should be read with an understanding of Hebraic thought, perspective, literary style/characteristics, etc. "Hell" is separation from God, created for those who don't wish to spend eternity with God.

 

I haven't read Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger". And (of course!) I don't think we're playthings for God! He created us for relationship.

 

Its a shame it is such a one sided "relationship". No different from the shallow bullshit that passes for love in most churches, the kind that disappears the minute your ass walks out those double doors.

 

Never ceases to amuse me how christians speak for god like they sit and have coffee with him every week. Even as a christian I never had the balls to be THAT arrogant, or that much of a liar.

[pratt]

dear walker,

 

I saw myself in you 20 years ago. Making rhetorical questions and distractions when I cannot find an answer, but usually when the really tough question comes, I would retreat to "I don't know, I don't know why god does that"

 

I would have never tell my child (should I have any) that : "look at these lovely aids-stricken soon-to-die african kids, they are having difficulty in breathing, but don't you worry, they are not actually suffering. And remember these kids are dying for you because god has found grace in you and to strengthen you in your faith,, god has made these kids with aids, even though god can heals them, but he rather these kids die for the glory of god and for your faith sake. Amen"

 

Thanks Walker, for bringing back some memories and taking it further.

 

Thanks but no thanks, I leave you for now, with you and your god.

 

cheers

 

by the way, love you "knowledge" definition as discernment, perceiving.... God DID NOT give adam and eve DISCERNMENT? SO how are they to DISCERN whether God or Satan to trust? NO DISCERNMENT, how to decide? They should not be blamed for eating the fruit because they CANNOT discern

[walker]

BrotherJosh - post 71 -

 

“Good” is what is beneficial to your well-being, and that will include the well-being of others. “Evil” is what is harmful to your well-being (and the well-being of others) and will bring misery, injury, pain. “Good” includes walking with God in relationship and following His guidance that will lead you to “Life” in all good abundance. “Evil” includes separating yourself from relationship with God and rebelling against His guidance. Evil is sin - “missing the mark“. Evil brings death, misery, pain.

 

You have said that for you what is “Good” or “Evil”, “Right” or “Wrong” changes depending on what will benefit or harm the progress of mankind and civilization at the time, correct? So “good” would be that which benefits the group and “evil” would be that which harms the group, right? Therefore, wouldn’t you say it would be a benefit to mercifully and painlessly end the lives of those who are a burden and cost to society? Wouldn’t this especially help America’s economic problems - if we could cut medical costs, social security benefits costs for the elderly? And prison costs - wouldn’t it be a benefit to rid society of murderers, rapists - those who endanger lives? Couldn’t we put those funds to more beneficial uses, like feeding and educating poor youth? They’re our future - the elderly are our past and the hopelessly sick are our burden. Also, we have too many old or unwanted pets in shelters - we could take the money used to care for them and better help younger and cuter pets.

 

Is this the type of thing you envision? If not, please explain and give better examples. Your answer will help our further discussion.

[BrotherJosh]

BrotherJosh - post 71 -

 

“Good” is what is beneficial to your well-being, and that will include the well-being of others. “Evil” is what is harmful to your well-being (and the well-being of others) and will bring misery, injury, pain. “Good” includes walking with God in relationship and following His guidance that will lead you to “Life” in all good abundance. “Evil” includes separating yourself from relationship with God and rebelling against His guidance. Evil is sin - “missing the mark“. Evil brings death, misery, pain.

 

You have said that for you what is “Good” or “Evil”, “Right” or “Wrong” changes depending on what will benefit or harm the progress of mankind and civilization at the time, correct? So “good” would be that which benefits the group and “evil” would be that which harms the group, right? Therefore, wouldn’t you say it would be a benefit to mercifully and painlessly end the lives of those who are a burden and cost to society? Wouldn’t this especially help America’s economic problems - if we could cut medical costs, social security benefits costs for the elderly? And prison costs - wouldn’t it be a benefit to rid society of murderers, rapists - those who endanger lives? Couldn’t we put those funds to more beneficial uses, like feeding and educating poor youth? They’re our future - the elderly are our past and the hopelessly sick are our burden. Also, we have too many old or unwanted pets in shelters - we could take the money used to care for them and better help younger and cuter pets.

 

Is this the type of thing you envision? If not, please explain and give better examples. Your answer will help our further discussion.

 

Try answering the question properly Walker. If you can't than don't try to answer it. If you are able to provide something beyond what you have written than it will further our discussion. If not, well it's obvious you are stuck in your own delusions.

 

Yes, our morality is evolving. Things that are moral today weren't moral yesterday, things that were moral yesterday aren't moral today. Instead, you misrepresent what I am saying, by apparently stating that I desire to kill off undesirables. Is this in any way tied to the erroneous belief that evolution gives rise to a desire to kill of undesirables?

 

If however, you are able to argue that your God is necessary for our morals (despite the fact that our morals shift over time, see Kohlberg as a basic example) than you can adequately remain in the discussion.

