MQTA Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 [q] If God were responsible for the Christian Bible, as an all knowing being, he should have made no mistakes concerning nature and science. Yet, the Bible is full of erroneous, outrageous and child-like statements about the earth, about man and about the heavens. Only man could be that far off. Believers defend the Bible by telling us, "The Bible is not a book of science." Clear Thinkers concur with this statement. But the believers turn around and tell us the Bible is from God, and the Bible is true when it speaks on sin, salvation and creation. The Honest Doubter asks this important question. How can anyone separate real science from religion's CONCEPT of SIN? Science has as its very FOUNDATION, the concept of honest doubt as the starting point for its investigations. Contrary to science, religion holds Honest Doubt as its WORST SIN. Honest Doubt (or Clear Thinking) is the only sin which the Almighty hates enough to refuse to give forgiveness for it. Science holds honest doubt and Clear Thinking as its highest virtue. The original sin was not disobedience. The original (first) sin was, man did not believe God. Man (Adam and Eve) doubted God was telling the truth about these things. Therefore, man investigated and learned some truths from the Tree of Knowledge. That investigation and knowledge proved that God was wrong. If this sin story is literal, it is stating that man can get KNOWLEDGE by eating fruit off a certain tree. Now that is not true. It is a false scientific statement. On the other hand, some believers tell us the story is an allegory. That is, eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge "symbolizes" studying, experimenting or observing in order to gain knowledge. So as an allegory, this story tells us it is a sin to study and gain knowledge. If that is so, the story is still false. It is unscientific. It is even inhumane. Without knowledge, man's civilization would never have developed, or would have been eliminated from the face of the earth by evolution. Man has evolved as he has, because he DID accumulate knowledge. His brain grew as he stretched it by seeking knowledge. As his brain grew, so grew his ability to learn, to survive and to develop. Man dominates the earth today because he has, does and will, gain knowledge. NO! The story as an allegory is WORSE than the story as literal. It will not do. It is false! It is anti humane. It is unscientific. This story as an allegory is a terrible sin against man. Some other believers tell us the story "symbolizes" man's knowledge and discovery of sex. The fruit was actually sexual intercourse. If this is so, I would like to say, "Hallelujah!" I would also like to ask a question. Did God condemn man for learning about sex, then change his mind and tell the man and woman to be fruitful and multiply? Did he then change his mind again and make a third turn-around and call this same fruitfulness, the original sin, as some religious leaders have claimed? I think not. It is a false claim. Sex is the natural method of animal reproduction. It can certainly be misused, but the KNOWLEDGE OF SEX is vital information which man must necessarily have, and he needs even more knowledge about its purpose, care, procedure and utility. Sex is knowledge. Sex is a SCIENTIFIC subject which affects not only the future of the human race, but may also effect our future evolution. Science can NOT be separated from the religious sin of DOUBT. The worst religious sin consists of doubting, thinking and reaching conclusions based on the facts of the matter instead of being based on believing the revealed, authorized claim made by God, his Holy Books and his holy men. SCIENCE IS SIN, according to most of the Christian Holy Books, doctrines and claims. The only conclusion any thinking person can come to is, this story is NOT from any God. It is not even from a person who could think himself out of the simplest problem. This story was used by barbaric priests for the purpose of awing ignorant and gullible people into obeying their commands. There is not one ounce of scientific truth in the whole tale, as told in the Bible and as interpreted. Neither is there any moral or ethical value in the story. In fact, the opposite is true. It is bad morals and bad ethics to take a virtue like knowledge and say that knowledge and the pursuit of it, is evil. To say ignorance (innocence) is better than knowledge is sin in its worst form. This garden story in the Bible is a sinful story and sets a bad and immoral example for those who believe it. And as for those who tell this tale, and claim that it is the truth, they are devilish and they sin against mankind and God. This same story tells us it took God one day to create the billions and billions of galaxies, and more multiplied billions of suns in each galaxy. Yet, it took God one whole day just to make our sun and moon. That is a real scientific breakthrough which the religious scientists of old figured out (or had revealed to them). No God ever inspired, approved or condoned this derogatory nonsense to be written about him. If there were a God who cared, he would have long since seen to it that these false statements about him were removed from the face of the earth. That is not to mention the ones who go around teaching that these false things are true. Is their God THAT stupid? NO! BUT MAN IS! The self deluded, who can believe the unbelievable, BELIEVE IT! It is such a shame that mankind wastes his brains in this fashion. Worst of all, he is willing to kill, or die for such nonsense. [/q] another great article http://www.jovialatheist.com/bibleerrors.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 ahh yes, and if you notice the reason god is so worried about people gaining knowledge is because it makes them his equal. He kicks them out of the garden so they can't eat of the tree of life because they would live forever thus becoming like God in totallity. He does the same thing at the tower of babil, confusing the people so they can't build a tower to heaven and become as powerful as him. Interisting considering that God apperently didn't know enough about the universe he had created to know that you can't build a tower to heaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted November 8, 2005 Author Share Posted November 8, 2005 Hmmm... yeah... MAYBE we were getting ready to come together again, oh, say, 2000 years ago? and LOOK what happened! We're now further apart than EVER before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 This is from a different post, but I think it addresses your topic if your interested.. Yes, but very unfortunately, the metaphor route requires that ALL of the many metaphors be properly understood in ALL of the stories within. That takes a LOT of trial and error and/or a lot of help from someone who happens to already know and has your trust. So, being a more difficult road and less likely one to be able to follow very far before giving up means that it remains a seldom followed road. My particular concern with this is that there is another step to take beyond ALL of what is mentioned in the scriptures, but how can anyone take the last step until they have taken the preceding 100? How can anyone add the final touch on a painting which remains buried in 2000 years of mud? As I keep saying, in the long run, it won't matter anyway. The end of the story is undauntable. But it's such a great ending that it would be well worth trying to get it here a lot sooner. I generally feel like I'm trying to explain the potential of electronics and technology to a 12th century jew and he says, "well just EXPLAIN IT!" as he prepares to look for scriptural proof of its potential. ..oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Well... There was a lot of fruit in the garden. Maybe he meant 'being fruitful, multiply'. 2 fruits X 6 = 12 fruits. Or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wertbag Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 The question often asked of the tree of knowledge story, was God, being all knowing, knew in advance that if he put the tree there that man would fall to sin. As God created everything including the tree he must have been planning the setup from the start like some supernatural candid camera show... Surely you'd either A - not create such a tree. B - if you had to create it not put it in Eden. C - if you had to put it in Eden put it out of reach of man. D - if it had to be within reach make it not appatizing?! That is of course if you believe a literal reading (which seems common), of course allergory could mean just about anything, in which case God really wasn't clear what he was on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaded Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 A bigger issue I have always had with genesis deals with the two COMPLETELY different stories about the creation of man. In the first chapter, man and woman are created in god's own image. In the second chapter he created man from dirt and breathed life into him. Later he put Adam to sleep, removed his rib, and created woman from that. Which is correct? Are we (supposedly) made in god's image or are we made from dirt and is woman made from man? In the real scheme of things it may not really matter, but isn't this a contradiction? Doesn't it contradict itself only one chapter apart about the very nature and origin of the human race? If the bible is divinely inspired god must be schizophrenic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godlessgrrl Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I figure somebody fucked up the genesis story from the beginning anyway. I like to look at it like the real story was that Eve was a goddess, the snake was her companion animal, signifying rebirth and regeneration, and she was giving the first man a special gift: fruit from Her own Tree of Life. Then some smartass Indo-European volcano-worshippers came in and rewrote everything. It's all mythology, in any case. I just find it weird that people can take the same motif - a woman giving a man an apple from a tree with a snake in it - and look at it different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 "I like to look at it like the real story was that Eve was a goddess, the snake was her companion animal, signifying rebirth and regeneration, and she was giving the first man a special gift: fruit from Her own Tree of Life...." I don't what holy book that idea came from, but I'm all for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wertbag Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 Isn't it true that the Bible says God has no image? The idea being you couldn't build a statue of God as he is formless? During the Bible he shows up as a burning bush, a pillar of fire or a pillar of smoke... how can humans be considered in image with that? And obviously it wasn't our brains cos Adam hadn't even eaten of the tree of knowledge... Stupid stories make no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 The Bible actually gives God many physical attributes. He has eyes, ears, nostrils, etc. but obviously the creation story regarding the creation of man must be taken spiritually. We were created with that 'extra' something that separates us from the beasts, i.e. self- awareness and the knowledge of good and evi....oh. Nevermind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 Do people who think the stories in the Bible are allegorical tales - think God wrote them? I'm a bit confused by some aspects of this thread MQTA. I don't know any Christians who think that the creation account is a poetic tale to explain a spiritual truth and also think that God is doing the explaining .... Isn't it only the ones who take it literally that think God literally wrote it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I think it is even a deeper allegory: The student of The Secret Doctrine will be aware of the great importance attached to this ancient teaching of the dual creation of man. It has been retouched out of the picture by theological dogmatism; yet here we find it unmistakably, if in imperfect form, in our own Bible. The early races of mankind were 'sinless,' knowing not the contrast of good and evil any more than do the birds that hop and sing; but, like those birds, they were creatures of habit and lacking in originality. This state is figured by the Garden of Eden. God has forbidden Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is in the midst of the Garden; but to Eve comes the Serpent, and says: "Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Man eats of the fruit and becomes enlightened; the result is that he loses his previous state of innocent but stagnant bliss and becomes a responsible being. His newly acquired free will leads him at first away from spirit towards matter; man becomes a pilgrim. This story is an imperfect version of a cardinal teaching of the Wisdom-Religion, which is found in fuller form in others of the world's scriptures. That teaching is that the earlier races of mankind were 'mindless,' being little more than perfected animals; but that, in the course of evolution, there came a time when this mindless man received a quickening impulse from the Manasaputras or Sons of Mind. These were spiritual beings more highly evolved than man, but who had themselves been men in an earlier cycle of evolution. It was their duty to enlighten the nascent mankind of this present cycle, which they did by lighting up or calling to light the latent spark of divinity within man; after which man became an intelligent race endowed with self-conscious mind. The Serpent in the allegory stands for these Sons of Mind; for the Serpent is a well-known symbol of Wisdom. Thus the so-called Fall of Man, though in one sense a fall, was really an inevitable and natural step forward in his evolution. From here. Back when man was more in animal form (early human evolution), man realized his wisdom, thereby losing his innocence (lack of the knowledge of good and evil). This was just a natural part of evolution and one that must be in order to know right from wrong. Did ealry humans know right from wrong? I really don't know. There are points in this article that I am not so sure I agree with yet. I just wanted to add a little to the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted November 25, 2005 Author Share Posted November 25, 2005 Back when man was more in animal form (early human evolution), man realized his wisdom, thereby losing his innocence (lack of the knowledge of good and evil). This was just a natural part of evolution and one that must be in order to know right from wrong. Did ealry humans know right from wrong? I really don't know. There are points in this article that I am not so sure I agree with yet. I just wanted to add a little to the conversation. So, we were supposed to eat from the tree, when we were ready, and Eve musta been ready. Adam just went along for the ride, like a good little boy. Boys don't get married, they just change mommies. Do people who think the stories in the Bible are allegorical tales - think God wrote them? I'm a bit confused by some aspects of this thread MQTA. I don't know any Christians who think that the creation account is a poetic tale to explain a spiritual truth and also think that God is doing the explaining .... Isn't it only the ones who take it literally that think God literally wrote it? They were all 'God breathed' Most all believe them to be 100%, that's their history and science book. NO wonder the world is STILL so screwed up. The biggest complainers about the horrible state of the world are the main reason for it continuing to be so. The ones who want world peace, only want it THEIR way, they are the ones who will prevent it from ever happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wertbag Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 We were created with that 'extra' something that separates us from the beasts, i.e. self- awareness and the knowledge of good and evi....oh. Nevermind... I've had that arguement with a Christian before, tried to point out that we don't have the ability to know right from wrong its simply something that is taught to us. For this reason you can be taught to be a suicide bomber, or taught that stoning people to death is ok, or that gladiators should cut each other to pieces for entertainment. Have you seen the documentries on the wild men or wolf boys? If they are taught nothing at all then people end up in a very animalistic state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Like the Illiad and the Odessey were thought to be fiction until it was discovered they were a comentary of historical events, I believe the Bible stories are the same. However, they must not be taken at face value, since we are unaware of the historical events in which they originate. Since they were legend, even when they were first written down during the Babylonian captivity, the truth as in all legends has been twisted and greatly embellished. For instance, Noah/Gilgamesh different spin same story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts