Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

To add, Isaiah 55 applies to the Eve vs. God scenario....i.e. God's instruction in the Logos vs. ours.....speaking of wisdom.

 

Huh?

 

Isaiah 55

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.

3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.

5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

6 Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

 

Please elaborate. There is a lot of content here. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

14 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Huh?

 

Isaiah 55

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.

3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.

5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

6 Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

 

Please elaborate. There is a lot of content here. 

 

DB

Walter was advocating reasoning because Jesus uses reasoning.  Even so, 8 & 9 say that our reasoning and wisdom aren't equal.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter was advocating reasoning because Jesus uses reasoning.  Even so, 8 & 9 say that our reasoning and wisdom aren't equal.

 

That just goes back to the same circular argument we've been on. To which you said yourself that you hope that whoever suffers in this life in horrible ways gets their answer in the here after. Because even you don't understand why it happens now. And that there is no apparent reason at face value why it should happen. 

 

That is just more of the same. Gods ways are not our ways. They are higher than our ways. Blah, blah, blah. 

 

The reason it all happens is because the biblical God does not exist or he would do something about it and he would keep his promises. Because that is what the Bible says about him. He also would have been a responsible father and kept his children safe from the devil. But then we wouldn't have much of a site for ExChristians here would we.  

 

That is the line all Christians use just to keep the ball rolling with faith because they can't conceive why God would allow it to happen. It must be for a "greater purpose". Its bullshit Ed. There is no greater purpose. Shit just happens. 

 

With Adam and Eve. Oh it was for a greater purpose because God loves us and he made a way through Jesus. You may not know why God put the tree there or why God allowed the serpent in. But he had a greater purpose. And that was Jesus. 

 

For fucks sake. Just let two of those critical thinking brain cells, that I know are in there somewhere, collide for a second. It might spark a flame. I'm telling ya man. Once ya get past the initial heart ache. Its pretty nice not believing. And the Bible makes SOoooooo much more sense. 

 

Don't worry. I know, I know, I was there. This isn't gonna make that happen. Something has to click in your head at some point for that to happen. But maybe one day we will see that. I have hope for ya Ed. I'm guessing you have hope for us or ya wouldn't be here. So fair is fair right?

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Bottom line for me Walter.  With formal logic, science, mathematics, accepted axioms, theorems, etc, or just plain reasoning, our capabilities are limited, our understandings are incomplete, and our use of these tools are largely subjective in themselves.  I find room at the peripheries for God...and mixed in the midst as well. 

 

I'm just amazed that you don't accept this position given your intellect and training.  You want to fill us in on why you don't allow for something at the edges....through the black hole so to speak?

 

I'd be honored if you would just share that answer honestly with the crowd here.  Thx. 

 

Edgarcito,

 

It's not my fault if you persist in believing that because human thinking is incomplete that it has no value at all and must be rejected.  It's also not my fault if you persist in believing that what I present here are absolute and perfect answers.  If you persist in believing these things then you just haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing.

 

Furthermore, without coordinating our efforts the Prof and I have been on the same wavelength about the incomplete, provisional and tentative nature of human knowledge - in this case logic and how it is used.  Nowhere have we claimed that it provides absolute and perfect answers.

 

Yet, somehow you persist in believing that because god is absolute and perfect any human knowledge about him or his Word MUST also be absolute and perfect to be of any value.  That because logic is limited and god is unlimited logic MUST fail.  And because logic must fail, faith is preferable.  This is clearly false.  And I don't need logic to demonstrate this.  Instead, I'm going to use scripture.

 

1 Corinthians 13 : 1 - 13.

 

1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 

5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 

10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 

12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

You notice how the gifts of the spirit (prophecy, knowledge, faith) pass away?  How the child's ability to reason matures when it becomes a man?  How everything in this life seems to be a pale reflection in a mirror and not the true face of reality itself?  How things are incomplete? This is Paul acknowledging his limitations, his lack of absolute and perfect understanding.  He is acknowledging that what he knows and what he understands about god is limited, tentative and provisional - just like all human knowledge and understanding.  In other words, he's taking the very same line that the Prof and myself have been taking here.  Do you see that?