 

Here let me completely misrepresent what you are saying. If people don't believe in God, than they become horrible people who commit unspeakable acts of evil on a daily basis. The breakdown of society is nigh, since so many people don't believe in God. However, Christians stand as a shining bastion of moral light in this world we are able to fend off the hordes of demon armies that threaten to engulf us.

 

 

 

[walker]

dear walker,

 

I saw myself in you 20 years ago. Making rhetorical questions and distractions when I cannot find an answer, but usually when the really tough question comes, I would retreat to "I don't know, I don't know why god does that"

 

I would have never tell my child (should I have any) that : "look at these lovely aids-stricken soon-to-die african kids, they are having difficulty in breathing, but don't you worry, they are not actually suffering. And remember these kids are dying for you because god has found grace in you and to strengthen you in your faith,, god has made these kids with aids, even though god can heals them, but he rather these kids die for the glory of god and for your faith sake. Amen"

 

Thanks Walker, for bringing back some memories and taking it further.

 

Thanks but no thanks, I leave you for now, with you and your god.

 

cheers

 

by the way, love you "knowledge" definition as discernment, perceiving.... God DID NOT give adam and eve DISCERNMENT? SO how are they to DISCERN whether God or Satan to trust? NO DISCERNMENT, how to decide? They should not be blamed for eating the fruit because they CANNOT discern

My daughter was severely depressed and suffered from post-traumatic stress for a few years. We did not talk about how the suffering of children was “O-K because it strengthened her“. But God did bring something good out of her suffering and nightmares. In the end, my daughter suffered longer than the AIDs child who lived a few months. You may not agree, but my daughter would say that she’d take physical suffering over emotional/psychological suffering any day. I’m sorry, but I can’t write everything in one post. I honestly don’t think it was fair of you to assume what I told my child. And the non-Christian, liberal, well-known university my daughter went to Africa with - they told her it was all fine because it was the African culture and we must respect cultural differences. They thought it was wrong for my daughter to care so much. It seems that the atheists teaching my daughter weren’t concerned about suffering … respecting cultural differences was more important.

 

My “knowledge” definition is not my own - you can look up the Hebrew. Adam was told to not eat the fruit, but he chose to decide what would be good for him for himself. The decision was to obey God or to decide that he could know what was good for him. He chose to make his own decisions.

[Galien]

My “knowledge” definition is not my own - you can look up the Hebrew. Adam was told to not eat the fruit, but he chose to decide what would be good for him for himself. The decision was to obey God or to decide that he could know what was good for him. He chose to make his own decisions.

 

Yeah, well I didn't eat the fucking fruit, did you? And here am I supposedly stuck with an evil nature I didn't ask for and never wanted. Then I am meant to be thankful to a god who gave me the fucking thing in the first place. Where is the justice, mercy or love in that?

 

Why would god create people in the first place with the capacity to do what he didnt want them to do, then punish them for it? Why bother at all if he knew what would hapen?

 

The whole box and dice makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Christians suck and god does nothing. Why bother?

[walker]

BrotherJosh - post 71 -

 

“Good” is what is beneficial to your well-being, and that will include the well-being of others. “Evil” is what is harmful to your well-being (and the well-being of others) and will bring misery, injury, pain. “Good” includes walking with God in relationship and following His guidance that will lead you to “Life” in all good abundance. “Evil” includes separating yourself from relationship with God and rebelling against His guidance. Evil is sin - “missing the mark“. Evil brings death, misery, pain.

 

You have said that for you what is “Good” or “Evil”, “Right” or “Wrong” changes depending on what will benefit or harm the progress of mankind and civilization at the time, correct? So “good” would be that which benefits the group and “evil” would be that which harms the group, right? Therefore, wouldn’t you say it would be a benefit to mercifully and painlessly end the lives of those who are a burden and cost to society? Wouldn’t this especially help America’s economic problems - if we could cut medical costs, social security benefits costs for the elderly? And prison costs - wouldn’t it be a benefit to rid society of murderers, rapists - those who endanger lives? Couldn’t we put those funds to more beneficial uses, like feeding and educating poor youth? They’re our future - the elderly are our past and the hopelessly sick are our burden. Also, we have too many old or unwanted pets in shelters - we could take the money used to care for them and better help younger and cuter pets.

 

Is this the type of thing you envision? If not, please explain and give better examples. Your answer will help our further discussion.

 

Try answering the question properly Walker. If you can't than don't try to answer it. If you are able to provide something beyond what you have written than it will further our discussion. If not, well it's obvious you are stuck in your own delusions.

 

Yes, our morality is evolving. Things that are moral today weren't moral yesterday, things that were moral yesterday aren't moral today. Instead, you misrepresent what I am saying, by apparently stating that I desire to kill off undesirables. Is this in any way tied to the erroneous belief that evolution gives rise to a desire to kill of undesirables?

 

If however, you are able to argue that your God is necessary for our morals (despite the fact that our morals shift over time, see Kohlberg as a basic example) than you can adequately remain in the discussion.

 

Here let me completely misrepresent what you are saying. If people don't believe in God, than they become horrible people who commit unspeakable acts of evil on a daily basis. The breakdown of society is nigh, since so many people don't believe in God. However, Christians stand as a shining bastion of moral light in this world we are able to fend off the hordes of demon armies that threaten to engulf us.

I’m honestly asking you what you think and envision. What I listed would benefit society. If you see these ideas as benefits to society that does not in my mind make you a horrible person. Some people believe in ideas such as these. They’re not horrible people - they just see things differently and have a different philosophy.

 

Do you see the ideas I listed as immoral? If so, why? And do you see these ideas as always immoral, or ideas that fluctuate from immoral to moral depending on the circumstances of a particular civilization at a certain time?

[mwc]

The tree of knowledge - “knowledge” (noun) is from the root word “yada” - a verb meaning “to know, to perceive, to discern”. So “knowledge” carries the sense of “perceiving, discerning, defining” what is “good” (bringing benefit and welfare) and what is “evil” (bringing misery and injury). Eating from the tree was the desire to discern/define what is good and what is evil independently, thereby not accepting, trusting, and obeying God’s definitions/guidance. Adam’s action of taking the fruit was a result of his decision that he could independently discern what is beneficial and what is harmful. This decision brought consequences. No punishment from God - their action brought consequences on its own. No magic in the fruit. And “wisdom” is not the best meaning, for it misses the sense of “discerning, defining”.

That's odd. Why is all this in the story?

 

12 And the man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me,

she gave me the fruit of the tree and I took it

.

 

13 And the Lord God said to the woman, What have you done? And the woman said,

I was tricked by the deceit of the snake and I took it

.

 

14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life: 15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.

 

16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.

 

17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and

took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take

, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life. 18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food; 19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

 

20 And the man gave his wife the name of Eve because she was the mother of all who have life. 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins for their clothing.

 

22 And the Lord God said, Now the man has become like one of us, having knowledge of good and evil; and now if he puts out his hand and takes of the fruit of the tree of life, he will go on living for ever. 23 So the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to be a worker on the earth from which he was taken. 24 So he sent the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden he put winged ones and a flaming sword turning every way to keep the way to the tree of life.

It seems there were a lot of punishments being implemented by old "god" as a result of this action. Ultimately, realizing the whole concept of "dust to dust" won't work if they get to to the tree of life, they even get booted from the garden and magical beings are employed to keep them out.

 

mwc

[BrotherJosh]

I’m honestly asking you what you think and envision. What I listed would benefit society. If you see these ideas as benefits to society that does not in my mind make you a horrible person. Some people believe in ideas such as these. They’re not horrible people - they just see things differently and have a different philosophy.

 

Do you see the ideas I listed as immoral? If so, why? And do you see these ideas as always immoral, or ideas that fluctuate from immoral to moral depending on the circumstances of a particular civilization at a certain time?

 

You are completely re-framing the entire discussion and oversimplifying what I have previously stated. What you listed would not benefit society. Well-being is not tied to physical or financial well being but also emotional well being as well. If we start forcibly pulling the plug on grandma, will this benefit the emotional well being of her grandkids or her family? Times that by a thousand or million and that would be a pretty upset society! How would these things benefit society? Take a murderer in prison for example. You state it is in a societies best interests to simply kill him. Is it? In a society with an evolved sense of justice it is always right to repay murder with murder? What if there's extenuating circumstances? What if there is a chance for rehabilitation? Is it an air tight case? You seem to think that I am arguing for some manner of Orwellian society and that a focus on well-being would lead to this manner of civilization.

 

Yes, many ideas that were immoral are moral now, ideas that are immoral now were moral before. We live in a world of shifting morals based on societal rules, our own maturity as a species, and differing cultural norms. Is it always wrong to murder someone? Is it always wrong to lie? If however, you recognize that morality is not dependent on some fallacious deity, and that we have come past a primitive understanding of morality that demands a perfect human sacrifice be made to cover our "sins" then maybe we can move on.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

Crazy rabbis aren't a threat if they're really crazy.

Rather adhoc thing to say aye.

[litassio]

However, God did inspire the writers - and He spoke through their individual personalities and situations. The revelation is accurate - the second testament sometimes brings more clarity to revelation in the first.

Did you come to the first conclusion by purely personal conviction or did you accept it by following the conclusion of another person?

And if you accepted the authority of another person in this, then who was he/she?

You did not answer my questions so I guess you just believe that God inspired those writers the church happened to pick for their bible.

[Onyx]

If a deity evokes too many unsolvable moral problems or contradictions or is simply incompassible with all known reality then it is time to cease to worship it, whether it exists or not. Even if it actually gave us our tried and true ways, and our morality! If it defies its given moral laws of all universe (without exception, upon their subjects in which they were bestown) and then pleading exception to them then we can fairly judge it as being corrupt and craven, as we would human despots like Saddam and Hitler.

 

Isn't it ironic that our morality and philosophy are usually far more nuanced, compassionate, flexible (to a point), sophisticated than the Abrahamic God's, despite being imperfect and branded 'sinful'?