If you were God, what would you do.
Offline Now, before I give you my example. I am not interested in what you claim your God would do. I am interested in YOUR OWN personal opinion as to what YOU would do if you had the powers of God.
I do not want to hear excuses for your God or talk about your God. I don't want to hear about him or his plan. I strictly want your opinion of what you would do IF IT WERE YOU.
A simple yes or no will suffice to the following EXAMPLE.
Would you allow or watch a baby drowned to death in water? YES OR NO.
I know what your answer should be. But I want to hear it from the theists who are willing to respond.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
All ambiguous rhetoric. There is not a lick of answer in this response at all.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Eight kids and I've not killed a one of em yet. Their lives don't belong to me, nor even to them. Their lives are a gift from God, their time and manner of death are His decision alone. We are here to act on behalf of God, to be a positive force in a world that's been damaged by the willfulness of Man.
God did. Man had other ideas about how his nature should function.
How was the test rigged? The choice to refuse the challenge of the serpent wasn't interfered with. "No" was always an option.
Yep. Pretty much.
Indeed it doesn't. Nor do I believe that such occurences are necessarily punishment for sin. I believe, though, that somehow they are a reslut of the chaos introduced into the world by the sin of our original parents.
Despite their devastating effects, many of these natural disasters have decidedly beneficial effects. Take, for example, the role of huricanes in the hydrological cycle, or the role of floods in the formation of the fertile regions of the world. It is exactly because of the actions of tsunamis that the beautiful beaches of Phuket exist in the first place.
Not at all. I cannot answer the question of the existence of suffering. Certainly, greater minds than mine have pondered this question for far longer periods of time than I am capable of. I can say, with all certainty, that one of the reasons for the Incarnation was to demonstrate the participation of God in our suffering.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Indeed it would. But for some reason, that's not an option. I dunno why.
That's the choice of the individual, not the choice of God, whose existence can be percieved throught the use of reason.
Perhaps. But since reality is subjective, the product of material processes in ourselves (in your estimation), what criteria grant the chemical processes that cause you not to believe, any more validity than the processes in my brain to believe?
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Let me understand? There is something better than preventing a baby from drowning?
Do tell. Since you know so much about what god can or cant do, lets hear it from an expert.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
How as it rigged? well, let me take a crack at it.
1)God creates everything, including sin.
2)God tells men "do not eat from this three" (tree of knowledge)
4)God grants EVERY means for this to happen (The tree, the serpent, the imperfect nature of man)
3)The snake (god-made) approaches men and takes advantage of his natural (or should I say manufactured) proclivity to being tempted.
4)Men, in his imperfect nature (again, god-made) is tempted and goes to the three and eats the apple, thus bringing sin into the world.
5)God's angry, even if he knew all along this was gonna happen (strange kind of guy, isn't he?) and chases men away from eden. Closes the gate and puts a big, fiery sword to guard the entrance (and on a side note, if the garden of eden is on earth, no one has found neither garden nor flaming sword. Odd thing really, you would think a floating sword on fire would catch people's attention)
In recap, god did everything except physically shoving the apple down Adam and Eve's throat.
Well that's bunk. If this is so, it tells more about god being a childish prick than anything else. I mean I could understand why he would also chase snakes off eden, but every other animal too? What did they do to deserve it? And why just animals (and presumably insects too); did he also gave the boot to plants? Where is the justice in this?
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
Did it ever occur to you that suffering exists without Superman vs Kriptonite? Why do you need a fictional hero in the sky to know that rape is bad or cancer is bad? Why don't you use the tools we know work instead of crossing your fingers and hoping for the best?
Will life on this planet die? NO DUH!
The theist shortens the ride by the "Chosen people" motif. The rationalist sees nature and that death is unavoidable and seeks to extend the ride.
As soon as you accept that when you die your atoms become a part of a natural exchange of energy transfer...The sooner you accept that this is all there is and that you wont get 72 virgins, you wont be judged by Osirus or Jesus or Allah or Yahwey......As soon as we dispense with the myth, WE can work to extend the ride of the species.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes. Superman doesn't exist.
I don't.
I do use the tools provided. You and I are both tools as well.
Not sure where this cam from, but OK.
How? Please elaborate. This contention looks quite interesting.
Again, I ask, how does theism prevent this?
If we are nothing more than the sum of our electrochemical processes, I ask you, how are we any more significant than, say, combustion?
Quite the contrary. It is because of the intrinsic dignity of each and every human life as a gift from God that we must seek the well being, not necessarily of the species, but of each indiviual human being.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
1. I'm glad you haven't killed your children. I still think that it's due more to legal constraints against such actions than by anything the biblical god has laid out. He's the one who advocated stoning disobedient children, remember?
2. How was the test rigged? Adam and Eve were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they die. They apparently didn't know the meanings of goos, evil or death (having never run into these concepts before). God set them up for failure.
3. I'm glad you are not as much of a freak as the John Hagee/Pat Robertson types who claim such disasters are God's wrath made manifest. The collateral damage quip still makes god out to be a wanton killer.
4. Except that God didn't really do anything - if He did, that would leave the problem of him raising himself from the dead.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
God created humans with free will, sin didn't exist for Man prior to the Fall. That was Man's choice.
Yup.
God provides the tree, that much is correct. The serpent is a personification of the Devil. Another being who chose a path other than what God had intended and was lonely in his misery. Man was created in the image of God, not imperfectly, he chose the path of imperfection.
Takes advantage of Man's ability to choose, yes.
More disappointed than angry, I think.
If you're a fundie, it's a problem. Eden wasn't a physical place, but a state of existence, our share, our access to the Divine.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
wow, do you really not get the concept of unlimited power? I did all of this in my first post to this thread already but here goes again. With unlimited power over everything known to us in the universe (to a creator, definer and instigator of everything in the universe, this power is a given) one could make death and suffering anything you wanted it to be on any scale you wanted it to be on. One could make death and suffering dramatic and terrifying on one scale while also being mundane and obsolete on another scale and one could put their creations on both scales simultaneously. You could make death and suffering an illusion if you had the unlimited power to do so.
This is not unimaginable, we dramatise the illusion of death and suffering ourselves all you need is a few props and bit of good method acting. What would we do with the same unlimited power to create a piece of dramatic art. If we could literally have bruce willis die hard in one movie then appear live and well in another production, we would. If we could use death and suffering to drive the fiat of our story without any real consequences to anyone, we would. Moreover, if we were given the choice to play an immersed character role as a dying person in the full knowledge that there was no ultimate consequence to death, who of us wouldn't take that opportunity?
The point is simple, having unlimited power to create death to be anything at all you wanted it to be and serve any purpose at all you would intend it to serve, would creating it limit your benevolence? Or to put it another way if you have unlimited power to create death to be anything to anyone, and serve any purpose to any one without limitation - are the creating of death/suffering and the having of benevolence necessarily mutually exclusive?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
You are arguing over semantics.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK, we value ourselves as individuals. Do you need Vanna White to give you a clue? You insist on magic being part of the program and that is your demise.
"Life is a gift from god"
NO! Biological life is a result of evolution independent of the atheist wishes or Christian wishes.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I do get it, and that is why it is the biggest line of bullshit ever made up by the human mind.
"IF" I have unlimited power, then I can knock up a girl without my penis(God/Jesus). "If" I have unlimited power, then I can determine the sex of your baby(ALLAH). "If" I have unlimited power, I can also fart a full sized Lamborginni out of my ass.
If "ifs" and "butts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a party. I am not interested in what you claim. Your claims are as regular as a bowel movement.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Where? Please show me where I'm getting gymnastic with words.
But why? What makes our electrochemical processes more significant that non-biological chemical processes?
Not magic, Divine intent realized through a carefully engineered, created nature. BTW, I hold to the theory of evolution and a 15 billion or so year old universe.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
So why is your "divine intent" more realistic than that of a Muslim? Why is it the "Divine intent" of Ra, Osiris and Horus died out, where your motif eventually succeeded?
To you it is "Divine" , however to me, it is YOU mistaking magic for marketing. Your motif is simply the Britney Spears of deity ideas and as about as full of the same substance. I wish I could suck on Heidi Clume's breasts, but the odds of that happening are as likely as as Bush becoming a democrat.
SELL SELL SELL is not only the motif of business, it is also the motif of deity belief.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Before we have another one of those pesky misunderstandings in our hands, we should clarify the terms. Would you mind telling me what is it that you refer to as "sin"?
Ok, so the tree and the imperfect nature of man are god made. I'm not that big of a bible reader, I've only read it twice and that was a couple of years ago, so I'm a bit hazy on the part were it said that the snake was the devil. I only remember this reference from Milton's Paradise Lost so, again, would you mind telling me where does it say the snake was the devil? I apologize for my bad memory, but I just don't recall that reference.
My point subsists: If god knew all along that was gonna happen, why feel anything at all? Let's leave aside the obvious question: If god has knowledge of everything his creation is ever going to do beforehand, why then create it in the first place?
Not a physical place but a state of existence??? You mean not a physical place on earth but somewhere else, yes? If not, then how do you get tossed out from a state of existence? And if it's not physical, then earth, the tree, Adam and Eve were just parables? Because they had to had physical bodies in order to eat the apple, unless this is all metaphysical, just like a christian heart. Could you please describe this state of existence?
Also, you still haven't commented on my other question regarding the expelling of all animals due to the fall of man. where is the justice on that? And what about insects and plants, were they casted out from eden too as "collateral damage"?
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
I don't think my concept of the Divine intent is a lot different from that of a Muslim, since, after all, Islam is a Christian heresy. The difference comes when the Muslim sees the continuation of the existence of all merely as a "habit" of God, whereas the Christain view sees existence as system explicable by observation.
Because the Christian world view allows examination of a universe created by God ex nihilo (ie from nothing). The Christian view sees nature as works of God, but set within a rational system, whereas polytheistic traditions see different aspects of nature as gods in and of themsselves. The animistic and polytheistic world views make critical examination of nature and the universe extremely difficult without running afoul of deities.
Thanks for sharing.
We're doin something wrong at St Mary's then because we're failing to post a profit, that's for damn skippy.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Me, too. I've grown rather attached to the wee darlins.
I disagree. I think it's more a function of paternal affection and the natural law. I must say, I've never experienced the remotest desire to do one of em in.
Which is why I'm thankful to God for establishing a Church to provide guidance in these cases. I'm really revolted by the idea of killing kids. Dunno that I could do it.
That they had no concept of good, I don't think is quite accurate. Eve was able to communicate to the serpent the nature of God's admonition that they would die if they ate of the tree. She further was able to admire the beauty of the tree, so it's apparent she had some concept of "good". I think the only knowledge they gained was that of the experience of sin (ie, the willful disobedience of God), and the loss of the good of original grace and innocence. Adam certainly had to have some understanding of death, lest why would God have made it part of the curse? He never asks God to explain death to him.
Well, I'm Catholic, which in Hagee's opinion makes me a minion of the anti-Christ, so I got that goin for me.
If indeed the whole "Fall of Man" was a set up, which it wasn't. Since it wasn't, the onus falls onto Man.
The same ressurection awaits me (I hope). Yet, oddly enough, I'm in no particular hurry to "shuffle off this mortal coil."
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Not at all. Sin is the willful disobedience of God.
No, the tree and Man are God's creation. Man wasn't imperfect, God saw that the creation of Man was "very good". He wanted, though, a creature who would choose to love Him, hence Man's free will, his ability to choose.
There's oviously something different about this particular serpent since it alone of all the creatures in the garden talks. We don't see Adam and Eve holding discourse with a donkey, or inviting the chimps over for coffee and cribbage.
A fair question, and one I really don't know the answer to, but lemme chew on it for a while.
Out of love.
No, they lived on earth, but in a state of perfect grace sharing fully in the divine life of God.
Kinda like being rich and then squandering and losing all your money on some lame-brained scheme. You're not gonna be able to live the same way you did before because you don't have the means to do so. By deliberate and willful disobedience of God they squadered the perfect grace of God which had allowed them to live in perfect communion with Him.
Not quite, but a large part of the story is metaphorical. To parse it down to the bare bones, our original human ancestors, one man and one woman lived in perfect harmony with God and their environment until, through the jealous scheming of an evil being, they deliberately participated in some act they knew to be in direct contradiction to the will of God and all hell broke loose (pun intended).
I thought I did comment on that, if I didn't, I'm sorry. But, yes, if in any sense they "enjoyed" paradise. I don't think that they did though, since I think that Eden was a state of existtence intended only for Man.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
ok, I'll comment on that in a sec.
Man wasn't imperfect, so was he perfect? Or so you seem to imply by "very good", even if something can be very good and still not be perfect. But just for the sake of argument I'll ride on that assumption until corrected if I'm wrong. Now, the logic would go something like this:
-We have two perfect entities: God and Man before the fall.
-A perfect entity, by definition, cannot fall into error, for that runs counter with the properties of perfection.
-Man, despite his perfect nature, fall into the error of willfully disobeying god's perfect will (or sinned, according to your definition).
The catch of course lies in this last step. A perfect being cannot fall into error. The will of god, being that He is perfect, is also perfect, therefore to go against said will is an error and thus impossible, free will or not, since you cannot go against your nature. This reminds me of the heaven contradiction. In heaven, you retain your free will but you are incapable of committing sin. If free will is the capacity of choice, then how can this be called free will?
So at this point, we can arrive to two possible conclusions: a) "free will" is not as free as we think, or b) the pre-fall man was not perfect. Furthermore, either conclusion only strengths the argument that the test was indeed rigged: If A is correct, then "free will" is really god controlled, and if B is right, then "free will" was delivery made -by god- to be proclive to temptation.
Well, yes, since it could talk and was self conscious and all, but being different doesn't mean being evil nor does it conclusively proves that the devil is involved, regardless of what many people think (theist and otherwise). The snake being different only points out to that, it was different. I could just as easily claim that the snake was granted the ability to talk by God, who requested it's collaboration to test Adam and Eve by tempting them, and if this was so then the snake really got screwed just for being a good sport, but I'm merely riding an assumption regarding the snake, and I think you are too.
Ok, no hurries.
Mmm, I wonder how that works? "God thinks to himself: Ah, I'm about to create the universe and all my little critters too. Mmm, but this human thingies are really gonna get the short end of the stick; The first two will disobey me, so I'll have to evict them, then one of their kids goes fraticidal because I just don't like him that much (and how could I? I already know he's a murderer, the little prick), then I'll have to drown a whole bunch of 'em, and even then most will just burn in hell, *note to self: create hell - make it horrendously hot and dark*. Well, I love my critters, so I'll just create 'em anyway"
Ok, so it was on earth. Then we just haven't been that thorough looking for it's archaeological remains. Let's ditch the flaming sword, I think we can agree it was just a parabole.
Again, not evil (not necessarily, we don't have proof of it's motivation, or if it was the devil). And also, the rigged test matter is still open.
I think the original comment (not made by me) regarding the animals and their being casted out of eden was related to their newfound mortality, which you agreed that it could be considered collateral damage. Now, if in the divine state of eden there was no suffering nor death (or so I'm told), then animals were wrongly punished alongside the fallen man, for now they too suffer and die. They have partaken of man's punishment without justification, so the question stands: where is the justice in that? Plants and insects got screwed in the fall too, it seems (after all, all life is precious).
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
1. Yep, kids are fun to have around. so many things to be seen through new eyes. I am glad you brought up parental affection and natural law. Two things that have absolutely nothing to do with the Christian God. Otherwise, you'd only see it among "Christians". Oe do you stand against your Christ and claim only Christians can love their kids?
2. So you are thankful to a man-made institution to fix what God messed up? Doesn't look all that good for God.
3. Ok. They didn't know what god meant by good/evil or obedience/disobedience. Since God was judging on those standards, wouldn't it have been nice for them to know. Oops, then they'd already know good and evil and thus no need for the test. Can't let them take the test if there's a chance they might pass.
4. Hagee is a freak, yes. We have commonality there.
5. You haven't really shown me anything to say the fall wasn't a set up (except to say it wasn't)
6. Nice dodge. If God was dead how could he raise himself? Or did Jesus stop being god while he was in that state (in which case God sacrificed nothing)?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
This has gotten way off track here.
Here is the point of my OP. Some respondents said, and rightfully so, that they WOULD NOT allow a baby to suffer like that, "IF" they were God.
My point to them is that makes them extremely moral compared to the God they claim.
AND in addition, for those who buy the fictional story of the flood, only one family survives. That would mean that BABIES outside that family SWALLOWED WATER AND THEIR LUNGS FILLED AND THEY DROWNED, if we are going by the parameters of the story.
"POOF, I can make the stars and earth in the blink of an eye. But I cant or wont stop a baby from suffering BY DROWNING"
With all that unlimited power, WHY would you CHOSE TO ALLOW that kind of suffering when YOU DON'T HAVE TO? The point of this post is to show the absurdity of "all powerful" and "all loving" as claims of attributes.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Then again, Brian, the more passionately they defend their God, the more absurd it seems.
It is fun watching them go through the mental gymnastics, though.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
A bit short on time this afternoon, but I wanna reply to some of your post. As you cab see, this thread has ended uo getting quite busy for me. LOL!
I'm using the word "perfect" here to describe man's nature as being exactly what God intended, that is, he left Man with the ability to choose to love Him. God wants Man to be free to love him, he doesn't want obiligatory love from automatons. There was no deceit intended on the part of God.
As far as the heaven "contradiction", how could one possibly wish to do contrary to the will of God when one is in the presence of perfect love?
True, we are both reading different interpretations into the text here, and I agree that and argument can be made for the "conspiracy theory" between God and the serpent. I believe, though, that my interpretation is simpler and requires fewer steps and meets the requirements of Ockam's Razor, that is, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the most likely.
You're very close to the truth here. It's much like our relationships. The foreknowledge of the possibility of pain, heartbreak and disappointment does not prevent us from marrying, or having children. Regardless of the heartbreak I suffer as a result of the decisions I see my children make, my love for them is pretty unconditional, my compassion for them close to endless.
Man was free from suffering in Paradise. Remember that Adam and Eve were, after all, corporeal. They had bodies, bodies which required nutrition, they were given dominion over all Creation. They ate something, even prior to the Fall. As a result, plants, at the very least, died to sustain their bodies. I would suspect that animals did as well, since I'm one of those people who can't concieve of anyplace being called Paradise without steak.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Absloutley not. The natural law is common and ingrained in all humanity.
God didn't mess anything up. We do. The Church, founded by Jesus Christ, entrusted to the care of St Peter and his successors, is the guardian of the Word of God. It is the silliness of the Reformation and its "solas" (sola scriptura, sola fide), the idea that individuals are free to interpret Scripture individually, that provides us whackos like Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, and John Hagee.
I don't think the whole "tree" thing was a "test" in the first place. When I tell a three year old not to stick his fingers in a power outlet, I'm not testing him, I'm preventing a positive evil from occurring (I know, I know...I shoulda put outlet covers on). The three year old doesn't obey because he's in fear of being electrocuted. Having never experienced electrocution, he has no idea of the evil of it. He obeys out of fear of invoking my wrath.
The "tree" served a purpose in God's creation, it wasn't there simply to tempt.
I'm a bit of a freak by your standards, I suppose, but this guy and his ilk are well beyond the pale.
See item 3
It's that whole Trinity thing. Three Divine persons, one God. All throughout His life, Jesus prays to someone he calls His Father. He doesn't mutter to Himself, hoping to be heard and answered by Himself, He speaks to another.
It's not through His own power that Christ is ressurected (sp?), but through the intervention of the Father. Don't ask me how it works, 'cause quite frankly, I dunno. I never will in this life.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
no I wouldnt watch babys drown in water. I would be to busy forcing people to have sex in my name while i watch them.so if the babys are drowning i wasnt there to see it. just like a real god.
If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..
Im still kinda dissappointed that practically nobody wanted to have fun with this topic...
They got all defensive and philisophical... and then metaphorical >.>
Pity, this coulda been a hoot
What Would Kharn Do?
The reason the thread died so quickly is that the believers did not want to admit that they were moral compared to the immoral deity they claim to defend.
What they don't understand is that THEY DON'T HAVE TO keep defending fiction because they want an imaginary being protecting them from reality.
The reality they don't want to face is that good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people and life is A CRAP SHOOT.
But to assign the harm to a baby via Superman vs Kriptonite is as absurd as assigning lighting to Thor.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If I were God I wouldn't need to rescue the drowning baby because the baby woudn't exist to begin with nor would the water...nor would anything exist at all. The problem would have been solved by not allowing it to have ever occurred to begin with, thus sayeth the God of Nothingness.
The Judeo Christian God on the other hand would simply look at the drowning baby, shrug his shoulders in indifference and go back to watching Pat Robertson on TV.
*dripping wet* Well, I like a few giggles just as much as the next man, but I was just too busy saving the damn baby. Some asshole stole my shoes while I was saving the rugrat, probably yahweh, the damn bum, so now I'm pissed, so I'll throw him in again if you can make a gag out of it.
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
nah, don't worry about it.
I'm not saying there was any deceit, I'm saying that humans have a proclivity to being tempted, it's in our nature, and if god made us, then he made us that way. Therefore he knew we wouldn't pass the test. I can make a regular 5 year old take the SAT test and pretty much know the results beforehand (bad analogy, I know, but the point stands).
Using Occam's Razor in a pro-god argument, now that's a new one!
In my interpretation, I make this assumptions:
1) God creates everything
2) God then created man (including his nature)
3) God prohibited man to eat from the tree of knowledge
4) God wished to test his creation, so he granted the snake the ability to talk and then asked for it's assistance.
5) The snake tempts man
6) Man eats and fails the test, and thus falls from grace
7) God punish everyone (his snake buddy and all other life too. Unfairly I might add)
Now, in your interpretation, you take the following steps. If I'm over adding or subtracting then correct me:
1) God creates everything
2) The devil doesn't like who's running the show, so he and others revel against god
3) God kicks them out of heaven and casts them into hell
4) God then created man (and grants them free will)
5) God prohibited man to eat from the tree of knowledge
6) The devil, for whatever reason (we haven't commented on his motivation besides him being evil, still it's inconsequential to the point, so no matter), goes into eden and takes the form of a snake
7) The devil, in his snake form, tempts man
8 ) Man eats and fails the test, and thus falls from grace
9) God punish man and snake, and cast them out of eden, including all other animals
Again, this is my interpretation of your interpretation so I might have misinterpreted and added more steps, so I'll wait on your comment on this one.
Keyword: possibility. Indeed, we embark ourselves in a realm of possibilities, some good, some bad, but we do not let our fear for possibly bad outcomes to freeze us to a halt, because said outcomes are but that, a possibility. With an omniscient being, things are not the same. Such an entity doesn't roll the dices and hopes for the best, it knows, before hand, the result it's gonna get. If God is truly omniscient, he knew, for a fact, the outcome of his creation prior to their creation. This brings me to question his love; if knowing beforehand that man was gonna get the short and pointy end of the stick and still goes ahead and creates them anyway, then I'm guessing love isn't that much of a factor.
Ok, I stand half corrected.
But still, to me is a real injustice to have all living beings thrown out of eden just because man's error, and see no justification for this course of action.
Steak... dammit, now I have the cravings.
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
Yo Brian, I've come for my cookie ....
"If you were God, what would you do ?"
.... I'd write the book called Brian37, as I AM ....
Atheism Books.
My apologies to Brian37 for the blatant hijacking of his thread. I have no idea how this happened. If anyone feels it appropriate to take up this discussion elsewhere, let me know, and I'd be delighted to do so.
Albedo_00, thanks so much for the civil and polite discussion. It's very nice to find folks who can disagree in a civil and polite manner.
I don't think the analogy is bad at all. The part I think you're disconnecting on is viewing the "tree" as a test. As I explained to jcgadfly in a previous post, I don't think that the "tree", whatever it symbolizes, is a test, but an integral part of Creation, whit a definite purpose. God's prohibition against eating therefrom is not a test, but a warning against an action which will lead to a positive evil. The prohibition is an admonition provided out of love, much as I might warn a child not to stick his finger in a power outlet. That child, having no experience of electrocution, has no fear of that fate, but rather dreads my anger.
I see your point. It does appear that my theory has more steps. It just goes to show that I'm no logician. I concede this point, although I've always been wary of conspiracy theories.
The negation of God's love in light of His omniscience works if this physical realm is all there is, but that is not what the Christian faith holds. God knows not only of the suffering we go through in this life, He knows the glory and joy He waiting for us in the next. What is 70 or so years of the human condition compared to an eternity of bliss?
I really don't think that the lot of animals changed all that much as a result of the fall. Being eaten in Paradise, I would think, sucks just as hard as being eaten outside of Paradise.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Yeah, I should apologize too. Sorry man, it's just that saving that baby got me metaphysical.
Not at all, it's been fun. And besides, as I've always said: I give hell as I see fit. You weren't rude nor patronizing, weren't trying to convert me or said you were gonna pray for my soul or anything, so it's only fair.
On the tree of knowledge account, I don't really see it as a part of a test in and on itself; the test was to see if man would obey god's command or not, regardless of the command itself. It might have been "don't eat pork" of "don't say beetle juice three times in a row". But now that you mention it, to prohibit knowledge (and this is from the view of someone really curious) is a questionable thing in itself. Why would god prohibit knowledge? This reeks of monopoly.
God killed Hoffa and founded the trilateral commission LOL
Wait a minute, trilateral (meaning three sides) and The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost? I might be onto something here!
I didn't meant the average life of a modern man, but rather was talking about, for instance, those people who would die and go to hell without having a fighting chance for salvation. I once heard from a priest that the people who died before the birth of jesus would go to hell, or at least purgatory (this I remember from Dante), or other people who knew nothing about Jesus and Yahwe and repentance and so forth, and would thus go to hell. Those are the critters that really got screwed in creation.
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
Pardon me for this, may I interject on this part because I think that both your lists include some extraneous matter:
1) God creates everything
This is a given so no contest here.
2) God then created man (including his nature)
This I would disagree with, I'd say that man is inclusive in the set of everything, so I'd let this step go.
3) God prohibited man to eat from the tree of knowledge
nothing wrong here, for me.
4) God wished to test his creation, so he granted the snake the ability to talk and then asked for it's assistance.
This is a specious step. It just says that the snake talks, so I'd be inclined to let the text dictate at what point this phenomenon was created; include step 4 in 'everything' and then this is just a rehash of step 1.
5) The snake tempts man
fine.
6) Man eats and fails the test, and thus falls from grace
If a test was created, for said humans to fail, then it applies to step 1 whereupon every thing was created. If the test is part of everything then it was created, and vice versa if it was not created it is not part of everything. Either way it's mention doesn't belong in step 4, it belongs either in step 1 or is not connected to the logic at all.
7) God punish everyone (his snake buddy and all other life too. Unfairly I might add)
I believe this is a misconception. The text separates what 'God says' occurs next as direct consequence from what is chosen by him as indirect consequence. Most of the consequences fit the former criteria. Pain in childbirth and enmity between the snake and the seed are the two explicit 'punishments' according to the text. This compels us to add another step rather than take one away.
So in bare bones-
1. God creates everything
2. God prohibits man to eat from the tree of knowledge
3. The snake tempts man
4. Man eats and his state of awareness changes immediately.
5. God expounds that these changes are not the end of consequence which in total entails, what has been construed since, 'a fall from grace'
6. God chooses specific additional consequences entailing a punishment - struggle between offspring and snake, multiplication of suffering.
Another misconception often applied to the Genesis story is that the casting out of Adam and Eve from Eden is given to be a punishment. But that is not the story. The story goes that God fears man will live for eternity in his newly acquired state, to prevent this happening he puts man out of eden and seals it up. This is given to be a temporary bar in a later book of the bible but in Genesis the term of expulsion from Eden for man is indefinite.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
well as I AM GOD , I would continue having eating and digesting my blue eyed apple Eloise
, it's my nature, my snake so tempts ye, "Man eats and his state of awareness changes immediately", yeah Ain't that the truth, my snake was right !
Hey Eloise, me just messing with words, you are so above me, so cool ....
Me got snake , but not much brains. Ya gotta laugh, and never ever cry no more
Gosh, I feel so safe and nice with you Eloise ..... thanks so much ....
Atheism Books.
"test"? Watching a baby drowned when you don't have to let it drowned is a "test"? To who? What would the baby learn from such a painful horrible death? How would it be a "test" to the parents?
A test is something you take to get a job or get into college. The claim of an all powerful being to allow such suffering when it doesn't have to is cruel.
Nature is a reality and certainly things that harm humans happen all the time. But there is NO NEED to insert Superman vs Kriptonite to explain both the good or the bad.
But, since you brought it up, lets take a look at the absurd story of Adam, and yes, it is JUST A STORY.
You say that it was Adam's choice? HOW, who put the tree there first KNOWING Adam would do what he did? God blamed Adam for a tree ADAM DID NOT PUT THERE, and on top of that was blamed for the SIN he had no prior knowledge of? How is that a choice? Sounds like a setup, not a choice.
Adam's punishment is like chopping a kid's hands off for touching the hot stove the kid has never seen that you bought and put in front of him knowing he knows nothing about it, told him not to touch and blame the kid for his lack of knowledge.
Imagine if Child Protective Services acted like God. They see an abused Child and when it is murdered by one of the parents, imagine if they said, "It was a test to the other parent|". Or, "It was a test to the child" "That is why we did nothing, even though we could have."
READ.....REALLY READ THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Do you see the blatant absurdity of this? This alone contradicts the concept of an all powerful being. Please tell me exactly WHY an all powerful God should or would have to fear anything? You just pawned PAWNED yourself.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm referring to the text of a story here, Brian, not my beliefs. That is how the story goes, it says: 'lest man reach forth and take also from the tree of life'. Perhaps it would be useful to you in a debate about biblical contradiction.
It doesn't have to be an absurdity that an omnipotent God didn't wipe the slate clean and start over to save man from making a choice he might regret, one could simply choose not to interfere. Omnipotence includes the power of choice. Like in the analogy I wrote earlier, if I had an earth moving machine and my hands to choose from, being powerful didn't strip me of choice to use the full capacity of my power, just like having the option of using my hands didn't determine for me that I should not use the earthmover. Since God's power is not bound to dictate his actions, the question of what is shifts to his attitude, or benevolence. If God decided benevolently to send man to till the ground instead of, say, wiping the slate clean and starting over, or doing away with the tree of life for good, or doing away with the all the consequences he had decided to create to begin with, then maybe the "original sin" is not so bad as people make it out to be.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
See look how much fun we could be having, but no, every body wants to whine and bitch and take themselves way to serious... that is truly sad God Would smite you for being so lame and failing to have fun. I am starting to get sick of all the philosophical BS.
If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..
Yeah Slayne, as you say "I am starting to get sick of all the philosophical BS. " ////
LOL, Someone said "Pluck the eye out of reason", ummm what does that actually mean ???
WOW , The many ways of words .... without the speaker, it gets even more fucking nuts ..... Buddha said "fuck god", in a nice loving message ! 
Atheism Books.
Thanks and likewise. I try not to be rude (doesn't always work), and as far as conversion, well, that's up to you and no amount of prodding from me would do so. As far as the prayer thing, well, I just can't help myself, those who are not aware of the Gospel, and those who can't bring themselves to believe for whatever reason are collectively in my prayers daily. Sorry. LOL
In all honesty, I must admit that the fact that it is the "tree on knowledge of good and evil" has always puzzled me as well. I never have gotten a satisfactory answer on this one.
He was wrong. Check out the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16 (I think). The rich man is someplace pretty unpleasant, but Lazarus is "in the bosom of Abraham" is how I remember the text in my Bible reading nad he doesn't seem to be all that bad off.
Gotta run right now. I'll finish replying later.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
I am just struck yet again how people who don't seem totally devoid of brain activity and some education can take the whole blatantly allegorical creation myth so seriously. If it wasn't a 'test' why the hell was the tree placed there?
Applying Occam's Razor in the context of a fairy tale???
Arrgh! I suppose once you buy into the idea of 'all-powerful' creator beings and all the other fanciful ideas that go along with the God idea, you can buy into any nonsense...
So much discourse about such ultimate non-issues...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
If this comment is directed at me, Bob, I consider it a compliment (left-handed though it may be) coming from you. I have admired much of what you have to say, although I disagree with your points of view. I find your knowledge in some areas, notably science, to surpass mine by leaps and bounds and have never attemted to respond to them for that reason. Very logical, knowledgable and well written.
I assume that you realize that I am not a biblical literalist, and that I do understand the Creation account of Genesis to be allegorical and not fact. As St Augustine said of the Scriptures, "We do not read in the Gospel that the Lord said, 'I am sending you the Holy Spirit, that he may teach you about the course of the sun and the moon.' He wished to make people Christians, not astronomers." I believe that the Craetion account in Genesis allegorically matches what we know of the physical processes by which the world came into being closely enough to be convincing.
I'm away from my books at the moment, but I seem to recall a Jewish source (I can't remember offhand whether it's actually Talmudic or not) that teaches that God intended to allow them the fruit of the tree at a later time. I'll look into this when I'm back with my books.
Yeah, you have to admit it was pretty ballsy. I still think I could be onto something there, but as you can see I'm no logician.
I don't think our spiritual origins are any less of an issue than our physical origins. Of course, the existence of the spiritual is the crux of the atheist-theist discussion.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
My expression of frustration was not particularly directed at you, totus...
However, a few comments.
I see little or no way to fit the Genesis narratives to what we currently understand of the origins of the Universe, the Earth, and life. Far easier to understand them as just another variation on the various creation and origin myths ancient peoples have come up with again and again, than try and read into it something deep and meaningful.
The only point of studying these texts, IMHO, is to learn about the way peoples of those times saw the world and their place in it.
I find it much easier to understand why they may have included the various elements being puzzled over here from the point of view of ancient cultures with magical thinking, beliefs in Gods, taboos, and rituals, than try and work out why some all-knowing creator being would have done such things.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
'EY! Izzat some kinda cheap shot at lefties??!?!?
See, that, that right there, that's why if I were all-powerful, I'd be a total dick about it... because I am sick of all of this anti-left-handed bigotry!
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
A harem to you too, BobSpence1
, the more the better of you .... educated kids .... make lots of them , come on girls .... do this Bob guy .....
the Gospel Truth,
I laugh but it aint' funny .... some thing is all messed up .... who done that ? and why ? Well I'll be damn , there it is in the bible , but not many get it, not many read it , I don't even recommend it, so why is the bible the big shit?
People are fucking idiots is why ..... what a bummer it is .... rejecting me god again in the new science I have givin you .....
Maybe I should kill you all again and start over .....
Atheism Books.
THANK YOU AND EXACTAMUNDO!
When someone sticks rabbits feet in as the automatic answer, they preclude themselves from finding real answers. When someone starts from the position, "I am observing some bad shit, I don't know why it is happening, let me study this bad shit, and see if if we can find a solution to it." That is rational approach whereas assuming a magical man with a pitchfork is pulling strings gets you nowhere. And not only does it get you nowhere, it stops you from thinking, when an answer can be found you lose it because of willful ignorance, and that is not only dangerous to one's intellect, it can be potentially dangerous to one's own life.
Seat belts are a prime example. Early cars didn't have them and even after people invented them the mass public ignored the knowledge of them and people died needlessly in car accidents because they willfully ignored what was obviously benifitial to them because their egos wouldn't allow them to listen to others.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I see you implying that we should view the entire omnibus of ancient human ancestors with a supercilious eye. It seems like a hasty generalisation to me, why assume that they cannot know or understand something which we do not, or something we have forgotten?
OK~ condescend ideas that are clearly lazy and illogical extrapolations from an old fairy tale, I've got no qualms with that, but why lump the original storyteller in with the chinese whisperers? I don't see why I should do that off hand. Actually a good reason not to is that stories throughout time have always been sources of inspiration and philosophy for common people, stories are great things and storytellers have always been indispensable to the advancement of human society. So I'd rather have my cake and eat it too, Genesis, as you said, is clearly allegorical, but of what I have my own prerogative to decide. And of course, this is Genesis, the foundational book of one of the most massive social movements in our human history, I do care just a little about understanding it well.
Well yes, when I did that just before I meant it essentially as a mental exercise within the context of the story, Brian pointed out that the narrative fell into absurdity, but really it only does if you adopt a particular conclusion before reading it. This tale doesn't run it's own head into absurdity, it takes a religion to fcuk it up that much.
Outside of the narrative there is no reason to assume any all-powerful creator did anything at all, it's just a story. But I do like to stand on both sides of the looking glass, so call me Alice.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Lemme address a number of points with this post....
BMcD....LOL...no offense inteded to southpaws.
BobSpence...damn, my ego was really stoked for a sec thinking you were addressing me directly with the "smart" thing. As soon as I finish posting, I'm going to put some ice on my bruised self-esteem.
Eloise...what wonderful thinking and prose (although I am a pretty traditional Christian and disagree with more than a few of your views). You oughta write a book. I'd buy it.
Certainly the authors of Genesis realized that the world was a very complex place. The Creation accounts are undoubtedly an attempt to explain that world. There is no doubt that, for a long time, adherents of the Abrahamic religions accepted Genesis as literal.
On the other hand, with the growing realization that the natural world is more complex than ever imagined, especially as mankind proceeded into the Middle Ages, came the parralell realization that Genesis was allegory. This dawning realization fueled the idea expressed by St Thomas Aquinas that at those points where Divine Revelation and science conflict, there must be a fault with our interpretation of Revelation. This thought in turn fueled the foundations of modern science and the great revival of thought signified by the foundation of the modern university system by the Church in the 13th century. It is to this system that we owe a great debt. It produced the minds like Copernicus, Mendel, LeMaitre (all of whom were clergymen).
That there have been points of conflict between some church men and scientists is undeniable. But honest examination reveals mistakes on the part of the aggrieved scientists as well as on behalf of the Church.
I would reiterate though, that Genesis is not a science text. It does point out that the Universe had a beginning and sprang form nothing (contrary to the creation accounts of other religions). Genesis does teach that the Universe "evolved" through a series of steps (not seen in other creation myths), each dependent on the previous step. It does make the point that, while God was content to let other animals take their own form, the creation of Man by God was a "hands on", intentional, carefully guided process. Genesis states that Man's Creation involved an additional step, which imbued him with a quality that the other animals don't share, the ability to reason.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
BINGO! And this admission coming from a theist. And neither is the rest of the book. It doesn't explain HOW a human man gave life out of his rib to a fully grown woman.
You want your cake and eat it too but your words defy you. WHY do you take the book seriously at all if it is all metaphor? I can get morals out of fairy tales like Peter Pan, Harry Potter and Dr Sues WITHOUT actually believing them to be real and certainly not the Hocus Pocus.
It had nothing to do with the ancients living in a complex world. The reason the bible was written was for the same reason the Ancient Egyptians wrote their "book of the dead" and for the same reason the Reg Vedas were written. People liked the idea of being protected by a magical sky daddy(s)/gods. So they incorporated old motifs from prior stories to compete to become a newer version.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Even the story of an instruction from the creator, disobedience, and consequent punishment occurs in several different places.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology