The tree of knowledge had no magical or supernatural properties. It was simply a tree which Jehovah used as a representation of his right to decide for his creation what was right and what was wrong. A representation of his authority. His sovereignty. In deliberately taking of the fruit of that forbidden tree Adam was in effect saying "I will know for myself what is good and what is bad." It wasn't knowledge. It wasn't sex. It wasn't magic.
What is the knowledge? It wasn't just the simple knowledge of what was good and what was bad because God had already told them all of that. It wasn't knowledge in the sense of personal experience because God hadn't experienced that either, so in that way they couldn't have become "like him." It was that they judged for themselves what was good and what was bad. They rejected him. They were not listening to him.
In a footnote to Genesis 2:17, the Jerusalem Bible says this: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, Genesis 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God's sovereignty, a sin of pride."
Your point being?
I don't know why God would chose to make us rational/give us choice is the first place.
Quote from: Crow on October 28, 2011, 12:05:58 AM
Your point being?
That it certainly was uncontaminated by cheese.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 28, 2011, 12:09:10 AM
I don't know why God would chose to make us rational/give us choice is the first place.
Why wouldn't he? One of Jesus' purpose for coming and living here on earth as a man was to demonstrate that it could be done. A man could be perfect and without sin. Why couldn't we think for ourselves and not make the right decision?
I rather think you have the cart before the horse. First you need to prove your underlying assumptions that this god exists and that the myth is true.
Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 03:15:29 AM
Why wouldn't he? One of Jesus' purpose for coming and living here on earth as a man was to demonstrate that it could be done. A man could be perfect and without sin.
So, when Jesus said that none shall get to the father except through me (sorry butchered verse I'm sure); with your interpretation of the fall and thinking in metaphors wouldn't that mean that no one who isn't perfect without sin could go to heaven?
Yet at the same time, Jesus acknowledged that no one is without sin (casting stones and such) so do you view that as contextual and a remark on the time or do you view is like other Christians as a comment on the human condition?
Btw, it's been a busy week but I think that your understanding of Christianity doesn't sound that far removed from what I believed in high school/early college...except that you may have more research into it than I did; the reason I left the faith wasn't necessarily internal to the Bible (I always accepted most of it as metaphor and a guide anyway) but rather the down to basics why do we think god is real to begin with question.
Quote from: Velma on October 28, 2011, 04:37:52 AM
I rather think you have the cart before the horse. First you need to prove your underlying assumptions that this god exists and that the myth is true.
I'm not so sure about that. When I talk to skeptics of the Bible I tell them not to try and buy into the God myth, to just look at the Books as if they were a fictional account and measure the authority of them by their harmony and truthfulness. The real import thing is to get rid of whatever you were taught or preconceived notions. The pagan influence of modern day Christianity. The science block. For example, Genesis Chapter 1: The numbers in brackets correspond with the verse number in Genesis Chapter 1. [1] is Genesis 1:1 etc.
[1] The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.
At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
[2] The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.
The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)
[3] Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.
The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:
A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."
Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."
The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.
[4] Light and darkness is divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.
[5] Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15)
The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding were indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)
[6] The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: "But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T." - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes.
[7] In verse 6 and 7 part of the water that covers the Earth is lifted to the heavens to form a water canopy surrounding the planet. This canopy was used to flood the earth during the days of Noah. (2 Peter 3:5-6)
[11] The Biblical kind, from the Hebrew leminoh, Greek genos, and Latin genus, differs from the Evolutionist kind. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur, a boundary between these kinds is drawn where fertilization ceases. Apple trees, for example, don't produce broccoli, squirrels don't produce horses.
In biology a kind applies to animals and plants which possess one or more distinctive characteristics, meaning the biological term kind may contain several varieties within a Biblical kind.
[14] The light in verse 14 is different from that in verse 3. In verse 3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in verse 14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible. See [3]
The sun, moon and stars are set as a sign of the seasons, days and years. A most accurate timepiece. The use of the term "sign" is often mistaken as a reference to astrology, which is incorrect.