 

Then Paul says that complete, perfect and absolute knowledge and understanding of god will only come when our earthly lives are over.  Then we shall shall see the absolute truth of god, face to face.  But not now.  Not while we live out our human lives.  While we live on earth we will only ever know in part.  That is, we will only ever have partial and incomplete knowledge of god, even though god has full knowledge of us. 

 

So, when he acknowledged that his understanding of god was incomplete and faulty and did Paul therefore imply or suggest that it was useless?  No.  Did Paul just throw up his hands and say, because my reasoning is incomplete I won't use it?  No.  Did Paul ever consign his learning and his logic to the trash heap because it could never give him absolute understanding of god?  No.  So that's No and No and No again.

 

Instead he used everything he had; logic AND faith, reason AND faith, knowledge AND faith, all working together to serve god.  He realized that even though all of these things were incomplete, limited and faulty, they were what he had to work with and so he should use ALL of them.  That he shouldn't favour one over the other.  

 

And this is what the Prof, DB and I have been doing.  We don't favour logic over faith as a matter of choice.  That's because we don't have any faith to use to understand god.  So we use our reason, our knowledge and our logic.  We acknowledge that those things are incomplete and we have never said otherwise.  We have no problem accepting the incompleteness and limitations of the tools we use.

 

You asked for my my honest response Edgarcito and now you have it.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter was advocating reasoning because Jesus uses reasoning.  Even so, 8 & 9 say that our reasoning and wisdom aren't equal.

 

No, that's not what verses 8 and 9 are saying, Edgarcito.

 

They are not comparing human things to human things.  They are not comparing human reasoning to human wisdom.  Instead god is comparing his infinite wisdom to limited and incomplete human wisdom.  That's the imagery used - just as the heavens are infinitely higher than the earth, so god's wisdom is infinitely higher than man's.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I appreciate this J.  Truthfully I believe in both....that ultimately, what's the ideology, reductionism?, is absolute....that we just can't get there from here, but I do believe that's the case for our universe.  And I also believe that Christianity does a rather good job as describing our condition.  So that's where I'm at for several reasons, and likely where I will be at the end.  I dislike the perceived arrogance in Walter.  I won't ever get happy with that perception.  Like me, he can turn it on and off like a faucet....and I certainly know when it's on, even when he says it's not.  Thanks again.

 

The arrogance that you think you perceive in me Edgarcito is down to two errors on your part.

 

First, my confidence in logic, reason and knowledge.  I've just explained at length how and why I acknowledge that these things are incomplete and limited - as all human things must be.  But unlike you I do not disparage them because they do not give me the absolute and complete answers that I desire.  Instead I realize and acknowledge their limitations and am happy with that.   

 

The second reason is more personal, more subjective and therefore much more liable to be in error.  But it is, nevertheless, how I feel about you.

 

I just don't understand why you seem to think that getting your butt kicked over and over again is somehow a good and noble and admirable thing.  That failing to articulate your ideas and your thoughts equals a good outcome.  That recycling the same unworkable notions over and again somehow equals strength or virtue.  That bullish, stubborn defiance is preferable to adapting, learning and growing.  I just don't get it, Edgarcito.

 

I'm not sneering at you when list these things.  It's just that I really don't understand why you can't see a better way forward than just banging your head against a brick wall.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm really going to need to see the evidence behind this one Walter....please elaborate.

 

Very well.

 

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/logos-in-the-bible-definition-and-significance.html#:~:text=Logos is broadly defined as the Word of,God%2C and the Word was God.” John 1%3A1

 

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/logos/

 

https://www.logos.com/grow/greek-word-logos-meaning/

 

You'll notice that I'm using Christian sources.

 

From these it should be apparent that god is the source of all reason and logic.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[mwc]

     I see the thread has moved-on a bit but I can't seem to stop thinking about the idea of death in the garden.

 

     I've already mentioned how, if people were immortal, that the Tree of Life was redundant and unnecessary.  The except is if it could be used to restore immortality once lost but that's a strange use case.

 

     The reason I can't really let it go, however, is all the other trees.  They were good for food (this would include the Tree of Knowledge but is specifically about that tree).  Adam is placed in the garden and is specifically told that he can eat from any tree (with the single exception).  But why?  Food is fuel for life.  No fuel means no life.  But if he's immortal?  Then what is food?  Just a sensory experience.  Nothing more.  Adam should be able to eat nothing and be just fine for all eternity. 

 

     Unless we assume that Adam is "perfect" like some North Korean dictator and there's just no waste, meaning nutritionally here, when he eats.  So he eats for energy but not to maintain his actual existence or anything.  He just becomes lethargic if he fails to eat for a long time or something?  Now he's more like a zombie?  He can just waste away to almost nothing and remain that way for all eternity but perks up again given an apricot?  Or can he even waste away?  That seems like a horrible condition with lots of health implications.  If he can't waste away, to avoid any potential negative health conditions, then I can't find any  purpose to food beyond sensory as I initially stated.

 

     Also, as a bit of a tangent, the kaluta is an animal that dies after mating.  They've observed the wild males all die after mating in September (link).  They breed at 10 months and die from their mating habit.  It's a super-short article but here's a few snippets:

Quote

 

"All of the males in a population will die shortly after their first breeding season but before the females give birth.

...

Kalutas breed annually for two weeks in September.

...

"So really there probably isn't many more females in the wild as adults, than there are males anyway," she said.

 

"Small mammals of that size they don't tend to live more than a year anyway.

 

    So I would have to change some of these sentences to something more along the lines of "...they die, unless magically immortal, then not, unless some event entirely unrelated to them in any way occurs, then not immortal for some reason and they die...".

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I still hold to the idea that an omnipotent god would be able to create a world in which death and decay need not exist.  We're given to understand that heaven is such a place.  And the new heaven and new earth in Revelation appears to be as well.  Why would Eden have been different?

[mwc]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I still hold to the idea that an omnipotent god would be able to create a world in which death and decay need not exist.  We're given to understand that heaven is such a place.  And the new heaven and new earth in Revelation appears to be as well.  Why would Eden have been different?

     Yep, I guess so.  Goddidit.  No penetrating that armor.  Mystery solved.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     Yep, I guess so.  Goddidit.  No penetrating that armor.  Mystery solved.

 

          mwc

 

If you look at Genesis only within the context of Genesis, or only within the context of the myths on which it was based, then, sure, you have a workable hypothesis.  But in the context of the rest of the bible, and of the most widely accepted doctrines of the christian religion, then your idea simply does not have any merit.  Granted, it's fascinating, and it's every interesting to learn about ancient myths and religions and their influence on the bible.  But most of our apologist visitors, regular members, and lurkers come from a literalisit, fundagelical christian background; so when we argue or play Devil's Advocate, we have to do so in light of that demographic.  If this were an ex-zoroastrianist website, we would be having a completely different conversation. 

[mwc]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If you look at Genesis only within the context of Genesis, or only within the context of the myths on which it was based, then, sure, you have a workable hypothesis.  But in the context of the rest of the bible, and of the most widely accepted doctrines of the christian religion, then your idea simply does not have any merit.  Granted, it's fascinating, and it's every interesting to learn about ancient myths and religions and their influence on the bible.  But most of our apologist visitors, regular members, and lurkers come from a literalisit, fundagelical christian background; so when we argue or play Devil's Advocate, we have to do so in light of that demographic.  If this were an ex-zoroastrianist website, we would be having a completely different conversation. 

     How well has that worked out?

 

     Sometimes all you need to do is change your perspective to open some doors.

 

     I moved along my path out the door once I started to consider options beyond goddidit.  Literally just taking a little time to think that instead of god doing this or that how might it work if not god (because I was someone who just brushed everything off as god or god's will)?

 

     I'm not saying I came to the correct conclusions as to how things worked but I know I came to answers to that didn't include god.  These little mental exercises were very helpful for me to just see things from lots of angles and it wound up unintentionally showing me the way out.

 

     But we all work differently so maybe I'm the odd man out here.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, mwc said:

     How well has that worked out?

 

     Sometimes all you need to do is change your perspective to open some doors.

 

     I moved along my path out the door once I started to consider options beyond goddidit.  Literally just taking a little time to think that instead of god doing this or that how might it work if not god (because I was someone who just brushed everything off as god or god's will)?

 

     I'm not saying I came to the correct conclusions as to how things worked but I know I came to answers to that didn't include god.  These little mental exercises were very helpful for me to just see things from lots of angles and it wound up unintentionally showing me the way out.

 

     But we all work differently so maybe I'm the odd man out here.

 

          mwc

 

I mistook your intention, then.  My apologies.  Please carry on.

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, mwc said:

     How well has that worked out?

 

     Sometimes all you need to do is change your perspective to open some doors.

 

     I moved along my path out the door once I started to consider options beyond goddidit.  Literally just taking a little time to think that instead of god doing this or that how might it work if not god (because I was someone who just brushed everything off as god or god's will)?

 

     I'm not saying I came to the correct conclusions as to how things worked but I know I came to answers to that didn't include god.  These little mental exercises were very helpful for me to just see things from lots of angles and it wound up unintentionally showing me the way out.

 

     But we all work differently so maybe I'm the odd man out here.

 

          mwc

 

 

mwc,

 

I think that your input on this subject is both fascinating and very insightful.  In my opinion you should persist with it.  Being an odd man out isn't even a problem, so far as I can see.  

 

The 'difference' between us is more about the function of this forum rather than any particular need for it's members to toe a certain line.  As I've tired to explain, I tailor my efforts, using Devil's Advocacy, for the greater good of Ex-C, so as to engage with the broadest cross-section of visiting Christians that I can.  Hence my use of the most widely-accepted and orthodox tenets of Christian belief.

 

But I really don't see any need for you to be anything other than your own man, with your own opinions and your own ways of making your points.  Provided that we are all respectful to each other and follow the forum guidelines, a wide spectrum of ideas and views must be a good thing. 

 

Long may it continue!

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 10/27/2022 at 2:20 PM, DarkBishop said:

Ya have to think tho. If being naked was a sin. And obviously it would have been included in the evil section of the knowledge of good and evil. How did God look at everything an say it was very good?

 

Was it because of the absence of the knowledge of good and evil?

 

DB

 

Gonna re-up this one. Because it was your thoughts on the garden @mwc that made me start thinking about this. 

 

Could it have been considered good because of the absence of the knowledge of right and wrong? Maybe thats the key. And maybe there is just more to the story that was taken away through the course of time. 

 

I don't think initially they were created immortal. I think they were just created like all the other animals. God had not set a time line yet for their lives. That doesn't happen until chapter six. And when he does it. It isn't a direct result of Adam and eves actions. He just says his spirit will not always strive with man. So he limits man's age. This was probably added to explain to people why people don't live 900 years anymore. Not that people ever actually lived that long. But after hearing the stories about Adam's life and especially Methuselas life. That had to be a question on the believers mind. Which would have been addressed somehow. 

 

Genesis 6:3

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

But it does seem that in both the old and new testament the tree of life is the key to immortality. Not God or Jesus but the tree. God and Jesus only grant access to the tree of life. And once both the fruits have been eaten you really do become like God. 

 

This creates another fallacy. That takes some of gods power away and gives it to the tree. 

 

The tree should have a story all of its own honestly. It is a very key piece to the puzzle. 

 

Like I said before. The story feels incomplete. We know that through the years they hacked up the teachings and changed them. And before that they were passed down through oral tradition. This story has the feel of being hacked up, changed, and pieced back together to support a different ideology. 

 

It obviously had polytheistic thought in it because of the plural language used by God. God is obviously talking to someone else. We are lead to believe by Christian thought that it was Jesus. But originally it wasn't. That is purely a Christian notion. So if we take that out of the equation then who was it. I'm thinking it was probably El talking to his wife Asherah. 

 

Then the language about the serpent and the curse the serpent suffered. Again in Christian thought thats the devil. But really it sound just like they are talking about a snake and why it crawls on its belly. I do believe that that is all the serpent was originally meant to be. Just a snake like in Ed's Texas garden, but back then it had legs. In this specific ancient culture snakes were probably common. And if given a human personality would be thought of as sneaky because you couldn't hear them move. So it makes sense that they would choose a snake while building a myth like this to be the antagonist. 

 

On 10/27/2022 at 4:58 PM, DarkBishop said:

The serpent was completely honest. The tree was good for food. The tree did make them like God. The tree did not kill them. If anything God killed them by sending them out of the garden and then setting a time limit on their lives. 

 

This was something else I mentioned earlier before ed tried to drag us back into the "God has a higher purpose and logic" train again. I'm glad we are back off of that again now. 

 

God really does seem like a liar here. Or atleast this story is to indicate his jealous nature. We know in the old testament God is a jealous God. It says it word for word. 

 

Deuteronomy 6

12 Then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;

15 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.

18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers.

19 To cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as the Lord hath spoken.

20 And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God hath commanded you?

21 Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand:

22 And the Lord shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:

23 And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.

24 And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

This particular ideology doesn't really appear word for word until after the narrative of Moses and the Egyptian exile. I'm speculating that El in polytheistic origins may have had a jealous side. And that was built upon later.

 

https://reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction

 

In this article they are discussing the lack of evidence found to support an actual exodus from Egypt. It is a very interesting read and also talks about the four different known sources that influenced the old testament. This Jewish professor believes that a small sect of levites brought all of that in during the preistly additions to the Bible. 

 

(I want to go on a rabbit trail now but I'm gonna try to reel in my ADD for now )

 

Anyway, so we have a jealous God in genesis that gets upset that his children were disobedient. This fits with the narrative in the story of Moses later. Also Moses brings in the sacrifice for sins as a commandment and law. It would make sense that this same preistly source went back and tweaked the genesis account of creation to reflect the additions they were going to make later. Or they retrofitted the creation account after they added the story of the exodus. Either way. They would have made their changes. 

 

I posted a lot of content with that deuteronomy scripture for a reason. I highlighted the scripture about God being Jealous but look right after that. 

 

(17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.

18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers.)

 

Doesn't this look like the lesson that is being taught in genesis here? Adam and Eve were given a command not to eat of the fruit.

 

As MWC said and the creation account reflects. 

 

6 hours ago, mwc said:

The reason I can't really let it go, however, is all the other trees.  They were good for food (this would include the Tree of Knowledge but is specifically about that tree).  Adam is placed in the garden and is specifically told that he can eat from any tree (with the single exception).

 

I can't really go along with your thought about Adam wasting away. Because there were other trees he could eat from and was encouraged to eat from. So they still had food for fuel. 

 

God did say everything he created was "very good" to include that specific tree. But still commands the man not to eat it. 

 

Then man sees reason in the snakes argument. The author doesn't care that Adam and Eve have no concept of good vs evil. It doesn't matter that the snake doesn't lie. It seems here that God lied. But in ancient times that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Gods had human flaws in Greek mythology. 

 

Here read this article about Medusa. Is this fair? Hell no its not! But this is the type of story we have in genesis.

 

https://educationispowerful.net/myth-of-medusa/#:~:text=She does nothing wrong%2C and,be equal to the gods.

 

(Edit: I forgot to add this link earlier)

 

God commanded them not to eat of it for his own jealous and vain purposes. which the snake apparently knows about somehow. He relays that to the humans. They see that he isn't lying. They eat and their eyes are opened. God finds out. Gets jealous. And all hell breaks loose. He is God and they should have obeyed him no matter what. That is the lesson. And it is also the lesson later on in exodus. God opens up the ground and swallows many of them up because of their disobedience and his jealousy. He makes them wander the desert for 40 years because of his jealousy. 

 

I wonder if originally the snake had a bigger roll. Like he crawled in a tree and listened to El speaking to his son Ba'al or Yahweh about why he forbade the humans to eat of the tree. I feel like there should be more emphasis on why the knowledge of good and evil was perceived as a godly knowledge. Like I said. It is like we took that story of Medusa and left out all the pertinent details. I honestly feel like there is missing content that was just hacked out of the storyline by the various sources. E,D,P,&J

 

That is what happened tho. So yeah. And that is why we are discussing this. All of these fallacies that we are seeing are a result of a storyline that was hacked to bits and restructured possibly 4 times or more to reflect changes in ideology. There is a lot lost here that will probably never be seen again. 

 

Its to bad really. I bet the original version was an interesting read. 

 

(Rabbit trail warning)

Also I noticed something that I think is also key to indoctrination in the deuteronomy 6 scripture i posted. The basic theme is repeated in the new testament for "proof" as well. 

 

21 Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand:

22 And the Lord shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:

23 And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.

24 And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

I see a lot of parallels here. In the new testament they talk about all these miracles that are done. Jesus feeding the 5000, Jesus making the blind to see, Jesus making the lame to walk, Jesus being resurrected and ascending to heaven on a cloud supposedly seen by 500 people, and then all the miracles of the apostles. 

 

All of that considered to be "proof" but none of it can be verified. Just like none of the story of Moses can be verified through archeological excavations. This "proof" is only located in one place in both instances. The Bible. Outside of the Bible nothing agrees with the story line. None of these things can be verified to have happened. Also non of it can be repeated. And everything that we can actually find doesn't tell the same story. Also none of the claims can be repeated. Like the miracles that Christians are supposed to be able to perform. Or the promises that God made.

 

So they controlled the minds of the illiterate masses that may have been curious why they should live this way. Why they should follow these rules. Well because God will punish you, he's a jealous God and these people saw it. Be afraid be very afraid and do as we say.   I can laugh at it now because I can see it for what it is. Its the same in the new testament. Do what we say because all these people saw it happen. See its written so it must be true. 

 

I would think that as uncommon as literacy was in these ancient times that anything written and heralded as fact was probably very seldom questioned. These were the "smart" people of their time. People to be listened to and explain why the world was the way it was. 

 

And now the religious mock the smart people of our time. clinging to the ideals of a mostly illiterate culture with an ancient concept of reality. I can't laugh at that part. That part is just fucking sad. 

 

DB

[mwc]

     @DarkBishop  I appreciate your response.  I'm short on time so I'm going to have  to wait until tonight give it a proper read.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If you look at Genesis only within the context of Genesis, or only within the context of the myths on which it was based, then, sure, you have a workable hypothesis.  But in the context of the rest of the bible, and of the most widely accepted doctrines of the christian religion, then your idea simply does not have any merit.  Granted, it's fascinating, and it's every interesting to learn about ancient myths and religions and their influence on the bible.  But most of our apologist visitors, regular members, and lurkers come from a literalisit, fundagelical christian background; so when we argue or play Devil's Advocate, we have to do so in light of that demographic.  If this were an ex-zoroastrianist website, we would be having a completely different conversation. 

I'm fine with discussing the myths. When we discuss these stories as myths they make more sense. 

 

But if we prove out an argument using the Bible and literalist teaching as a tool. Then we can follow other avenues to further enlighten the reader and open them up to other areas where the Bible fails. Even if it leads into speculation on the myths. I enjoy talking about it myself. When I look at the Bible from the standpoint that its a myth. And talk about it from that standpoint. A lot of the questions that come up with the literalist views get explained. Like how a flat earth creation myth makes sense with other parts of the story. I think someone brought it out in the suffering for the sins of the world thread.

 

If there is a dome and heaven is considered to be above the clouds as depicted in the creation myth. Then it makes sense that jesus ascended to heaven on a cloud. And people could actually build a tower to heaven. Also that God is looking down on us and can see what we do. Just like any Zeus like mountain dwelling God would have been able to do, in ancient times. 

 

Putting our current understanding of the world and placing it on the Bible really causes some fallacies. If the reader can see this they might also see that its all fake. Because we know now that the earth is not flat and also that there is no dome. Heaven was under the dome like depicted in creation then those satellites we have up there are circling around gods head. 

 

If they see its a myth. Then it stands to reason that if creation is a myth then none of it is true. 

 

DB

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

23 minutes ago, mwc said:

     @DarkBishop  I appreciate your response.  I'm short on time so I'm going to have  to wait until tonight give it a proper read.

 

          mwc

 

Thats cool. I forgot to add a link anyway. I will be taking my daughter trick or treating later. So when you respond it may take

Awhile for me to repond as well. 

[Edgarcito]

6 hours ago, mwc said:

     I see the thread has moved-on a bit but I can't seem to stop thinking about the idea of death in the garden.

 

     I've already mentioned how, if people were immortal, that the Tree of Life was redundant and unnecessary.  The except is if it could be used to restore immortality once lost but that's a strange use case.

 

     The reason I can't really let it go, however, is all the other trees.  They were good for food (this would include the Tree of Knowledge but is specifically about that tree).  Adam is placed in the garden and is specifically told that he can eat from any tree (with the single exception).  But why?  Food is fuel for life.  No fuel means no life.  But if he's immortal?  Then what is food?  Just a sensory experience.  Nothing more.  Adam should be able to eat nothing and be just fine for all eternity. 

 

     Unless we assume that Adam is "perfect" like some North Korean dictator and there's just no waste, meaning nutritionally here, when he eats.  So he eats for energy but not to maintain his actual existence or anything.  He just becomes lethargic if he fails to eat for a long time or something?  Now he's more like a zombie?  He can just waste away to almost nothing and remain that way for all eternity but perks up again given an apricot?  Or can he even waste away?  That seems like a horrible condition with lots of health implications.  If he can't waste away, to avoid any potential negative health conditions, then I can't find any  purpose to food beyond sensory as I initially stated.

 

     Also, as a bit of a tangent, the kaluta is an animal that dies after mating.  They've observed the wild males all die after mating in September (link).  They breed at 10 months and die from their mating habit.  It's a super-short article but here's a few snippets:

    So I would have to change some of these sentences to something more along the lines of "...they die, unless magically immortal, then not, unless some event entirely unrelated to them in any way occurs, then not immortal for some reason and they die...".

 

          mwc

 

Imo, the entity humanity did not enjoy the same privileges while in the garden.....they were not like "us".  They were immortal without the knowledge.  There is immortality with the knowledge and without the knowledge.  Once the ate, they were then not allowed to stay likely because they God didn't want them basically for their lack of being able to handle the knowledge and immortality together.   So now we have the process of working towards those that display the ability or desire.  "What are you going to do even if you understand son?  Sacrifice, faith, and Grace" Until God then changes them to be "like us" on that day.  

 

Edit:  And the culmination...once changed, belonging to the group "with the knowledge and immortal" we are "free indeed",  "indeed" being the operative word here...not only our faith in Christ but our actions that moved us over, demonstrated our heart.  Eve ate, Jesus did what he did.  Our actions must demonstrate actual participation...

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Imo, the entity humanity did not enjoy the same privileges while in the garden.....they were not like "us".  They were immortal without the knowledge.  There is immortality with the knowledge and without the knowledge.  Once the ate, they were then not allowed to stay likely because they God didn't want them basically for their lack of being able to handle the knowledge and immortality together.   So now we have the process of working towards those that display the ability or desire.  "What are you going to do even if you understand son?  Sacrifice, faith, and Grace" Until God then changes them to be "like us" on that day.  

 

If that's so Edgarcito, what about the time gap between Adam and Eve's expulsion and the 'now' you describe?

 

This 'now' was of no help to them, was it?

 

For your benefit I showed from scripture when and how Jesus became 'available' to people through the Holy Spirit.

 

But how was Jesus' sacrifice and the grace that followed via the Holy Spirit available to Adam and Eve?

 

This is a great, big gaping hole in your argument and I've yet to see you fill it.

 

Can you please tell us how grace was given to Adam and Eve outside of Eden?

 

And how Jesus' sacrifice was of any use to them, seeing as they were long dead when he made it?

 

And how the Holy Spirit could help them, seeing as this kind of help was given only after Jesus died?

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If that's so Edgarcito, what about the time gap between Adam and Eve's expulsion and the 'now' you describe?

 

This 'now' was of no help to them, was it?

 

For your benefit I showed from scripture when and how Jesus became 'available' to people through the Holy Spirit.

 

But how was Jesus' sacrifice and the grace that followed via the Holy Spirit available to Adam and Eve?

 

This is a great, big gaping hole in your argument and I've yet to see you fill it.

 

Can you please tell us how grace was given to Adam and Eve outside of Eden?

 

And how Jesus' sacrifice was of any use to them, seeing as they were long dead when he made it?

 

And how the Holy Spirit could help them, seeing as this kind of help was given only after Jesus died?

 

 

 

 

I don't know what God does with those mixed in the process along the way.  Perhaps judge their actions, their intentions, good question.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know what God does with those mixed in the process along the way.  Perhaps judge their actions, their intentions, good question.

 

According to scripture these people die and go to hell without the chance of hearing the Good News.

 

This amounts to billions being consigned by god to eternal hellfire simply by being born 'too soon'.

 

Is this god 'just being an ass', as you said he was in Eden, Edgarcito?

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

23 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

According to scripture these people die and go to hell without the chance of hearing the Good News.

 

This amounts to billions being consigned by god to eternal hellfire simply by being born 'too soon'.

 

Is this god 'just being an ass', as you said he was in Eden, Edgarcito?

 

 

 

 

Things cross my mind Walter.  If you look at God's perspective like he really didn't want that for humanity, then the subsequent "punishments" maybe were more something for A & E to consider and come to understand about themselves rather than it a punishment.  Maybe we should be looking at those to consider where the generations should have gone rather than the current efforts of God at hand.  Given they were the first transgressors, it might give us insight into the how God treats the next generations of transgressors.

 

Edit:  and it's been a long time, but I thought there was no post death, death until the law was given.  I'm not a good OT guy...I'll have to look into that.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Things cross my mind Walter.  If you look at God's perspective like he really didn't want that for humanity, then the subsequent "punishments" maybe were more something for A & E to consider and come to understand about themselves rather than it a punishment.  Maybe we should be looking at those to consider where the generations should have gone rather than the current efforts of God at hand.  Given they were the first transgressors, it might give us insight into the how God treats the next generations of transgressors.

 

But, where oh where does scripture say this?

 

You are wishin' and hopin' and wantin' and prayin' for something that the bible doesn't say.

 

This is what you want to believe, despite what scripture says, not because of what scripture says.

 

Plus, you use the words 'if' and 'maybe' and 'might', which shows that you are just speculating.

 

Anyway, would you care to answer my question?

 

 

Is this god 'just being an ass', as you said he was in Eden, Edgarcito?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But, where oh where does scripture say this?

 

You are wishin' and hopin' and wantin' and prayin' for something that the bible doesn't say.

 

This is what you want to believe, despite what scripture says, not because of what scripture says.

 

Plus, you use the words 'if' and 'maybe' and 'might', which shows that you are just speculating.

 

Anyway, would you care to answer my question?

 

 

Is this god 'just being an ass', as you said he was in Eden, Edgarcito?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm reasoning Walter...one of the tools I use since we have exhausted the discussion about the efficacy of each.