Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 28, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2014 I have thought that anything created would be less than the creator. So, god is omnipotent but he can't create a being equal to himself? Hmmm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I have thought that anything created would be less than the creator.So, god is omnipotent but he can't create a being equal to himself? Hmmm..... I hear ya, I just can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Well, if I wanted to create someone who could know me, I'd see if my wife also wanted to change our decision about children, and then I'd get her pregnant. And then as the child grew, I would spend time with her, care for her, teach her things, let her teach me things--you know, have a relationship with her. And because I know more than her, there would be rules, and consequences when she broke them. But I would seek to get her to understand those rules, and I would choose consequences based on how much she understood the rules. And of course my goal would be for us to someday be in an adult relationship in which we didn't need rules to mediate between us. If I were an omnipotent, omniscient god, I would hope I could do at least as well as that. And what would happen if your daughter did something you told her would harm her and she died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 And what would happen if your daughter did something you told her would harm her and she died. Wait a minute. You're talking about a child dying as a consequence of doing something stupidly disobedient. Car accident. Drug overdose. Getting murdered by an abusive boyfriend, whatever. That's significantly different than a "father" inventing the entire concept of death, then inflicting death and all its attendant suffering on billions, trillions of living beings -- solely as a punishment because a couple of those beings (who, mind you did not yet know right from wrong) disobeyed him. Two very, very, very different things. How can you possibly justify the latter? How can you possibly equate that degree of savagery to some young person suffering the natural consequences of doing something fatally careless or dumb? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2014 That the characters Adam and Eve of the legend were not informed by the guy in charge reminds me of a story... Two missionaries were captured by a brutal and primitive tribe. The chief told the men that since they had invaded their land, they must choose their punishment. The punishment was to be either Death or Ooga-Booga. Of course they knew what death meant, but neither had any idea what Ooga-Booga was, so the first guy chose Ooga-Booga. With that, he was tied to a tree and every man of the tribe took a turn raping him. After the ordeal, he was set free in the jungle. Upon witnessing that, the second missionary told the chief he would take death as his punishment. The chief replied, "So it shall be death. But first, Ooga-Booga!" Kind of mirrors the Garden of Eden tale, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Well, if I wanted to create someone who could know me, I'd see if my wife also wanted to change our decision about children, and then I'd get her pregnant. And then as the child grew, I would spend time with her, care for her, teach her things, let her teach me things--you know, have a relationship with her. And because I know more than her, there would be rules, and consequences when she broke them. But I would seek to get her to understand those rules, and I would choose consequences based on how much she understood the rules. And of course my goal would be for us to someday be in an adult relationship in which we didn't need rules to mediate between us. If I were an omnipotent, omniscient god, I would hope I could do at least as well as that. And what would happen if your daughter did something you told her would harm her and she died. End you know you are not going to change anybody's mind here. Why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 And what would happen if your daughter did something you told her would harm her and she died. Wait a minute. You're talking about a child dying as a consequence of doing something stupidly disobedient. Car accident. Drug overdose. Getting murdered by an abusive boyfriend, whatever. That's significantly different than a "father" inventing the entire concept of death, then inflicting death and all its attendant suffering on billions, trillions of living beings -- solely as a punishment because a couple of those beings (who, mind you did not yet know right from wrong) disobeyed him. Two very, very, very different things. How can you possibly justify the latter? How can you possibly equate that degree of savagery to some young person suffering the natural consequences of doing something fatally careless or dumb? If he invented both, and there was a need for his autonomous creation to know both, and to make a choice, then certainly there are consequences. And you are mad because everyone doesn't get saved? If God made it were everyone got it, where would the autonomy be? You would then be complaining of making robots of us all and having no freedom <insert What do you think Heaven is like thread here>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Well, if I wanted to create someone who could know me, I'd see if my wife also wanted to change our decision about children, and then I'd get her pregnant. And then as the child grew, I would spend time with her, care for her, teach her things, let her teach me things--you know, have a relationship with her. And because I know more than her, there would be rules, and consequences when she broke them. But I would seek to get her to understand those rules, and I would choose consequences based on how much she understood the rules. And of course my goal would be for us to someday be in an adult relationship in which we didn't need rules to mediate between us. If I were an omnipotent, omniscient god, I would hope I could do at least as well as that. And what would happen if your daughter did something you told her would harm her and she died. End you know you are not going to change anybody's mind here. Why bother? Why bother with the OP? As I said, I like the types in the story. If no one wants to talk, turn the set off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 That the characters Adam and Eve of the legend were not informed by the guy in charge reminds me of a story... Two missionaries were captured by a brutal and primitive tribe. The chief told the men that since they had invaded their land, they must choose their punishment. The punishment was to be either Death or Ooga-Booga. Of course they knew what death meant, but neither had any idea what Ooga-Booga was, so the first guy chose Ooga-Booga. With that, he was tied to a tree and every man of the tribe took a turn raping him. After the ordeal, he was set free in the jungle. Upon witnessing that, the second missionary told the chief he would take death as his punishment. The chief replied, "So it shall be death. But first, Ooga-Booga!" Kind of mirrors the Garden of Eden tale, no? Dammit, I really hate not being able to vote up your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 And what would happen if your daughter did something you told her would harm her and she died. Wait a minute. You're talking about a child dying as a consequence of doing something stupidly disobedient. Car accident. Drug overdose. Getting murdered by an abusive boyfriend, whatever. That's significantly different than a "father" inventing the entire concept of death, then inflicting death and all its attendant suffering on billions, trillions of living beings -- solely as a punishment because a couple of those beings (who, mind you did not yet know right from wrong) disobeyed him. Two very, very, very different things. How can you possibly justify the latter? How can you possibly equate that degree of savagery to some young person suffering the natural consequences of doing something fatally careless or dumb? And maybe it's perspective Merry. Sounds like you have never considered God from a warning the people type stance. As in, "hey, if you do this, you die". Oh wait, that's what the story says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 1, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted March 1, 2014 And what would happen if your daughter did something you told her would harm her and she died. Wait a minute. You're talking about a child dying as a consequence of doing something stupidly disobedient. Car accident. Drug overdose. Getting murdered by an abusive boyfriend, whatever. That's significantly different than a "father" inventing the entire concept of death, then inflicting death and all its attendant suffering on billions, trillions of living beings -- solely as a punishment because a couple of those beings (who, mind you did not yet know right from wrong) disobeyed him. Two very, very, very different things. How can you possibly justify the latter? How can you possibly equate that degree of savagery to some young person suffering the natural consequences of doing something fatally careless or dumb? And maybe it's perspective Merry. Sounds like you have never considered God from a warning the people type stance. As in, "hey, if you do this, you die". Oh wait, that's what the story says. But the story omits the introduction of Original Sin, upon which eternal conscious torment in hell is built. Why would god not have mentioned these things if they are real? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 And maybe it's perspective Merry. Sounds like you have never considered God from a warning the people type stance. As in, "hey, if you do this, you die". Oh wait, that's what the story says. Well, answer me a few things, if you would, End3. What was Adam and Eve's understanding of death? What experience or knowledge did they have of it at the time god threatened them with it? What was Adam and Eve's understanding of good and evil before they ate the fruit that gave them knowledge of good and evil? Did they understand that obedience was "good" and eating the fruit "evil"? If so, how did they have that knowledge before eating the fruit? And since god had to invent death as his particular form of punishment -- not as a natural consequence, but as something he deliberately created and imposed as his idea of a fitting punishement -- do you agree that the death of every living thing and all the suffering that goes with it is an appropriate level of punishment for one act of disobedience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Interesting that God gives each person free will, but then punishes those who exercise that gift. Not too nice if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 "I try to marry science and Christianity Bill. No one likes the unions I find....lol. As an example to your statement, "down with that" meant you had a cold possibly but "down with that" now means you understand or ok with an idea. Need I mention "gay" and "queer" or "straight" as examples. I hear the frustration and it is acknowledged. I try not to do those cop out things....I don't like them myself" End3 According to christian history science and Xtianity are apparently of a different species and therefor can't marry. Too bad. But showing an example in modern language of phrases or sayings having developed into different meanings is irrelevant. Instead,show us that the language used in the pertinent verses in Genesis about god's telling Adam he shall surely die is an example of that phenomenon described. For if you are just guessing that it applies. you're no better off than you were before. Further, there is a rule of interpretation in our law that says where language is specific it controls general language. It's just common sense, really. "In that day" was talking about the specific day in which Adam eats the forbidden fruit. In that context to construe that to mean "in that era", or some other time period than that day is not construing at all, but misconstruing. It changes a sentence that has a clear specific meaning to one that could mean any time period whatsoever and therefore no meaning. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 "I try to marry science and Christianity Bill. No one likes the unions I find....lol. As an example to your statement, "down with that" meant you had a cold possibly but "down with that" now means you understand or ok with an idea. Need I mention "gay" and "queer" or "straight" as examples. I hear the frustration and it is acknowledged. I try not to do those cop out things....I don't like them myself" End3 According to christian history science and Xtianity are apparently of a different species and therefor can't marry. Too bad. But showing an example in modern language of phrases or sayings having developed into different meanings is irrelevant. Instead,show us that the language used in the pertinent verses in Genesis about god's telling Adam he shall surely die is an example of the phenomenon you described in modern English. For if you are just guessing that it applies. you're no better off than you were before. I'm understanding that people here are rigidly holding the story to a 24 hour day and also saying it could have taken millions or billions of years for the earth to get where it's at, yet belittle the story. It doesn't make sense to me bill that if there was so much incredulity regarding the story that there would even be a need to question the story at this point. I don't think it is unfair to allow for our lack of language difference given I have noticed the same in my short stint on earth. Obviously you do. I would expect that would be detrimental to relationship building, but that's your choice....being no better off than you are now as you put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 And maybe it's perspective Merry. Sounds like you have never considered God from a warning the people type stance. As in, "hey, if you do this, you die". Oh wait, that's what the story says. Well, answer me a few things, if you would, End3. What was Adam and Eve's understanding of death? What experience or knowledge did they have of it at the time god threatened them with it? What was Adam and Eve's understanding of good and evil before they ate the fruit that gave them knowledge of good and evil? Did they understand that obedience was "good" and eating the fruit "evil"? If so, how did they have that knowledge before eating the fruit? And since god had to invent death as his particular form of punishment -- not as a natural consequence, but as something he deliberately created and imposed as his idea of a fitting punishement -- do you agree that the death of every living thing and all the suffering that goes with it is an appropriate level of punishment for one act of disobedience? I think they had some sense that God was different and knowing. We assume they knew little of good or evil. The devil appears to bring in envy or wanting to Eve. Do I personally think hell is justified. No. Do I know what it means to side with the devil.....I expect so. We sow death, we reap death. Are we accountable to that at some point. I don't know because we are not ultimately all knowing. Maybe there is a significant reason for the consequences of choosing evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why bother with the OP? As I said, I like the types in the story. If no one wants to talk, turn the set off. It is not the case that nobody wants to talk. Rather we know this stuff and when fundamentalists try this nonsense with us we cut it to shreds. You know that. You have been here long enough to know that you have no foot to stand on. So why play fundamentalist with us? I know it pisses you off when we disprove your religion so why go down that road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why bother with the OP? As I said, I like the types in the story. If no one wants to talk, turn the set off. It is not the case that nobody wants to talk. Rather we know this stuff and when fundamentalists try this nonsense with us we cut it to shreds. You know that. You have been here long enough to know that you have no foot to stand on. So why play fundamentalist with us? I know it pisses you off when we disprove your religion so why go down that road? The deal is I still believe. I have no trouble not seeing things as literal but everyone here pretty much insists a literal interpretation and won't do myth. Could the myth be essentially accurate. I think so. I don't know why this is not rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why bother with the OP? As I said, I like the types in the story. If no one wants to talk, turn the set off. It is not the case that nobody wants to talk. Rather we know this stuff and when fundamentalists try this nonsense with us we cut it to shreds. You know that. You have been here long enough to know that you have no foot to stand on. So why play fundamentalist with us? I know it pisses you off when we disprove your religion so why go down that road? The deal is I still believe. I have no trouble not seeing things as literal but everyone here pretty much insists a literal interpretation and won't do myth. Could the myth be essentially accurate. I think so. I don't know why this is not rational. What do you "still believe" (your words)? If you don't believe it "literally", what is it that you "still believe" (again, your words)? Christian apologetics? Childhood indoctrination from trusted adults? Logical fallacies? Lies, misrepresentations and disingenuousness from sellers of vacuous horseshit? Myth is rational once you demonstrate it is rational, at least as far as the particular myth goes. So, please demonstrate the rationality of the numerous Christian myths, or any one of them. If you go down that path, however, you're going to have difficulty with demonstrating the rationality of the myths' magical, supernatural, violation of the laws of chemistry and physics stuff, at least with rational thinkers. Of course, irrational thinkers eat that stuff up. Who is your audience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why bother with the OP? As I said, I like the types in the story. If no one wants to talk, turn the set off. It is not the case that nobody wants to talk. Rather we know this stuff and when fundamentalists try this nonsense with us we cut it to shreds. You know that. You have been here long enough to know that you have no foot to stand on. So why play fundamentalist with us? I know it pisses you off when we disprove your religion so why go down that road? The deal is I still believe. I have no trouble not seeing things as literal but everyone here pretty much insists a literal interpretation and won't do myth. Could the myth be essentially accurate. I think so. I don't know why this is not rational. What do you "still believe" (your words)? If you don't believe it "literally", what is it that you "still believe" (again, your words)? Christian apologetics? Childhood indoctrination from trusted adults? Logical fallacies? Lies, misrepresentations and disingenuousness from sellers of vacuous horseshit? Myth is rational once you demonstrate it is rational, at least as far as the particular myth goes. So, please demonstrate the rationality of the numerous Christian myths, or any one of them. If you go down that path, however, you're going to have difficulty with demonstrating the rationality of the myths' magical, supernatural, violation of the laws of chemistry and physics stuff, at least with rational thinkers. Of course, irrational thinkers eat that stuff up. Who is your audience? Very hard for me to believe that some the things that end up matching throughout the Bible are just coincidence or the standard "they all got together to create Christianity". That to me is more far fetched than discerning the truth in the myth. And what bugs the shit out of me (as you demonstrate), is now that we "know" the chemistry/physics that because the Bible doesn't mention sub atomic particles that it doesn't contain the neo-truth. Now that is literally moronic. And I remain hopeful that we will become civil....but it never seems to happen. Edit: And it's somewhat frustrating to me to notice all the things many here don't see or won't allow themselves to see. This is always met with "we have all been there done that". It's just bunk listening to the same stuff from everyone here as I am sure it is tiring to here the same apologetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why bother with the OP? As I said, I like the types in the story. If no one wants to talk, turn the set off. It is not the case that nobody wants to talk. Rather we know this stuff and when fundamentalists try this nonsense with us we cut it to shreds. You know that. You have been here long enough to know that you have no foot to stand on. So why play fundamentalist with us? I know it pisses you off when we disprove your religion so why go down that road? The deal is I still believe. I have no trouble not seeing things as literal but everyone here pretty much insists a literal interpretation and won't do myth. Could the myth be essentially accurate. I think so. I don't know why this is not rational. What do you "still believe" (your words)? If you don't believe it "literally", what is it that you "still believe" (again, your words)? Christian apologetics? Childhood indoctrination from trusted adults? Logical fallacies? Lies, misrepresentations and disingenuousness from sellers of vacuous horseshit? Myth is rational once you demonstrate it is rational, at least as far as the particular myth goes. So, please demonstrate the rationality of the numerous Christian myths, or any one of them. If you go down that path, however, you're going to have difficulty with demonstrating the rationality of the myths' magical, supernatural, violation of the laws of chemistry and physics stuff, at least with rational thinkers. Of course, irrational thinkers eat that stuff up. Who is your audience? Very hard for me to believe that some the things that end up matching throughout the Bible are just coincidence or the standard "they all got together to create Christianity". That to me is more far fetched than discerning the truth in the myth. … Perhaps you could list 10 things that "match" throughout the Bible. I can easily point out 50 things that "match" through Lord of the Rings, a fictional work. Afterwards, assuming you provide those 10 matching things, I will ask you why the fact that things may "match" suggests that the prose represents reality instead of fiction. …And what bugs the shit out of me (as you demonstrate), is now that we "know" the chemistry/physics that because the Bible doesn't mention sub atomic particles that it doesn't contain the neo-truth. Now that is literally moronic. … I believe I do not understand what you are trying to say. As written, it looks like a rather poor attempt at a straw man fallacy. Please try again. And I remain hopeful that we will become civil....but it never seems to happen. It is not black and white. Folks are civil and uncivil, some mores than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The deal is I still believe. I have no trouble not seeing things as literal but everyone here pretty much insists a literal interpretation and won't do myth. Could the myth be essentially accurate. I think so. I don't know why this is not rational. It is not rational because that isn't the way it works. You are taking the story of the Three Little Pigs and forcing it to have a deeper meaning about biochemistry. Uh, no. You might be able to find similarities depending on how much you are willing to stretch it but those similarities do not mean they were intended in the original myth. You are just imagining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthseeker4 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The whole Christian doctrine stands or falls on this story. If no original sin, no need for atonement. Why was that tree put in the garden to begin with? it is like telling an innocent child play with anything in this room but do not touch that big teddy bear over there. Never made sense to me and still does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rach Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 In regards to what Kris said about god telling one thing but meaning another, and sending Jesus as a "hidden messiah" completely antethesis of what the religious Jews were expecting (a successful political leader not a crucified man-god)...and so I wonder how Christians expect any literal fulfillment of prophecies to come. The modus operendi of bible God is to set people up to expect one thing and then throw something completely different at them. If that is the case then why should Christians expect fulfillment of Revelation prophecies? It seems to be just another set up. Like they say with magicians, they get your focus on the right hand and you completely miss what the left hand is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The whole Christian doctrine stands or falls on this story. If no original sin, no need for atonement. Why was that tree put in the garden to begin with? it is like telling an innocent child play with anything in this room but do not touch that big teddy bear over there. Never made sense to me and still does not. More like giving a child a hand grenade to play with and telling him not to pull the pin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts