Suffering for the Good of the World

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

     You're going to have to be more specific.

 

          mwc

 

 

That's ok mwc.

 

I know what Ed is referring to.

 

I've even offered to give him the information he wants about the serpent's knowledge...

 

...provided that he give me his answers to my three questions.

 

That's still a work in progress and hopefully we will resume later.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[mwc]

43 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's ok mwc.

 

I know what Ed is referring to.

 

I've even offered to give him the information he wants about the serpent's knowledge...

 

...provided that he give me his answers to my three questions.

 

That's still a work in progress and hopefully we will resume later.

 

     I appreciate that.  However, if it doesn't interfere with whatever you're doing I think it would be good to go ahead and have clarification on the question itself.  I would like to know specifically what is being asked and not have to guess.  It's at these points where we tend to talk past one another. 

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     I appreciate that.  However, if it doesn't interfere with whatever you're doing I think it would be good to go ahead and have clarification on the question itself.  I would like to know specifically what is being asked and not have to guess.  It's at these points where we tend to talk past one another. 

 

          mwc

 

 

Agreed.

 

But in Ed's defence, he has admitted to not being a very communicator.  So, given the fact that some very deep and difficult things were being discussed yesterday, perhaps we can forgive him for not being as clear and specific as we'd like. 

 

I'm quite comfortable using logic to reconcile different parts of scripture and difficult concepts like god being simultaneously eternal, yet somehow seeming to react to the things that people do in real time.  But for him it's a totally new thing and a bit of brain fry is to be expected.

 

Perhaps we should cut him a little slack, while also gently requesting that he be more specific for the benefit of others?  That sound ok to you?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[mwc]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Agreed.

 

But in Ed's defence, he has admitted to not being a very communicator.  So, given the fact that some very deep and difficult things were being discussed yesterday, perhaps we can forgive him for not being as clear and specific as we'd like. 

 

I'm quite comfortable using logic to reconcile different parts of scripture and difficult concepts like god being simultaneously eternal, yet somehow seeming to react to the things that people do in real time.  But for him it's a totally new thing and a bit of brain fry is to be expected.

 

Perhaps we should cut him a little slack, while also gently requesting that he be more specific for the benefit of others?  That sound ok to you?

     Fair enough.  None of this really matters to me when it's all said and done.  If he wants to move forward with me he can clarify what he means so I don't have to guess otherwise I'm fine with letting it go.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

That's fine, mwc.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Hello again Edgarcito.

 

Assuming that you wish to pick up where we left off yesterday, there's something that I need to say to you first.

 

On Saturday I replied to the Prof who was wondering if you were intentionally misrepresenting us or or genuinely failing ti understand us.  I said that you understood everything we were discussing and that you were deliberately stringing the thread out for as long as possible to avoid admitting that god is evil.

 

I was wrong.

 

From our discussions yesterday its become clear to me that you really are struggling to understand how can be simultaneously eternal and changeless and also seem to interact and react to people in real time, as events unfold.

 

So, the mistake is all mine.

 

I misread your intentions and didn't give you the benefit of the doubt.  That was uncharitable of me.  I am sorry that I did that and I apologize.  Please let this message be a kind of reset between us, after which we can hopefully communicate better.

 

If it's ok with the Prof (because this is his thread) I think it might be helpful if I spent a bit of time explaining how we can  understand and reconcile the two, apparently contradictory things that scripture is saying about god.  God being changeless and eternal and yet also appearing to change and react to other people in real time.

 

No doubt the Prof will be reading this but ultimately it's your call, Edgarcito.  If you want me to explain this stuff I can do so.  I just don't know whether this should be done here, as part of the flow of this thread or if we should put this one on 'pause' and then return to it.  Again, the Prof will have to say how he thinks this should happen.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Y'all two are making a lot of good progress here, and I'd hate to interrupt it.  I'll leave it up to y'all whether to open a new thread or keep going with this one (assuming both parties are amenable).  A new topic/direction really should have a separate thread; and the topic Walt is proposing probably deserves its own space.  But, again, the progess y’all two are making is much more important than forum formalities and proper procedures.  So the sports ball is on y'all's side of the sportsing area. 

[Edgarcito]

7 hours ago, mwc said:

     Fair enough.  None of this really matters to me when it's all said and done.  If he wants to move forward with me he can clarify what he means so I don't have to guess otherwise I'm fine with letting it go.

 

          mwc

 

Just the information that the snake had that he tempted Eve with mwc.  Imo, if the snake had it, then everyone had it.  My assumption is the snake belongs to a group outside of the same creation group as Adam and Eve.  Walter says Satan, but several things I've read think that's a connection made later...

 

Thx.

 

@walterpthefirst rather tied down in the lab at the moment.  Not ignoring our place, just busy.  Thanks.

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Just the information that the snake had that he tempted Eve with mwc.  Imo, if the snake had it, then everyone had it.  My assumption is the snake belongs to a group outside of the same creation group as Adam and Eve.  Walter says Satan, but several things I've read think that's a connection made later...

 

Thx.

 

@walterpthefirst rather tied down in the lab at the moment.  Not ignoring our place, just busy.  Thanks.

 

 

No problem, Edgarcito.  I'm at your disposal.

 

 

Just to recap, I'm offering you two different things.  First, information about how the serpent acquired its knowledge of the forbidden tree - derived from looking at scripture logically. 

 

Second, help with understanding how god can be both eternal and outside of time and space while also being inside time and space when he interacts with people.  The second is also derived from applying logic to scripture but there's some other surprising things in there too.  

 

The Prof's been kind enough to leave the ball in our court about the second.  That is, if we want to create a separate thread to discuss it before returning to this one.  I've had some ideas about the second that might work, so I'm going to seize the initiative here and create a new thread in the Den.

 

There's no pressure on you to rush what you're doing Ed.  Finish in your own good time.  Nor is there any pressure on you to visit the new thread asap.  The stuff I'll post there will keep until you declare yourself ready to talk it through with me.  Then we'll dive in and I'll start my explanation.

 

If other members post their comments there I'll probably ask them to hang fire because all will be revealed when I walk you through it.

 

 

Thank you and my thanks to the Prof for clearing the way.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

Thx Walter....busy Monday.  Here's what I think today.  It's really not such a complex concept, rather I don't see it as matching reality.  From what you express, I gather that if it's from God, and that God is unchanging to the degree you suggest, then every sub-atomic particle to every galaxy that we can see, and beyond, is controlled and continues to be controlled by God.  

 

There was a rather smart gentleman that use to frequent here, that one thing he said has stuck with me through the years......that our concept and reality need to match.  What I see in humanity is simultaneously objective and subjective aspects....so it's really difficult for me to get on board with God controlling what I see as the subjective aspect of humanity.

 

And I've never been a "we are God" person, rather God is there and I'm here.  Lot of verses suggest separation.

 

Thanks again,  

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thx Walter....busy Monday.  Here's what I think today.  It's really not such a complex concept, rather I don't see it as matching reality.  From what you express, I gather that if it's from God, and that God is unchanging to the degree you suggest, then every sub-atomic particle to every galaxy that we can see, and beyond, is controlled and continues to be controlled by God.  

 

There was a rather smart gentleman that use to frequent here, that one thing he said has stuck with me through the years......that our concept and reality need to match.  What I see in humanity is simultaneously objective and subjective aspects....so it's really difficult for me to get on board with God controlling what I see as the subjective aspect of humanity.

 

And I've never been a "we are God" person, rather God is there and I'm here.  Lot of verses suggest separation.

 

Thanks again,  

 

 

 

Hello Edgarcito.

 

 

What you say and think is interesting - but its not what I'm saying or thinking about god.

 

Not in that new thread that I've created especially for your benefit and understanding.

 

And not for some time in this thread.

 

Which means that you are barking up the wrong tree here.

 

 

So, wouldn't you rather try and read and find out what I am actually saying?

 

And that way, if you really disagree with it, you'll be disagreeing for the right reasons?

 

Rather than trying to pour cold water on what you wrongly believe I'm saying?

 

 

The choice is yours.

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[mwc]

14 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Just the information that the snake had that he tempted Eve with mwc.  Imo, if the snake had it, then everyone had it.  My assumption is the snake belongs to a group outside of the same creation group as Adam and Eve.  Walter says Satan, but several things I've read think that's a connection made later...

     Strictly speaking the text doesn't say where the information came from so we're on our own to try to discover that using clues in the text.  The problem is complicated, for example using translations, lensing through various theologies and our own assumptions as to what the text actually says.  We also have to assume these are real people in a real situation as opposed to the result of an author, authors and redactors making a specific point that has nothing to do with what we're trying to get out of it.  Anyhow, we'll just take the path of least resistance and use our translations and see what we can imagine.

 

     Based on the timeline available to us from the story the only place such information could come from is either god or Adam (or both for that matter).  We're initially told that animals are created before mankind but in the second creation narrative we're told that Adam is formed, the threat is given, the animals are then formed and finally Eve is built from Adam.  There are many possible ways the threat could have been passed along.  God could have told each creation, as he did Adam, not to eat.  Adam could have passed along this information.  They could have overheard it when god and Adam spoke about it for some reason.  These are all off the top of my head so I don't think this is a comprehensive list.

 

     This does raise the question of whether anything would benefit from eating the fruit of the tree or only humans.  If anything could benefit from eating the fruit then if a cow eats from the tree it gains all knowledge and becomes a god-like cow.  The same for all animals.  God-snails.  God-birds.  God-ferrets.  You name it.

 

     Since the tree appears to have magical qualities then it may well only work on humans.  So what if a cow eats from it?  Then it's still a regular cow.  In that case the cow needs no threat.  Likewise snails, birds and ferrets.  No creature other than humans needs this threat.

 

     So what happens when Eve is built?  She may well have received the threat around that time from either god or Adam.  It would need to happen before she were to accidentally ate from the tree.  During this time anything in the vicinity, not just Eve, should be able to hear the threat as all of the created animals now exist unlike the case with Adam.  At this point we might expect the threat to travel among the garden since there is now a tree that has a strange rule.  The animals would grow aware of the threat even though it doesn't apply to them.  They might also question its validity due to first hand knowledge of safely eating the fruit especially if this animal is particularly clever.

 

     You understand this is a lot of work to attempt to fill in the blanks of this story.  Neither Eve or the serpent accurately repeat the threat.  There are a number of possibilities for that which could include they were given different threats, they misunderstood what they were told, they are intentionally misrepresenting what they know.  Allowing for a world where everything is "good," in that they don't lie, then we should assume they got different information or perhaps got it through different paths.

 

     Having said all of that if we simply go with xian theology then the serpent is Satan.  The xian theology is pretty universally agreed on this point.  As god, in pre-xian times, went from being a true monotheistic deity, one that was the sole source of both good and evil, the ability of its followers struggled with this concept and moved god into being only a source of good.  At this time various sources of evil emerged and, in xianity, the ultimate embodiment being Satan.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

What I see in humanity is simultaneously objective and subjective aspects....so it's really difficult for me to get on board with God controlling what I see as the subjective aspect of humanity.

Think back to the AI thread you started a few months ago.  The AI can make "decisions;" and, as far as the AI knows, its decisions are purely objective.  It is simply taking the information and spitting out an answer.  We know the "decision" is actually subjective because we control what information the computer gets. 

 

Programmer 1: We need the computer to make decision X.

Programmer 2: Feed it all of the X data and give it a negative-Y prompt.

Suddenly, decision X is the most "objective" answer the computer can give.

 

Now let's look at the Garden and your magical snake.  At some point, god decided that humanity should choose between good and evil.  So Adam and Eve were given 2 different data sets.  But both data sets were heavily geared toward the "choice" of evil.  god's data set was a garbled mess of unintelligible warnings and incomprehensible threats; the serpent's data set was a convincing dissertation on the benefits of the fruits along with a refutation of the warnings given in the first data set.

 

We tend to think of Adam and Eve's choice as being a highly subjective one.  But we interpret it that way because:

1. We have access to information they did not have.

2. We have access to several millennia of interpretation they did not have.

3. We have access to cognitive nuances from personal and societal experience they did not have.

 

As far as Adam and Eve were concerned, their completely naïve and innocent brains were making the most objective decision possible, based on the data sets they were given.

 

Only god knew their decision was purely subjective.  Because only god controlled the information they were given.

 

Now, if we assume that the god of the bible exists, then we have to accept that he has a plan for everybody.   The bible says he does; and if we accept the bible as evidence, then we have to accept that what it says is true.

 

So, if god is in control, does that not necessarily indicate that he is also in control of the information each of us is individually given?  If god is in control, then he can place us into whatever situations or experiences as will guide us toward whatever "decision" he wants us to make.  Whatever decision he has already determined that we should make according to his plan, purpose, will, and omniscience.

 

All he has to do is control the information; and he can control us, while maintaining the illusion that we have subjective free will.

 

It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand.  And it is simply another means by which god violates free will.

[walterpthefirst]

Actually, there's no need for god to actively control all of us in real time, moment by moment, molecule by molecule.

 

He did all of the controlling he needed to in Eden.

 

Because everyone is descended from Eve, the mother of ALL the living, all god had to do was to bind her and Adam to disobedience and then let the virus of their sin spread death out from them to the whole human race.  The apostle Paul uses this very model in his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15, verses 21 and 22.

 

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 

22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

Yes, Paul also writes in Romans that god has bound everyone over to disobedience, but he started the process with Adam and Eve and it has continued ever since.  So there's no need for god to actively control everyone in real time, overriding their free will and forcing them to sin and disobey him.

 

People simply can't escape the sin that is in their genes as a result of being descended from Adam and Eve.  Therefore, even though they probably can make free choices in their lives, they cannot freely choose to heal their own sin by themselves.  For that kind of healing they need Jesus.

 

And this is how god stacked the deck.  Not against us personally, right now - but long ago, when he put the fate of the entire world on the innocent and unknowing shoulders of Adam and Eve.

 

So, god binding us all over to disobedience and sin was done and dusted in Eden.  What we are all living in now are the aftereffects of that event.  The personal inescapability of sin, death and judgment.  The wider devastations of sickness, infirmity, birth defects, war, slavery, torture, madness and addiction.  

 

God set all of these things in motion in Eden when he overthrew his own creation to glorify himself through Jesus.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

But that's not what you are saying....control now, don't control later.  Unchanging now, ambivalent later.  So if he initially intended to bind humanity, then he bound Adam and Eve to their decisions, and likewise the rest of us....bound in his unchangingness.

 

I don't agree with that.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

29 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't agree with that.

Fair enough.  But you have already in this thread agreed that god has a plan for all of us.  If this is true, then subjectivity versus objectivity is irrelevant. 

 

The "how" and "why" of god executing his plan is what is relevant. 

 

Psychology tells us that we are a product of nature and nurture.  We look the way we do, and have certain predispositions due to genetics (nature); and we think, act, and speak the way we do because of our environment (nurture). 

 

Why do I prefer Pepsi over Coke?

 

Much like one's political affiliation, one's favorite football club, or one's religious belief, there is no objective way to determine a preference.  It is necessarily subjective.

 

But, if we accept that god has a plan for us and is in control (which you have already accepted), then, by default, god is also in control of both our nature and our nurture. 

 

In other words, god doesn't simply control the information that we receive, he is also in control of the people, places, things, and ideas by which we gather the information. 

 

So, do I prefer Pepsi because I genuinely prefer Pepsi, completely detached from any genetic predisposition or environmental influence?  Hardly.

 

Do I prefer Pepsi because god is evil and forced me to choose it?  I'm sure we could both come up with arguments against that idea.

 

Or, do I prefer Pepsi because god, in his omniscient plan, determined I would be born in a part of the world where Pepsi is generally preferred, to a father who is a diehard fan?  He's not "controlling" me; I'm still "free" to make the subjective choice.  But he has certainly stacked all of the cards in favor of one choice over the other.

 

Just as he did in Eden.

 

This more-or-less puts the final nail in the coffin of subjectivity, as you see it, Ed.  So long as the spectrum of god's plan hangs over us, we have to assume that our choices have been made in accordance with his plan.  We have to accept that even the illusion of subjectivity is only a thin veneer over god's sovereignty and predetermination.

 

If we ever had free will, god has clearly been violating it from the very beginning. 

 

The only other alternative is that god does not have a plan and is not in control. 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

But that's not what you are saying....control now, don't control later.  Unchanging now, ambivalent later.  So if he initially intended to bind humanity, then he bound Adam and Eve to their decisions, and likewise the rest of us....bound in his unchangingness.

 

I don't agree with that.

 

Again, you are barking up the wrong tree, Edgarcito.

 

Your criticism has god changing his tactics during the elapsed count of time.

 

But it was always his plan to bind everyone to sin by binding Adam and Eve first.

 

Just as it was always part of the same plan for him to become Jesus and set people free from sin.

 

Nothing has changed in god's plan because he cannot and does not change.

 

Exactly as scripture says.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

It really does seem that you are still struggling to understand why god is unchanging, Ed.

 

And how an unchanging god can appear to react and interact with people in real time.

 

That situation might change (pun intended) if you joined me in the thread I created for you.

 

There you might just learn how all of this works.

 

The offer still stands open.

 

It's up to you. 

[Edgarcito]

I am on board for God creating everything.

I am on board for humanity being both objective and subjective.

I am on board for God subjecting us as a function of our objective and subjective natures...but not total/absolute subjection.

 

How this works.  I don't know.  Predestination vs. free will, still a mystery.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How this works.  I don't know.  Predestination vs. free will, still a mystery.

Not a mystery at all, Ed.  You already agreed that god has a plan for us all.  If this is true, then every aspect of our lives fall under that plan.  It only seems like a mystery because you'd rather not accept that the evil and suffering in this world are part of god's plan and are therefore his fault.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I am on board for God creating everything.

I am on board for humanity being both objective and subjective.

I am on board for God subjecting us as a function of our objective and subjective natures...but not total/absolute subjection.

 

How this works.  I don't know.  Predestination vs. free will, still a mystery.

 

 

Human subjectivity and objectivity are irrelevant if god is calling the shots.

 

And he is...  scripture clearly says so.  We know from scripture that god bound Adam and Eve (and all their descendants) over to disobedience, sin and death.  The only way out of this god-caused disaster is Jesus.  But scripture also says that nobody chooses their salvation.  It is not up to our will, it is up to god's will if we are saved.

 

 

Romans 9 : 16 - 18.

 

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

 

 

And does salvation depend on any choices anyone makes during their lifetimes?   Again, No.

 

 

Romans 8 : 29 & 30.

 

29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 

30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

 

 

So, if you read what scripture says Edgarcito, there's no mystery about free will in Christianity.  What god offers through Jesus is the appearance of salvation by free choice.  But in fact he's already decided who he will save and who he won't.

 

We are just pawns in his great cosmic game of self-glorification.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

18 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Human subjectivity and objectivity are irrelevant if god is calling the shots.

 

And he is...  scripture clearly says so.  We know from scripture that god bound Adam and Eve (and all their descendants) over to disobedience, sin and death.  The only way out of this god-caused disaster is Jesus.  But scripture also says that nobody chooses their salvation.  It is not up to our will, it is up to god's will if we are saved.

 

 

Romans 9 : 16 - 18.

 

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

 

 

And does salvation depend on any choices anyone makes during their lifetimes?   Again, No.

 

 

Romans 8 : 29 & 30.

 

29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 

30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

 

 

So, if you read what scripture says Edgarcito, there's no mystery about free will in Christianity.  What god offers through Jesus is the appearance of salvation by free choice.  But in fact he's already decided who he will save and who he won't.

 

We are just pawns in his great cosmic game of self-glorification.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

So you are committing to no free will?  I agree it follows your logic.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Indeed, Ed, neither the logic of the scripture nor the logic of christian doctrine allow for free will.  god's plan precludes it and always has.

[Edgarcito]

47 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Indeed, Ed, neither the logic of the scripture nor the logic of christian doctrine allow for free will.  god's plan precludes it and always has.

That's fine.  Evidence suggests that I may look right, I may look left, I may close my eyes, all given the ability, at my discretion.  Are we to ignore this evidence or do we believe that God is controlling our minds.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

That's fine.  Evidence suggests that I may look right, I may look left, I may close my eyes, all given the ability, at my discretion.  Are we to ignore this evidence or do we believe that God is controlling our minds.

You ignore all other evidence in favor of scripture...... why wouldn't you ignore your evidence?

 

DB