Why Call Him God?

[mwc]

That's the thing about Gen 2:17. In my reading of it it has always included the language of instant death, unless, of course, there is some documented special nuance of the Hebrew language or ancient Semitic idioms that meant you could say "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" and mean that at the end of a long life of hundreds of years you will die. Of course, if there is such a special nuance, why didn't it make it into the English translations of the text of the Genesis story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve?

 

Here's the text in three versions:

[snip]

I said when I was typing that I would have to check and I should have. You are right that the language appears to be in there.

 

Now, by "special nuance" I mean a documented instance or two of where this linguistic arrangement is not meant to be taken as a declaration that eating the fruit = you will drop dead withing 24 hours of eating it ("In the day that you eat from it").

I took a look at the Hebrew (which is worse that my Greek ) and did some looking around to see what others had to say about it. The line above it mentions eating from any tree. But it's really two forms of the same word which works out to a strange "eating that you may eat" sort of thing. Then in the verse you gave it's about dying but, again, the same two words to give a sort of "dying that you might die" kind of read. So the two go together. So it comes down to interpretation. The eating doesn't appear to be a metaphor of any sort. The command is given about the other trees and eating. In the same way the command covers this particular tree and dying. So if the eating isn't a metaphor then the dying shouldn't suddenly be a metaphor. That leaves us with the problem of why no one died on that "day." Because it shouldn't have been a metaphor either. It could have been some other time-frame, but I tried, and that's a hard sell (there are a limited number of places where it's not translated into a literal "day").

 

I think it comes down to the interpretation of the two phrases "eating that you might eat" and "dying that you might die." They generally get translated in the more immediate sense as you see them in most bibles so I'm not sure there's another good argument to use here. I don't know enough about the language to do more than make a guess. Perhaps the trees were placed there and since Adam was "to eat" (as in "eating") they were there that he "might eat." So "eating that you might eat." It's just phrased that way do to the language and perhaps for whatever reasons the author chose. Then, the other tree (knowledge), was there and because Adam was also "dying" this tree was there "that he might die." The one set of trees was to sustain Adam since he ate he needed to eat but one tree would cause the demise of Adam through the knowledge it gave. It's not a metaphor though. It literal imparted these powers.

 

I think what is at work here is the politically motivated stringing together of origin myths to satisfy the hard core, old school adherents from various regions whose creation myths were different from one another. As we know from experience with religious organizations, sometimes the smallest variance from the traditional norms can cause quite a bit of resistance and outrage from members. The only way I can reconcile the promise of "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" with "okay. Get out of the garden, stay out, and Adam, you get to live 930 years," is that one tradition had the promise of death in eating the fruit and others didn't. But to appease the "poison apple" sect, the compilers of what became the Genesis account left that part in.

Enki promised that his followers would die if they ate some certain food. It was a lie because he didn't want them to gain immortality. They chose to trust their god, didn't eat the food and lost out. In this variant we have a similar promise that eating some special food would kill the followers. They do eat the food and don't die. The still lose immortality because the tree of life is introduced after a new food of knowledge is the one that is "forbidden" and possibly "lied" about (we really have so little information it's impossible to know motives but it appears that someone was lying or mistaken since they lived a long time after eating the fruit and the tree of life is introduced immediately afterward in a physical, not metaphorical, sense).

 

mwc

[mwc]

If you doubt that, then can you please explain what the heck a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is? A type of organic fruit that grew in the Mesopotamian valley with a specific growing season? Of course not.

How can you say this?

 

I would easily assert that a "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is a type of tree that grew during the time of Adam and Eve but is now extinct. It bore a type of edible fruit that, when eaten or even touched, would impart the entire knowledge of good and evil to said person. This knowledge would be on par with that of YHWH. The method by which this knowledge transfer would have taken place is unknown. The size of the tree is unknown. The season of the tree appears to be year round but that is also unknown. The fruit appears to have been of a good taste and appearance. The actual location of the tree is unknown but was apparently with the bounds of the Garden of Eden (also unknown).

 

Whether you, me, or anyone else accepts any of this is beside the point. Only the author(s) of the text need to accept this as literal fact and a physical tree. Is there evidence that he/they did not like so many others through history have? A plant that had "magical" powers is not far-fetched in human history. It certainly doesn't remove this story from the realm of "fact" when reading ancient (and not so ancient) texts (especially when that text is first written...many things get reconsidered/reinterpreted over time which is something else altogether since myths become reality/reality becomes myth but what about that first draft when no time has elapsed because that's what I'm talking about).

 

Now did the original authors of these myths understand that as I stated?

Would it matter if they did? It's not about finding their meaning in their stories it's about finding your meaning in their stories. If it were possible, I can just imagine you explaining the proper interpretation back to these very authors.

 

mwc

[oddbird1963]

The still lose immortality because the tree of life is introduced after a new food of knowledge is the one that is "forbidden" and possibly "lied" about (we really have so little information it's impossible to know motives but it appears that someone was lying or mistaken since they lived a long time after eating the fruit and the tree of life is introduced immediately afterward in a physical, not metaphorical, sense).

The untrustworthy and deceptive character of the god figure in Genesis 2 began to stand out to me after reading one of the posts on this thread quoting the serpent. I just had never allowed myself to think in those terms before. Too much earlier indocrination kept me from seeing it that way, I suppose.

 

If earlier myths were being used as a pattern, then this makes the most sense. Yahweh said "ye shall surely die." The serpent said "you will not die." The serpent was correct. Yahweh was therefore being deceptive or mistaken. This of course is ironic to me because the serpent is so often referred to as being the one who deceived Eve into partaking of the fruit. Maybe this chapter of the Bible is where we get the precedent for the "little white lie" for a good end.

[Antlerman]

If you doubt that, then can you please explain what the heck a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is? A type of organic fruit that grew in the Mesopotamian valley with a specific growing season? Of course not.

How can you say this?

 

I would easily assert that a "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is a type of tree that grew during the time of Adam and Eve but is now extinct. It bore a type of edible fruit that, when eaten or even touched, would impart the entire knowledge of good and evil to said person. This knowledge would be on par with that of YHWH. The method by which this knowledge transfer would have taken place is unknown. The size of the tree is unknown. The season of the tree appears to be year round but that is also unknown. The fruit appears to have been of a good taste and appearance. The actual location of the tree is unknown but was apparently with the bounds of the Garden of Eden (also unknown).

 

Whether you, me, or anyone else accepts any of this is beside the point. Only the author(s) of the text need to accept this as literal fact and a physical tree. Is there evidence that he/they did not like so many others through history have? A plant that had "magical" powers is not far-fetched in human history. It certainly doesn't remove this story from the realm of "fact" when reading ancient (and not so ancient) texts (especially when that text is first written...many things get reconsidered/reinterpreted over time which is something else altogether since myths become reality/reality becomes myth but what about that first draft when no time has elapsed because that's what I'm talking about).

 

Now did the original authors of these myths understand that as I stated?

Would it matter if they did? It's not about finding their meaning in their stories it's about finding your meaning in their stories. If it were possible, I can just imagine you explaining the proper interpretation back to these very authors.

 

mwc

I think the point is that even if they saw these as literal magic fruits, they were symbolic through that magic that saw them as possessing. If they saw it as a literal, physical fruit, it was imbued with symbolic power. It's that magical quality that is being spoken about.

 

Surely I don't suspect that me going back to them and explaining the significance of what they were saying/expressing through this form would in fact register in their minds! Of course not. I have the benefit of a few 1000 years of inherited perspectives to apply to it, and the symbolic language I use to examine or talk about it is completely outside their experience. In that same way, us reading back that they were utterly ignorant of these same, existential human truths because they expressed them in primitive forms, the views of magic fruit, is equally out of context for us. They spoke about the world using the present symbols, just as we do today and we in fact can be saying the exact same underlying truth. To assume just because some speaks of love using an angel to represent it, doesn't mean because angels don't literally exist in our understanding, that they were ignorant of love.

 

A tree of life, or a tree of knowledge of good and evil, is still symbolic even if they visualized it as some past literal tree. They would be using the language of a "magic tree" to speak of some abstraction beyond it, "knowledge of good and evil", and "life". And as far as "the day you eat it you will surely die," I still don't see how the writer/editor as that unaware of what they meant by that as to contradict themselves by leaving A&E physically alive. It's the story of the Fall, the Curse, the plight of man. So yes, using magic symbols if you will, it is still a metaphoric expression.

[oddbird1963]

I don't see these as Jungian interpretations that we derive from incoherence (though of course there is something to be said for his theory on archetypes). I'm speaking strictly from a straight forward read of it. If dies means to die physically, than the tree of life has physical branches and physical fruit, as does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How are those not metaphorical? And if those are metaphorical, than the statement coming from God about dying from eating of those metaphorical trees is in the exact same context. And my point is that if they took that to mean die physically, it was an expression of the characters own ignorance of what awaited them, their naivety to think it meant physical death.

 

I don't see an incoherence in the myth. Is there a theological value to the myth? Yes, of course, just as there can be in any product of mythology created by human beings participating in life and culture. These are things that are not read from a criticism of the form, and philosophically this makes perfect sense. Human culture has both suffered and benefited from eating of that metaphorical tree of knowledge of good and evil - the tree of awareness; and there has ever since been that death, and not just physical death, but existential death. In this sense it was in fact a "real" death, as an existential death is in fact experienced.

 

Jungian - probably not. I was just using that as an example of a kind of interpretive endeavor. I think after looking at the text and some of the other recent comments on this thread, the role of the serpent as foil and god as a deceiver with possibly benevolent, but self serving intentions best resolves this incoherence.

 

But I think it is a mistake to engage in interpretation too early into a reading. Stories are meant to unfold with words being applied at face value within the confines of the story. The fruit is meant to be taken as fruit. The tree is to be taken as a tree. And die means to die. The interpretation must start from there. To begin applying theological , psychological or philosophical interpretive measures too early in the process is problematic, in my opinion. It is hard to avoid reading into the text from one's own background, previous learning and biases. But we must try.

We literally do die existentially as well as physically as human beings. So if you wish to read that as a literal death, then there it is. All of what we as humans do or develop in our neurosis, amassing of wealth and power, war, etc., is driven by the desire to escape that existential death, to deny it. We die two deaths. The death of the body, and the death of "self". We fear our own "nothingness".

 

I find this to be a problematic sentence. How does one "literally die existentially"? An existential death or "death of self" is like death in some aspects, but it is not literal death. Literal death is the cessation of physical life - the heart stops, the brain ceases to function. Decomposition sets in. References to "death" other than this phenomenon are not literal, they are figurative or metaphorical. They are derived from the language of literal death but not understood in literal terms. This "fear of our own nothingness" may be like death for x, y or z reasons, but we figuratively die in an existential sense - not in a literal sense. We undergo an existential crisis that is real for sure and then draw upon the language of death to describe it.

 

Again, I don't see an overall inconsistency, unless you're trying to make the text read like factual history within a modern context of what is considered "factual".

I'm trying to read the words as the story unfolds , get a grasp of what the words say and then save the interpretation for when I have the story down. In the process, I am examining the story for consistency and coherence. Is it an easily understood story or is it a jumble of poorly told sub plots that leaves us guessing or takes off in too many directions? I am letting the words speak for themselves. And "die," within the content of the story seems to mean physical death and indicates no other sense. The serpent, in the story as it is told, says "you will NOT die" with die being in the physical sense. The fruit in the confines of the story is meant to be taken as a fruit.

 

Once the words are grasped, then one can launch into the endeavor of interpretation an ask, "What does all this mean? How am I to understand these things?" But I think to the man or woman in the street some 3 - 5 millenia ago, these stories were received quite literally.

 

That being said, at this point in time in my thinking, I feel that these ancient cultures were much more willing than modern Christians to accept god as manipulative deceiver - because that was the nature of gods in the ancient world. The god figure lied, the serpent foiled this lie (as you point out a little bit later) and the story of the fall unfolds to tell the tale of the subsequent generations of man.

 

You can still derive mytho-theological parallels to other philosophical or psychological points of view, just like you can find meaning in a movie that didn't get great critical reviews.

I would be careful to be clear that you can't just derive meaning from just any piece of crap that someone puts out there, some tripe from Hollywood. There are reasons that certain myths have endurance. Now I'm not at all saying of course this means this is "God's Word", but based on what I see, it does express a historical and culturally significant realization of human's of their state of being and expresses that through this myth/edited-myth. That realization is a valid one and has been dealt with by philosophers through the ages. We as well as they were aware of that, and we as well as they, talk about that. What is significant to me is that these things are expressed throughout time across cultures.

 

I don't see any of this as a reading-into the texts. The themes are there, and this is not speaking of Jungian archetypes actually.

Remember Antlerman, one person's piece of crap is another person's crown jewels. And just because a movie doesn't get great critical reviews doesn't mean it's a piece of crap. If people find meaningfulness in something that you don't, does that make it a piece of crap? Maybe you are simply finding yourself in a different, but not better existential, mythological milieu than your fellow citizens who embrace what you consider to be "crap." You embrace a world of highly subjective symbolism and interpretation. The fact that certain themes endure over time may just be a statistical, socio-economic phenomenon where a higher percentage of people "get" and embrace those symbols and a lower percentage "get" and embrace other symbols.

 

Maybe you actually are reading into the texts and it just seems so natural to read it that way because you are predisposed for various reasons to see it that way. And, the same suggestion could be made for me.

[walker]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

And isn't God everywhere? Why does he have to come anywhere? He should be here already, shouldn't he?

I think what he's saying is God lowers itself down to human level of thought. But then my point would be that we already have human-level thought, so what's the point? God as a peer? Why don't I just have a cup of Joe with my neighbor Bill? The whole point of having a relationship with God would be to go to "His" (male gender version of God's) level, to increase your level of mind and being beyond just having a brew with your buds down at the local tavern. One does not socialize with God,

 

"Hey you old Deity, you! (slaps God on the back). I'm going to get a new rototiller for the garden this year. How about you? So how many new Stellar Nursery's you spawn out there in the Cosmos this week? Man, I wish I had that much power! Must be nice old Guy! (slaps God on the back a few more times, takes another swig of coffee)."

Yeah, Walker what was this I said about seeing God in anthropomorphic terms?

A good teacher starts where the student is and teaches further knowledge.

A good counselor starts with the feelings of the person and works from there.

A good doctor starts with the condition of the wound and brings healing.

A forest guide starts with the location of the lost camper and leads him out. He says, “Follow me”.

And God comes down to meet us where we are and to lead us out.

 

One can socialize with God, or Jesus. Jesus went to parties and dinners, etc. I’ve had wonderful, meaningful conversations over coffee. I wouldn’t slap God (or a friend) on the back or say “Hey [anything] … “ but sure - tell God about your rototiller plans. God is Awesome King and teacher, counselor, healer, guide, brother, friend.

 

Jesus was/is a man. That’s pretty “anthropomorphic”, right?

God came down.

[Antlerman]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

And isn't God everywhere? Why does he have to come anywhere? He should be here already, shouldn't he?

I think what he's saying is God lowers itself down to human level of thought. But then my point would be that we already have human-level thought, so what's the point? God as a peer? Why don't I just have a cup of Joe with my neighbor Bill? The whole point of having a relationship with God would be to go to "His" (male gender version of God's) level, to increase your level of mind and being beyond just having a brew with your buds down at the local tavern. One does not socialize with God,

 

"Hey you old Deity, you! (slaps God on the back). I'm going to get a new rototiller for the garden this year. How about you? So how many new Stellar Nursery's you spawn out there in the Cosmos this week? Man, I wish I had that much power! Must be nice old Guy! (slaps God on the back a few more times, takes another swig of coffee)."

Yeah, Walker what was this I said about seeing God in anthropomorphic terms?

A good teacher starts where the student is and teaches further knowledge.

A good counselor starts with the feelings of the person and works from there.

A good doctor starts with the condition of the wound and brings healing.

A forest guide starts with the location of the lost camper and leads him out. He says, “Follow me”.

And God comes down to meet us where we are and to lead us out.

My point exactly. Everyone you listed up to God was a human in human relations. Then you stuck God in that pile of humans. Anthropomorphic. God is God.

 

 

One can socialize with God, or Jesus. Jesus went to parties and dinners, etc.

Technically speaking Jesus went to dinner parties. God is God. Jesus was human.

 

I’ve had wonderful, meaningful conversations over coffee. I wouldn’t slap God (or a friend) on the back or say “Hey [anything] … “ but sure - tell God about your rototiller plans. God is Awesome King and teacher, counselor, healer, guide, brother, friend.

I can't understand God like a buddy. When you catch up to me in my later posts in this thread then we might have a conversation. You do understand that what you are doing is a device, right?

 

Jesus was/is a man. That’s pretty “anthropomorphic”, right?

God came down.

You still miss the point. Even if you were to view Jesus as the sole incarnation of God, that is a human being and not transcendent God itself. God is limitless, Jesus hand feet and hands - for God's sake! If you wish to see the Divine in humans, I will share coffee with you. But humans are not God, in the sense of the transcendent All. You can just as well speak with me to converse with God in human form. (Ponder that awhile).

 

I look forward to your responses to my other posts.

[mwc]

The untrustworthy and deceptive character of the god figure in Genesis 2 began to stand out to me after reading one of the posts on this thread quoting the serpent. I just had never allowed myself to think in those terms before. Too much earlier indocrination kept me from seeing it that way, I suppose.

 

If earlier myths were being used as a pattern, then this makes the most sense. Yahweh said "ye shall surely die." The serpent said "you will not die." The serpent was correct. Yahweh was therefore being deceptive or mistaken. This of course is ironic to me because the serpent is so often referred to as being the one who deceived Eve into partaking of the fruit. Maybe this chapter of the Bible is where we get the precedent for the "little white lie" for a good end.

Have you ever looked at the Errancy Wiki? I took a look over there and they seem to have covered pretty much all of these issues already (pretty much verse by verse). Here's the link to 2:17. If you've never been over there I would suggest taking a look. It's filled out a lot since I last visited (some time ago).

 

mwc

[mwc]

I think the point is that even if they saw these as literal magic fruits, they were symbolic through that magic that saw them as possessing. If they saw it as a literal, physical fruit, it was imbued with symbolic power. It's that magical quality that is being spoken about.

The fruit was real. The knowledge would be symbolic.

 

What would symbolic knowledge be like?

 

Surely I don't suspect that me going back to them and explaining the significance of what they were saying/expressing through this form would in fact register in their minds! Of course not. I have the benefit of a few 1000 years of inherited perspectives to apply to it, and the symbolic language I use to examine or talk about it is completely outside their experience. In that same way, us reading back that they were utterly ignorant of these same, existential human truths because they expressed them in primitive forms, the views of magic fruit, is equally out of context for us. They spoke about the world using the present symbols, just as we do today and we in fact can be saying the exact same underlying truth. To assume just because some speaks of love using an angel to represent it, doesn't mean because angels don't literally exist in our understanding, that they were ignorant of love.

So there you go. Try explaining love using angels. But try applying it anachronistically. You won't get far. They're not love. And they're not generally angels. They're usually putto (which are different than angels and have different associations). Biblical (and other) angels are generally monsters of some sort. So if we look at these old stories and see the word "angel" and insert the symbolic "love" we're doomed (depending on how we view this "love" I guess).

 

A tree of life, or a tree of knowledge of good and evil, is still symbolic even if they visualized it as some past literal tree. They would be using the language of a "magic tree" to speak of some abstraction beyond it, "knowledge of good and evil", and "life". And as far as "the day you eat it you will surely die," I still don't see how the writer/editor as that unaware of what they meant by that as to contradict themselves by leaving A&E physically alive. It's the story of the Fall, the Curse, the plight of man. So yes, using magic symbols if you will, it is still a metaphoric expression.

Mistakes happen. Even in "perfect" texts. But since it can't be an error, or even some other explanation (ie. redaction by someone less familiar with the original language, etc.), it must mean that it's symbolic?

 

mwc

[LivingLife]

This whole creation account is a load of codswallop.

 

The standard definitions is that the tree of life ToL symbolically refers to jeebus and is used in revelation too.

 

The ToKoG&E, represents what exactly? Adam had to fall so there would be someone to till the fields. This was preordained at the creation event 2.0. Thus w/o the the "fall" which should rather be enlightenment, the rest of the creation "subsequents" would never have transpired, Adam would still be walking round with a limp penis and there would be no mankind whatsoever.

 

It is hard to assimilate the idea that ol' Adam was not prone to early morning woodies seeing Eve was displaying her bits in all their glory. The YEC's will tell us that there was no need for sex before the fall or merely assume they did it but it is not mentioned. The buybull clearly states the first time Adam got laid (we know of) was after the fall.

 

The creation event cannot be taken any other way than as a cute kiddies story that is on par with the stork and Santa Claus.

 

Thus the fall must have happened very quickly as woe if Adam knew Eve while still in the garden then what? Maybe gawd was boinking Eve like he did with Mary before he let onto the fact the thing between his legs was useful for more than watering the plants.

 

Probably the biggest irony is that A&E were essentially zombies in the garden which is supposed to also be symbolic of how heaven will be or at least the new heaven and new earth where the lions once again become herbivores and we do not have to eat them as we are supposed to transcend to glorious bodies requiring no sustenance or sexual pleasures, we'll all jes be praaizin' the lard day in and day out.

 

Fuck! And that is paradise? That sounds more like a serious acid trip that never ends.

 

Well if this story were true, I would go and kick Adam in his spiritual nuts for all the shit he brought upon humanity for making one stupid decision to listen to his dumb deceived wife Eve.

 

The reality is, that this warped sense of Utopia is EXACTLY what is promised to the woo woos, the mormons get a better deal as they get to play gawd on another planet. That at least has the potential for being at least marginally interesting.

 

The other problem is the new heaven and earth we have mansions prepared for us, seeing we will not be having sex there, the lights never go out, what exactly will a golden personal palace serve. will you need privacy when you go to the crapper? It says we shall cast all our crowns at the feet of jeebus, the various rewards for the good works here on earth, like tithing faithfully, going to church as often as you can, shit only two and I run out of ideas unique to woo woos. SO why the fuck have a golden mansion? You are going to be singing amazing grace 24/∞ anyway.

 

Now if this new paradise left me in a body of a 25 year old, an insatiable sex drive, doing it forever and ever would at least be kinda better than singing the whole damn day long.

 

I do not think many xians have actually thought the concept of heaven through properly, no more tears, memories wiped clean, so even thinking you will meet a loved one there is questionable.

 

Enter the freewill argument and gawd didn't want robots to worship him. Well after it is all said and done, a complete reboot of the holy OS will kinda make you a frigging robot anyway. How else will you survive this mundane existence?

 

I know there is that pesky1000 year period where all the woo woos come and sort out the left behinders as kingdumb kopz trying to force our wills to bow down to their gawd. Always amused me that this 1000 year period, we the heathen could still be having sex and babies but the eunuch kingdumb kopz will not as they will have not sex organs. Bear in mind under all this pressure of being whacked behind the knees with a "spiritual" rod of iron 24/7, we still somehow manage to gather together a fucking huge army with serious hardware under the incessant watchful eyes of the kingdumb kopz that is defeated when our "boss" satan is released one last time to do battle.

Yup, form cover to cover, it ALL makes perfect sense....not!

[mwc]

The standard definitions is that the tree of life ToL symbolically refers to jeebus and is used in revelation too.

Well, in the xian version anyhow. Yeah. It's a giant load alright.

 

Well if this story were true, I would go and kick Adam in his spiritual nuts for all the shit he brought upon humanity for making one stupid decision to listen to his dumb deceived wife Eve.

Why? She was probably doing all sorts of mind-blowing (and other blowing) things to Adam before they made the mistake of eating from the guilt tree. Who knows where that fruit had been before/while Adam was eating it? They were probably have the time of their lives since nothing they could possibly do was good or evil. It just was. And they "was'd" it up in every part of that garden until Captain Buzzkill came around.

 

The other problem is the new heaven and earth we have mansions prepared for us, seeing we will not be having sex there, the lights never go out, what exactly will a golden personal palace serve. will you need privacy when you go to the crapper? It says we shall cast all our crowns at the feet of jeebus, the various rewards for the good works here on earth, like tithing faithfully, going to church as often as you can, shit only two and I run out of ideas unique to woo woos. SO why the fuck have a golden mansion? You are going to be singing amazing grace 24/∞ anyway.

I need a solid gold mansion so I have a place to park my solid gold sports car and solid gold SUV. DUH!

 

Since it's heaven I'll just shit myself. I'm sure it will smell like perfume and I wouldn't want to rob anyone of that. Wearing a spectacular white robe makes things that much easier for disposal and identification. I'll be the guy with the brown spot on my ass. I imagine since we gained knowledge through eating the fruit we lose a little each time we crap. Since heaven requires zero knowledge I would think that's why we all tend to void our bowels when we die.

 

Now if this new paradise left me in a body of a 25 year old, an insatiable sex drive, doing it forever and ever would at least be kinda better than singing the whole damn day long.

It will. But you'll be surrounded by 71 others fending off a Muslim suicide bomber.

 

Enter the freewill argument and gawd didn't want robots to worship him. Well after it is all said and done, a complete reboot of the holy OS will kinda make you a frigging robot anyway. How else will you survive this mundane existence?

The rarely mentioned LSD shrub and porno bush.

 

Yup, form cover to cover, it ALL makes perfect sense....not!

So much sense it requires nothing but blind faith and constant reinforcement.

 

mwc

[LivingLife]

I'll be the guy with the brown spot on my ass. I imagine since we gained knowledge through eating the fruit we lose a little each time we crap. Since heaven requires zero knowledge I would think that's why we all tend to void our bowels when we die.

Like your sense of humor but now you have given us another task of "finding the dude with the brown spot", Oh well that may kill off a mellenium or two.

 

But are we not destined to the basement place?

 

It will. But you'll be surrounded by 71 others fending off a Muslim suicide bomber.

 

Shit now I have this image of a fugly bearded dude coming toward the nubile young virgins with an oversized erect dick warts and all - thanks for pissing on my fantasy

[walker]

You're right, God doesn't prevent all evil. Only at the end of this age will God fully stop evil. Though God hates evil, He allows it at the present time.

 

God sends no one to hell - He merely allows people to choose separation from Him.

Is he waiting for a certain number of souls to make it through or something? Why the wait?? Also, what next, after the end of the age?

God waits because He wants everyone who will to turn to Him. At the end of this age will come a redeemed world.

[walker]

You're right, God doesn't prevent all evil. Only at the end of this age will God fully stop evil. Though God hates evil, He allows it at the present time.

 

God sends no one to hell - He merely allows people to choose separation from Him.

Is he waiting for a certain number of souls to make it through or something? Why the wait?? Also, what next, after the end of the age?

You're right. Why does God wait? Why does he not prevent it right now? Why does he allow it?

 

Some Christian apologists claim that it's better somehow. That it's the better because it allows free will. To allow free will and evil to co-exist is somehow a greater good than not to do it.

 

But in Heaven, of course, the greater of two things is to have a world where evil does not exist, but somehow free will still does...

 

But then, why didn't he do that here? He could have done that from start, so why wait making the better world? It can't be that this world is the best one and Heaven is the best one, both at once!

God is seeing what you will do about evil and the personal quality you develop and show. This is a fallen world - it’s not the best world. But it started out as “heaven” with no evil - yet with free will. So in a sense He did “do it here”.

 

What do you do about evil, Ouroboros?

[walker]

Both Adam and Eve did what any typical human would do - they blamed someone else for their own actions! As far as the earth, etc. being cursed because of their actions - God was telling them what now will happen - how their actions will affect them and the earth. Relationship and Trust had been broken - this had consequences.

Umm, yeah. They were punished.

 

mwc

If you make a large investment after you’re advised not to, and you lose everything - are you being “punished”? Or are you suffering the consequences of your decision?

[walker]

O-K, what about the people who are a burden to society who have no one who cares about them living? There are many people like this - people who are alone and “invisible”. Philosophically-speaking, would it be harmful to anyone to mercifully end their lives? (I am asking a serious question - I’m not disrespecting you in any way.)

 

You asked if it was always wrong to murder someone or to lie - can you give me an example of when both these actions would be moral and right to do?

Well if I don't base their well being off their intrinsic value and they are a "burden to society" then sure, but the problem is you are viewing it as a black and white issue. You either see it as, we derive our morals from God or we live in an Orwellian society where we kill off grandma because no one loves her. If grandma *wants* to end her life I have no issue with that at all. I don't view it as people being or not being "burdens" to society. Our society is set up in the idea that we are going to foster the greatest amount of well being as possible in other words the ideal is that everyone has financial opportunities, quality health care, protection, a stable government, an equal society and various freedoms that we all have agreed upon (though few if none of these ideals are really actually met but still, that is the general goal.) Now people have various ways of seeking these goals, universal health care, gun rights, gay rights, freedom of speech etc...these are all agreed upon laws or morals or rather about how we ought to act. These common goals unite most everyone into seeking the best way to achieve that stability. People disagree on how to reach these goals (capitalism vs. socialism) but still that is the ultimate ideal - a stable, happy society. These ideas or morals change over time (feudalism to having property rights) so we can see how society's and man's morals or agreed upon ways of achieving these goals have varied or evolved. I believe I have mentioned it before, but even as you grow older your morals will shift with time, see Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

 

Let me ask you a question, should I derive my morals from the Bible? If so, why? And which morals should I derive? Which interpretation of the morals should I listen to? Should I burn the Wiccan chick who lives next door to me? Or can we agree, some of the morals in the Bible don't fit with a modern societies morals, and is instead a reflection of the values of the people during the time who wrote them, so maybe we should move past them?

 

Yes, if someone entered my home and was threating me or (well I don't have a family) so say my cat. If I had to I'd shoot the hell out of that person if I was being threatened. If a Nazi came to my door and asked if I were hiding Jews (and I was) I'd lie through my teeth all day and night.

But why would a person who is a burden to society, who no one cares about, have any intrinsic value ? They’re not valuable to society (not contributing) and not valuable to anyone (no relationships). So why do they have any value?

 

Lying to protect life is not new. See Joshua 2 - Rahab lied to protect the two Israelite spies. In James 2:25 it says Rahab was considered righteous for what she did. (She is also mentioned favorably in Hebrews 11:31.) And having the right to protect your life, the lives of your family, and your property is not new either. However, it wouldn’t be O-K under U.S. law to always “shoot the hell out of” someone threatening you - you’d have to prove it was necessary. Biblical law is no different. I don’t see these as examples of changing morality.

 

You should derive you morals from God. God values life.

[Ouroboros]

God is seeing what you will do about evil and the personal quality you develop and show. This is a fallen world - it’s not the best world. But it started out as “heaven” with no evil - yet with free will. So in a sense He did “do it here”.

It was created to fall. God knew it. So God knew it would become what it is, and it became according to design. So maybe it was totally awesome at first, but God had already set it up to be the "best" world possible for creating a small set of sycophants for eternal worship halls.

 

What do you do about evil, Ouroboros?

It's a definition humans have created. The content and context of what that word means depends on when, where, who, why, and many other parameters, but mostly it depends on who is judging what evil really means. You define it one way. You judge it one way. I might define it different than you.

 

For instance, I consider it evil when people are pushing their religious views down other people's throats, and I consider it evil when people are using the government to restrict and demand certain moral laws that only apply to their particular religion.

 

So what do you do about what I have defined as evil, Walker?

[walker]

When we meet God after we die we will see clearly who He is - we won’t need theological attempts to reveal Him to us and we won’t need earthly human developmental ability (not that those things guarantee an outcome either way anyway).

One of the things I am not happy with about Christianity is this attitude - we cannot know now, but we will know everything when we die. It is very disturbing. Why can't we see God now? Please don't say that we do through the Bible.

You can know what you need to know and walk in relationship with God now. I didn’t mean to indicate you’d know everything after you die, but you will know much more. I don’t think people see much of God in the Bible if they aren’t in relationship with Him (though they may see a little).

 

To be honest, there are worse things than death. But that has to be carefully said because someone will think I’m for killing infants who will most likely have a life of suffering, and I’m not. And - many people choose to suffer. Training for the Olympics is painful. Losing weight (being hungry) is painful. People choose to suffer all the time for some goal that they value. People even will say they’re glad they went through some painful experience because it taught them something or made them stronger. So, would you agree that some suffering is valuable and some is even chosen? Do you want a world with absolutely NO suffering?

 

Your posts, walker, bring back to me how the Christian religion elevates suffering. Yeah actually I do want no suffering. That would be Nirvana.

Many people (including non-Christians) choose to suffer for a desired goal. Suffering can have value and purpose. I don’t elevate suffering, but since it is in this world I would rather it have purpose instead of simply being senseless pain. And if you reach Nirvana - who are you and what do you do?

[Phanta]

You're right, God doesn't prevent all evil. Only at the end of this age will God fully stop evil. Though God hates evil, He allows it at the present time.

 

God sends no one to hell - He merely allows people to choose separation from Him.

Is he waiting for a certain number of souls to make it through or something? Why the wait?? Also, what next, after the end of the age?

God waits because He wants everyone who will to turn to Him. At the end of this age will come a redeemed world.

 

Does God predetermine the number of souls who have the chance to go through the system of life? Why have a set number? Why have a beginning and an end time for us to experience the process of human life?

 

Or do you believe that, in the next age, new people will continue to be born?

[Ouroboros]

God waits because He wants everyone who will to turn to Him. At the end of this age will come a redeemed world.

Except all the billions of people who already are dead and will not get the chance. And why would anyone turn to him at the end of time? Is it because he will scare the shit out of everyone? What a great belief that will create. What is better? People believe because Jesus show himself in person to each and every individual so they can believe because they saw him? Or is it better that people believe because they pooped their pants after Jesus showing them how he can disintegrate everything with his laser eyes?

 

I think it would be better if Jesus actually showed himself in person to every individual. How about you?

[LivingLife]

You should derive you morals from God. God values life.

Unless you piss him off

 

Allows the ground to open up and swallow a fair number of folk in Moses time that were a bit disgruntled

 

Instructs the execution of those associated with the golden calf fiasco

 

Kills Sapphira and Ananias b/c they elected to not give everything to the apostles

 

These were his own people not he enemies of his people

 

Thus your god has no morals, is vengeful and according to revelation has not even to begun to release the shitstorm on humanity b/c the majority of the global population ere not exposed to or born in xian circles.

 

I don’t think people see much of God in the Bible if they aren’t in relationship with Him (though they may see a little).

How exactly does one have a relationship with something that ess. does not exist or is intangible to the 5 senses?

 

Your invisible friend only exists between your ears.

[BrotherJosh]

But why would a person who is a burden to society, who no one cares about, have any intrinsic value ? They’re not valuable to society (not contributing) and not valuable to anyone (no relationships). So why do they have any value?

 

Lying to protect life is not new. See Joshua 2 - Rahab lied to protect the two Israelite spies. In James 2:25 it says Rahab was considered righteous for what she did. (She is also mentioned favorably in Hebrews 11:31.) And having the right to protect your life, the lives of your family, and your property is not new either. However, it wouldn’t be O-K under U.S. law to always “shoot the hell out of” someone threatening you - you’d have to prove it was necessary. Biblical law is no different. I don’t see these as examples of changing morality.

 

You should derive you morals from God. God values life.

 

You are ignoring the actual definition of words, Walker. If you can't understand what words actually mean, when I say them how are we to discuss anything? Intrinsic - as in inherently valuable apart from extrinsically valuable (society). I view humans as intrinsically valuable, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism.

 

No, I am not deriving my morals from God, because he does not value human life. Here, I will quote Bible verses back at you. Or should I take these metaphorically? Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22: 28-29, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 2nd Samuel 12:11-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11, Zechariah 14:1-2, Deuteronomy 17:12, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 20:27, Exodus 21:15, Proverbs 20:20, Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 21:9, Exodus 22:19, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Zechariah 13:3, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Deuteronomy 22:20-21, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Leviticus 24:10-16, Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22, Romans 1:24-32, Numbers 1:48-51, Exodus 31:12-15, 2 Kings 2:23-24, 1 Samuel 6:19-20, 1 Kings 20:35-36, 2 Samuel 6:3-7, Isaiah 14:21, Hosea 9:11-16, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Exodus 12:29-30, Leviticus 26:21-22, Isaiah 13:15-18, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Jeremiah 48:10, Joshua 19:47, Jeremiah 15:1-4, Ezekiel 35:7-9, Exodus 23:23, Joshua 8:1-29, Joshua 6:20-21, 1 Kings 14:9-16, Judges 20:48, Exodus 32:26-29, Numbers 25:1-9 and quite a few more...Why should I base my morality on your God? I thought he valued life?

 

Morality has changed (again check out Kohlberg). Why aren't you burning witches and fortune tellers? Maybe you should move on from your childish, immature and naive view of your God and move on to something else, something other than some "God" who has coffee with you every morning

[mwc]

I'll be the guy with the brown spot on my ass. I imagine since we gained knowledge through eating the fruit we lose a little each time we crap. Since heaven requires zero knowledge I would think that's why we all tend to void our bowels when we die.

Like your sense of humor but now you have given us another task of "finding the dude with the brown spot", Oh well that may kill off a mellenium or two.

Consider it the shitty version of "Where's Waldo?"

 

But are we not destined to the basement place?

 

It will. But you'll be surrounded by 71 others fending off a Muslim suicide bomber.

 

Shit now I have this image of a fugly bearded dude coming toward the nubile young virgins with an oversized erect dick warts and all - thanks for pissing on my fantasy

And now you've figured out why I'll be the dude with the brown spot...

 

Heaven and hell are all relative. Someone's attic is another one's basement.

 

mwc

[mwc]

If you make a large investment after you’re advised not to, and you lose everything - are you being “punished”? Or are you suffering the consequences of your decision?

Except that's not what happened.

 

This isn't "fire is hot...you'll get burned" so they touched fire and got burned. This is "fire is hot...you'll get burned" so they touched fire and got a spanking.

 

They were punished.

 

mwc

[mwc]

God waits because He wants everyone who will to turn to Him. At the end of this age will come a redeemed world.

 

Does God predetermine the number of souls who have the chance to go through the system of life? Why have a set number? Why have a beginning and an end time for us to experience the process of human life?

 

Or do you believe that, in the next age, new people will continue to be born?

Exactly. Considering that based on all estimates there are as many people alive today that have ever lived. So the more time that passes the more people there are to fail the system rather than pass the system. Ending it sooner is the better solution. Even with 2 billion xians today (and decreasing) that would mean 4-5 billion non-xians and total failures. Ending the game centuries ago would have actually saved billions of souls from condemnation even if it would have meant the smaller percentage would have never had the opportunity to pass on to "salvation." Billions more will "lose" so a smaller percentage can "win." And combined with the historical numbers the "winners" are just a minor blip anyhow. It's a silly game.

 

mwc