[16] The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8). Also see [1]
[20] The word soul, from the Hebrew nephesh, means "breather." The soul is in the blood, the life itself, of any breathing creature. At Genesis 9:3-4, for example, the Hebrew word nephesh can be translated as life or soul.
[21] Sea monsters, from the Hebrew tanninim, great reptiles. The Hebrew term remes means to creep or move about; an aimless movement. It covers a variety of creatures and distinguishes these animals from domestic or wild birds, beasts and fish.
[24] Cattle; domestic or tame animal (Hebrew behemah).
[25] There are two creation accounts. The first is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second is given according to topical relevance. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) They differ in order and are often wrongly thought to contradict one another.
[26] God refers to his son, Christ Jesus in his heavenly pre-human existence. (Genesis 11:7 / Proverbs 8:30 / John 1:3 / Colossians 1:16) Being made in the likeness, image or semblance of God reflects mankind's potential for being like God, possessing his qualities of wisdom, power, righteousness and love.
[27] Too often it is overlooked by selfish, dominating men that woman too were created in God's image, and thus deserving respect.
[31] God's creation is good. There is no sickness, disease or slow progression to death. The small area they reside in is a paradise reflective of the potential, and in fact the purpose of growing throughout the entire planet. It isn't God's purpose for us to live in sin on Earth and then move on to heaven.
The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn't say.
Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5)
Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8)
Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13)
Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19)
Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23)
Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)
Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:48:43 AM
So, when Jesus said that none shall get to the father except through me (sorry butchered verse I'm sure); with your interpretation of the fall and thinking in metaphors wouldn't that mean that no one who isn't perfect without sin could go to heaven?
The verse wasn't butchered, it was spot on. I'm not sure what you mean by "thinking in metaphors" though. My interpretation of the Bible doesn't allow for the nonsensical notion that when you die you either go to heaven or to hell. It allows for the Biblical idea that the earth was created for man and the meek shall inherit, not heaven, but rather, earth.
Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:48:43 AMYet at the same time, Jesus acknowledged that no one is without sin (casting stones and such) so do you view that as contextual and a remark on the time or do you view is like other Christians as a comment on the human condition?
Well, the verses in question where Jesus supposedly says let him without sin cast the first stone, are spurious. They appear only in later manuscripts. So it never happened but was added on later. It is accurate, though, according to the Bible. We were born in a condition of sin. Some people read a sort of supernatural misapplication into the word sin, but it simply means to miss the mark, of a person or god.
Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:48:43 AMBtw, it's been a busy week but I think that your understanding of Christianity doesn't sound that far removed from what I believed in high school/early college...except that you may have more research into it than I did; the reason I left the faith wasn't necessarily internal to the Bible (I always accepted most of it as metaphor and a guide anyway) but rather the down to basics why do we think god is real to begin with question.
Interesting. I had an irreligious upbringing, did you?
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 11:59:38 PM
The tree of knowledge had no magical or supernatural properties.
{snip}
Correct, as it never existed.
Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 03:15:29 AM
Why wouldn't he? One of Jesus' purpose for coming and living here on earth as a man was to demonstrate that it could be done. A man could be perfect and without sin.
Are you sure you didn't just make that up?
Catholics believe in original sin. This makes it impossible for us to be perfect and without sin, hence Jesus demonstration is unattainable for us mortals. It seems like he was gloating that he is better than us, this seems like a cruel joke.
QuoteCorrect, as it never existed.
Right, Tank, but undeniably it was an important part of the biblical creation myth. It's always puzzled me - why should "knowledge of good and evil" be forbidden? The rest of the religion relies on our having precisely that knowledge.
QuoteCatholics believe in original sin
Which was, of course, the eating of the apple - whatever that is supposed to mean.
I have never been able to see what the story is getting at. Clearly, the whole religion is based on it - but what, exactly? ???
The tree of knowledge represents the world axis, it was a standard metaphor in mythology (eg Yggdrasil in Norse mythology). Hence Genesis describes it as being in the middle of the garden, just as the axis mundi was in the middle of the ancient model of the cosmos. You can read about it here if you want to know more about the concept;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_mundi
Interesting, TFL, thank you. But I'm still no wiser as to what Adam and Eve did that was so wrong.
Quote from: OldGit on October 28, 2011, 11:43:52 AM
Interesting, TFL, thank you. But I'm still no wiser as to what Adam and Eve did that was so wrong.
Disobeyed their father, the ultimate sin in an alpha male dominated triabalistic society.
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 11:59:38 PM
The tree of knowledge
You just made that stuff up. Your interpretation is fascinating. Of course as a Christian that is your right, to interprete as you please and make stuff up to satisfy your wants and desires. By personalising your belief, you couldn't possibly not believe it.
I have my own interpretation. Do you want to hear it?
No?
Oh well, I'm going to write it up anyway. You can choose not to read if you wish :-)
The common theme of the bible is the forgo knowledge and instead seek guidance and faith.
The method is to break down the reader's sense of self worth and replace this with a dependency relationship with the book, the faith and those that choose to represent it with authority.
The story of the tree of knowledge is the introduction of this theme. It is the inception of self doubt into the reader's mind, the idea that seeking knowledge of anything is flawed as one's self is flawed and cannot comprehend anything fully especially in comparison to an all knowing god.
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 11:59:38 PM
It was simply a tree which Jehovah used as a representation of his right to decide for his creation what was right and what was wrong. A representation of his authority. His sovereignty. In deliberately taking of the fruit of that forbidden tree Adam was in effect saying "I will know for myself what is good and what is bad."
As a Father I find the above unfathomable. My responsibility to my dependent children is to prepare them for the world, to move them away from dependency and towards independence. It is in their independence that I will measure my success as a Father.
But the intent of this story is to break down the reader. To suggest that they are wrong to think for themselves, that they should instead submit to Jehovah as the all knowing wise authority. That the reader is wrong in their stubborn pride to foolishly think that they could make better decisions than Jehovah, that they are unworthy sinners whom must redeem themselves by forsaking their sinful pride and submitting with obedience to the guidance of Jehovah. It is only by following the book and those that represent it with authority that we can earn back our rightful place where we belong which is in god's grace.
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 11:59:38 PM
It was that they judged for themselves what was good and what was bad. They rejected him. They were not listening to him.
Here we have the propaganda machine cranking into action instigating a polarised view that you can only be for or against.
If you choose not to obey, then you are choosing to reject the all knowing, all wise, all loving, all good Jehovah. There is no in between. How could you reject the perfect Jehovah? Are you that black hearted? You have no choice but to accept, submit and obey.
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 11:59:38 PM
In a footnote to Genesis 2:17, the Jerusalem Bible says this: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, Genesis 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God's sovereignty, a sin of pride."
This is nothing less than brainwashing. We have chosen to be sinners by attacking god due to our flaw of pride. We deserve to take our rightful place by god's side but must strive to redeem our unworthy selves, to repent and ask for forgiveness.
Yes, we get the picture, breakdown our self worth, our independence, get us to strive for unification by submission and obedience.
If this were the inspired word of god, then we can only conclude that god is a deficient, self centered, insecure Father.
However the bible is not the word of god. It is the word of man demanding obedience in an attempt to gain power and control.
Quote from: TankDisobeyed their father, the ultimate sin in an alpha male dominated triabalistic society.
Thanks, but I'm still not there yet. Really, not just being argumentative. Why did God tell them not to, and not to do what, exactly? In other words, why should it be wrong to distinguish good from evil, or to learn how to do so?
Quote from: StevilThe story of the tree of knowledge is the introduction of this theme. It is the inception of self doubt into the reader's mind, the idea that seeking knowledge of anything is flawed as one's self is flawed and cannot comprehend anything fully especially in comparison to an all knowing god.
Maybe that's it. It makes more sense than many explanations I've seen.
Quote from: OldGit on October 28, 2011, 11:43:52 AM
Interesting, TFL, thank you. But I'm still no wiser as to what Adam and Eve did that was so wrong.
neither am I, I think the story's slightly Gnostic / similar to Platonic philosophy, in assuming that mankind fell from a heavenly source and became exiled in the material world. I think the
axis mundi is important because it was the route between heaven and earth in many traditions, and it still is in shamanic religions to this day.
Quote from: OldGit on October 28, 2011, 11:54:22 AM
Quote from: TankDisobeyed their father, the ultimate sin in an alpha male dominated triabalistic society.
Thanks, but I'm still not there yet. Really, not just being argumentative. Why did God tell them not to, and not to do what, exactly? In other words, why should it be wrong to distinguish good from evil, or to learn how to do so?
Quote from: StevilThe story of the tree of knowledge is the introduction of this theme. It is the inception of self doubt into the reader's mind, the idea that seeking knowledge of anything is flawed as one's self is flawed and cannot comprehend anything fully especially in comparison to an all knowing god.
Maybe that's it. It makes more sense than many explanations I've seen.
I think Stevil's post says it all really. It's all about emotional abuse and bullying to keep people in-line and subservient to the tribal elders, in this case the people who benefit most from institutionalised superstitions, the priests.
Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 12:03:46 PM
I think Stevil's post says it all really. It's all about emotional abuse and bullying to keep people in-line and subservient to the tribal elders, in this case the people who benefit most from institutionalised superstitions, the priests.
If you look at the Bible, it would become obvious that that wasn't a very plausible explanation, especially when having to sustain itself over thousands of years. It was pretty obvious it wasn't working. God Jehovah foretold that it wouldn't work.
Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 11:59:38 PM
The tree of knowledge had no magical or supernatural properties.
{snip}
Correct, as it never existed.
Okay, then what was it presented as in the alleged fictional account?
Quote from: Stevil on October 28, 2011, 09:39:25 AM
Catholics believe in original sin. This makes it impossible for us to be perfect and without sin, hence Jesus demonstration is unattainable for us mortals. It seems like he was gloating that he is better than us, this seems like a cruel joke.
Catholics are an organized religion. Jesus being without sin, though tempted in ways we can't imagine, remained faithful. You know, the Catholics, though their literature will reveal the true origins of hell and immortal soul, think when you die if you are "bad" you go to hell. But the Bible says that sin = death. Take away sin and you take away death. The Bible says that upon death the debt of sin is paid in full, so there can't be a hell or purgatory.
The Bible says that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.
To answer your question after resurrection of the dead we can become like Jesus, without sin, and live forever upon the Earth.
Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 11:49:36 AM
Quote from: OldGit on October 28, 2011, 11:43:52 AM
Interesting, TFL, thank you. But I'm still no wiser as to what Adam and Eve did that was so wrong.
Disobeyed their father, the ultimate sin in an alpha male dominated triabalistic society.
...Unless you manage to plant a pickaxe between his eyes, in which case
you get the α and all the chicks.
Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:19:07 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 11:59:38 PM
The tree of knowledge had no magical or supernatural properties.
{snip}
Correct, as it never existed.
Okay, then what was it presented as in the alleged fictional account?
There fixed it for you. You see fiction is 'made up shit', facts can be varified by evidence and/or direct observation. There is no reliable evidence that the garden of eden existed nor the tree that was supposed to be in it.
Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 12:03:46 PM
I think Stevil's post says it all really. It's all about emotional abuse and bullying to keep people in-line and subservient to the tribal elders, in this case the people who benefit most from institutionalised superstitions, the priests.
If you look at the Bible, it would become obvious that that wasn't a very plausible explanation, especially when having to sustain itself over thousands of years. It was pretty obvious it wasn't working. God Jehovah foretold that it wouldn't work.
It is obvious to me that the Christian faith has persisted due to this brainwashing mechanism coupled with the instilled fear of a perceived eternal damnation if the "rules" are not followed as well as the evangelism drive riddled through the insipid bible.
This was also helped in no small part by the political muscle that brought Christianity into popular-ism throughout Rome. Obviously the Roman rulers saw this at the time as a useful tool to gain control over its people. Then the British Empire also seeing the usefulness of this as a tool to control its people took this in its expansion across the world. Those that resisted were put to death.
Quote from: Stevil on October 28, 2011, 11:51:07 AM
I have my own interpretation. Do you want to hear it?
No?
Oh well, I'm going to write it up anyway. You can choose not to read if you wish :-)
I'd love to hear it.
Quote from: Stevil on October 28, 2011, 11:51:07 AMThe common theme of the bible is the forgo knowledge and instead seek guidance and faith.
The method is to break down the reader's sense of self worth and replace this with a dependency relationship with the book, the faith and those that choose to represent it with authority.
The story of the tree of knowledge is the introduction of this theme. It is the inception of self doubt into the reader's mind, the idea that seeking knowledge of anything is flawed as one's self is flawed and cannot comprehend anything fully especially in comparison to an all knowing god.
An all knowing god. Hmm.
Do you know that thousands of years before science determined it the Bible said the earth was spherical and hanging upon nothing? Do you know that just up until about 100 years ago the medical doctor would go from the morgue to the birthing room without so much as washing his hands - strictly against Biblical laws of cleanliness. Do you know that the Bible described the hydro-cycle thousands of years before it was described by science.
You don't know these things because you have foregone knowledge.
Quote from: Stevil on October 28, 2011, 11:51:07 AMAs a Father I find the above unfathomable. My responsibility to my dependent children is to prepare them for the world, to move them away from dependency and towards independence. It is in their independence that I will measure my success as a Father.
Which is exactly God's plan. It can't be determined how much time evolved between Adam's creation and his sin, but he was relatively young and his father didn't think he was ready to "go out into the world." He wanted only to prepare Adam and Eve for this. That is what they rejected.
Quote from: Stevil on October 28, 2011, 11:51:07 AMBut the intent of this story is to break down the reader. To suggest that they are wrong to think for themselves, that they should instead submit to Jehovah as the all knowing wise authority.
No, it is to inform the reader of the choices having been made, and the possible alternative. It warns of what will happen with man and Satan's system and look around you? Do you not agree that it is a plausible concept that man would destroy himself and life on this planet? It gives the reader a choice.
Quote from: Stevil on October 28, 2011, 11:51:07 AMThat the reader is wrong in their stubborn pride to foolishly think that they could make better decisions than Jehovah, that they are unworthy sinners whom must redeem themselves by forsaking their sinful pride and submitting with obedience to the guidance of Jehovah. It is only by following the book and those that represent it with authority that we can earn back our rightful place where we belong which is in god's grace.
That isn't the way I would put it but consider the possibility that that is exactly the case. What if I'm wrong. I die and I'm worm food. I wasn't disallowed any opportunity for ignorance, not even with the subject of the Bible by your suggestion out of almost complete ignorance. I can choose to ignore the Bible's advice or take it to heed. As the Bible put it, we may have faith but the demons
know and yet shudder.
Lets say you are wrong and then consider the possibility that all you have done is influenced or encouraged maybe a handful of people, out of again, almost complete ignorance, to reject Jehovah God's guidance and protection - life everlasting in paradise conditions. And that handful of people influence or encourage another, and another etc.
All out of ignorance in the guise of depravity of knowledge?
Quote from: Stevil on October 28, 2011, 11:51:07 AMHere we have the propaganda machine cranking into action instigating a polarised view that you can only be for or against.
If you choose not to obey, then you are choosing to reject the all knowing, all wise, all loving, all good Jehovah. There is no in between. How could you reject the perfect Jehovah? Are you that black hearted? You have no choice but to accept, submit and obey.
That isn't true at all. Why do you think 144,000 people will immediately be taken in spirit form to heaven, which was not created for them as was earth? To judge and rule with Christ Jesus? Why?! Well, because Jehovah God and Jesus Christ have no knowledge of what it is like to live in sin. How could it be fair for them to judge the angels and men?
Why does the Bible say there will be a resurrection of the unrighteous as well as the righteous? Because not all people ever having lived will have had the opportunity to be informed as you and I have. And we are all capable of making an informed choice. The rejection of that is up to us.
What it means is that without Jehovah God, our creator, we will destroy ourselves. That has to be obvious to everyone before it gets to the point where God takes control in order for him to have allowed the issue of sovereignty to be fairly settled. It is just a matter of choice to live forever under God's rule or choose not to. You can't have it both ways after a point.
All that will happen to those who choose against God is the death that the skeptic knows will be his end anyway.
Quote from: Stevil on October 28, 2011, 11:51:07 AMThis is nothing less than brainwashing. We have chosen to be sinners by attacking god due to our flaw of pride. We deserve to take our rightful place by god's side but must strive to redeem our unworthy selves, to repent and ask for forgiveness.
Yes, we get the picture, breakdown our self worth, our independence, get us to strive for unification by submission and obedience.
If this were the inspired word of god, then we can only conclude that god is a deficient, self centered, insecure Father.
However the bible is not the word of god. It is the word of man demanding obedience in an attempt to gain power and control.
You are being emotional and over dramatic and you are misinformed - and I must say - protest too much.
Quote from: OldGit on October 28, 2011, 11:43:52 AM
Interesting, TFL, thank you. But I'm still no wiser as to what Adam and Eve did that was so wrong.
I'm trying to keep up with the comments but there are many of you and only one of me, OldGit. Forgive me if I lapse and feel free, anyone, to remind me of anything I might have missed that you would like me to address.
To answer your question, do you recall when the angels came down to see if the complaint of Sodom and Gomorrah was warranted? And the homosexual men and young boys wanted to "get to know" the men (angels)?
By get to know the text means to become intimate with. Sexually experience, if you will. The tree of the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is a similar idea. Not about sex, but about the intimate knowledge. Adam wanted to experience the intimate knowledge of what was good and what was bad. To decide for himself. Adam chose to disrespect what was implemented to remind him of his obvious need for God's guidance and protection. He chose to get to know, to decide, what was good for himself rather than pay attention to God. He rejected God's guidance and protection in his "youth" so to speak.
He basically said, in effect to God: "You can piss off, I'm going to do this on my own."
I see it as a child being told to not play in the street and the child testing his father's advice with disastrous consequences. God didn't create the evil world we live in. We did against his advice. Like the young man given his first home by his father under the stipulation that he must respect and take care of it but not doing so until the father sees that he must step in to prevent the destructive son from destroying it for his younger brother who would respect it.
Part of the negative effect is that the public, unknowing, may attribute the blame upon the father.
Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 07:43:46 PM
Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:19:07 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 11:59:38 PM
The tree of knowledge had no magical or supernatural properties.
{snip}
Correct, as it never existed.
Okay, then what was it presented as in the alleged fictional account?
There fixed it for you. You see fiction is 'made up shit', facts can be varified by evidence and/or direct observation. There is no reliable evidence that the garden of eden existed nor the tree that was supposed to be in it.
There is the historical record of the Bible. Now you can't disprove it so give me your evidence against its reliability without the appalling and undeserved overconfidence. This is - what - the third time I have asked you? And you have given me NOTHING. Not very convincing.
Quote from: Earthling on October 29, 2011, 04:35:09 AM
There is the historical record of the Bible. Now you can't disprove it so give me your evidence against its reliability without the appalling and undeserved overconfidence.
Unless you can prove the bible is a reliable historical record, you have nothing but a storybook. Now I know many Xtians hate having to prove a positive but since its not possible to prove a negative (just try finding proof that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist) that's what you're stuck with. Good luck, you're going to need it.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 29, 2011, 04:56:26 AM
Quote from: Earthling on October 29, 2011, 04:35:09 AM
There is the historical record of the Bible. Now you can't disprove it so give me your evidence against its reliability without the appalling and undeserved overconfidence.
Unless you can prove the bible is a reliable historical record, you have nothing but a storybook. Now I know many Xtians hate having to prove a positive but since its not possible to prove a negative (just try finding proof that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist) that's what you're stuck with. Good luck, you're going to need it.
Even if you could prove, without a doubt, that the bible is a historical source, that still says nothing about it being "written by God." Or inspired by God. Or whatever. Ancient =/= holy.
Beyond that, I still don't understand why God would need to create human beings with choice at all. If he is a perfect, whole, all-powerful being - why doesn't he just sit around basking in his own awesomeness? Why would he create humans at all, give them choice and then spend the next 2 thousands years being disappointed in us because we chose to reject him?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 29, 2011, 03:20:26 PM
Even if you could prove, without a doubt, that the bible is a historical source, that still says nothing about it being "written by God." Or inspired by God. Or whatever. Ancient =/= holy.
Beyond that, I still don't understand why God would need to create human beings with choice at all. If he is a perfect, whole, all-powerful being - why doesn't he just sit around basking in his own awesomeness? Why would he create humans at all, give them choice and then spend the next 2 thousands years being disappointed in us because we chose to reject him?
If god is perfect and has no deficiencies and is unchanging then there would be absolutely no need to create existence.
It would be pointless.
For a god whom knows everything, this god has nothing new to learn about anything, nothing to discover, nothing to experiment with. 14 billion years of our Universe's existence would be like reading the same sentence over and over again forever. "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog". For a human, the first time we read a sentence, it is something new. We look to understand it, then we might analyze it to discover what it means, then we might try to uncover any hidden meaning, or any strange pattern, hey, that sentence has every letter of the alphabet, wow.
But after a few short seconds we would become bored of it. But a god whom knows everything already, god know the sentence would be written, god knew the sentence would contain all the letters, go knew how the author went about creating the sentence. Now think about existence as being a sentence that god already knew everything about. Wouldn't it be extremely tedious to create and observe for 14 billion years that which you already know everything about? Creation from a god perspective is pointless.
Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:27:41 PM
Catholics are an organized religion. Jesus being without sin, though tempted in ways we can't imagine, remained faithful. You know, the Catholics, though their literature will reveal the true origins of hell and immortal soul, think when you die if you are "bad" you go to hell. But the Bible says that sin = death. Take away sin and you take away death. The Bible says that upon death the debt of sin is paid in full, so there can't be a hell or purgatory.
The Bible says that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.
To answer your question after resurrection of the dead we can become like Jesus, without sin, and live forever upon the Earth.
So sin = death and your fascinating sentence in the god inspired bible says "upon death the debt of sin is paid in full"
So lets take the cryptics out and rewrite it, replacing sin with death because they are exactly equal.
"upon death the debt of death is paid in full"
Such an enlightening sentence, god was at his best when he inspired some anonymous man to author that gem. This book, the bible, must be a fascinating read.
Quote from: Earthling on October 29, 2011, 04:35:09 AM
There is the historical record of the Bible. Now you can't disprove it so give me your evidence against its reliability without the appalling and undeserved overconfidence. This is - what - the third time I have asked you? And you have given me NOTHING. Not very convincing.
and in all your posts you never managed to raise one piece of evidence that actually proved any of the stories in your holy book represented anything like historical reality, and are anything more than the myths of superstitious and fairly backwards people living a few thousand years ago.
The Bible is as much a 'historical record' as the Odyssey or the Epic of Gilgamesh, I find it incredible that anyone can seriously consider such childish myths as the Garden of Eden, the Flood, or Sodom and Gomorrah as being historical in the 21st Century. When the historical inaccuracies of the biblical stories or the earlier myths from which the biblical stories derived were pointed out to you, all you did was ignore them.
Let's assume the story is true for a second. That means god deliberately made these two people lacking the ability to know what is right and wrong. He then told them not to eat some fruit or they will be punished (as well as their unborn ancestors for some reason). Of course, not knowing that it's wrong to eat the fruit, they eat the fruit. It's not until AFTER they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they realize what is right and what is wrong.
It's like telling a deaf person, that's walking, your going to punch him if he takes another step. Not a very nice god.
Quote from: Genericguy on December 30, 2011, 07:25:01 PM
Let's assume the story is true for a second. That means god deliberately made these two people lacking the ability to know what is right and wrong. He then told them not to eat some fruit or they will be punished (as well as their unborn ancestors for some reason). Of course, not knowing that it's wrong to eat the fruit, they eat the fruit. It's not until AFTER they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they realize what is right and what is wrong.
It's like telling a deaf person, that's walking, your going to punch him if he takes another step. Not a very nice god.
Rofl. Poor deaf person.
Maaan, I go away for one day and miss more christian dudes. Hello, Earthling. It seems you are trying to pass on the bible as historical facts. Why exactly do you think a tree existed with special apples and pears? o__o
"...Remind me of anything I might have missed that you would like me to address.
To answer your question, do you recall when the angels came down to see if the complaint of Sodom and Gomorrah was warranted? And the homosexual men and young boys wanted to "get to know" the men (angels)?"
You forgot to mention that when the homosexual men and young boys wanted to "get to know" them (angels) Lot said to them, "No, take my daughters instead, they have never been with a man before, do to them whatever you want to them, but leave these men (angels) alone, don't touch them."...Well...something like that.
If Lot was the only good child abuser, sorry, "good man" in Sodoma, and chosen by your god, then I chose to go live and die on Castro Street in San Francisco, California for the rest of my life with people who want to "get to know" an angel, and not molest a man's daughters, at his request.
I'm just reminding you of something you might have missed that I would like you to address. :-*
Quote from: magdalena on December 31, 2011, 07:06:40 AM
You forgot to mention that when the homosexual men and young boys wanted to "get to know" them (angels) Lot said to them, "No, take my daughters instead"
If Lot was virtuous he would have suggested they take himself rather than the angels or his daughters.
or maybe he could have suggested they go home and leave sex for another day.
Quote from: Stevil on December 31, 2011, 07:44:06 AM
Quote from: magdalena on December 31, 2011, 07:06:40 AM
You forgot to mention that when the homosexual men and young boys wanted to "get to know" them (angels) Lot said to them, "No, take my daughters instead"
If Lot was virtuous he would have suggested they take himself rather than the angels or his daughters.
or maybe he could have suggested they go home and leave sex for another day.
He wasn't virtuous at all, in fact, he and his daughters went to live in a cave, and according to the bible, the daughters got him drunk and raped him. As a result, both of them became pregnant by him. :o
Talk about holy scriptures and holy men chosen by god.
Quote from: magdalena on January 01, 2012, 03:44:16 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 31, 2011, 07:44:06 AM
Quote from: magdalena on December 31, 2011, 07:06:40 AM
You forgot to mention that when the homosexual men and young boys wanted to "get to know" them (angels) Lot said to them, "No, take my daughters instead"
If Lot was virtuous he would have suggested they take himself rather than the angels or his daughters.
or maybe he could have suggested they go home and leave sex for another day.
He wasn't virtuous at all, in fact, he and his daughters went to live in a cave, and according to the bible, the daughters got him drunk and raped him. As a result, both of them became pregnant by him. :o
Talk about holy scriptures and holy men chosen by god.
But that has no bearing on his virtue. A virtuous man can be raped and still virtuous.
BTW his family is pretty dysfunctional!
Lot is portrayed as the ancestor of the Moabites and the Ammonites, both of which at various times went to war against Israel. It's easy to see why Israel would portray their enemies as children of incest, when you consider ancient Jewish prudishness.
[/quote]
But that has no bearing on his virtue. A virtuous man can be raped and still virtuous.
BTW his family is pretty dysfunctional!
[/quote]
Yeah, a man can be raped and still be virtuous, but in this time, this Lot guy would have a pretty hard time convincing his prison cell mate that he is innocent of the rape charges, after all, his daughters got him drunk, doesn't even remember the event, so, he is still a raped virtuous man with two daughters that now carry his two children/grandchildren.
Maybe this is why we were not allowed to eat from the tree of knowledge, so that we wouldn't judge god's choice of what he considered the only good man in Sodom. Now that we know what is right and what is wrong, perhaps even god should go to trial for genocide if what the bible states is true.
Quote from: magdalena on January 01, 2012, 07:38:39 AM
Now that we know what is right and what is wrong, perhaps even god should go to trial for genocide if what the bible states is true.
Problem is that there is no such thing as objective right and wrong.
If the Christian god were made human and brought before a court, convicted of the things that are written about in the OT. This god would be condemned to death row or life imprisonment in most countries.
His crimes are much worse that what Hitler, Stalin, Mao Ze Dong, Gadafi, Bin Ladin have all done combined.
But somehow he has over 1 billion worshipers whom believe 'he' is perfect and good despite the stories in the OT that they believe are the truth and written by the god.
Quote from: Stevil on January 01, 2012, 08:29:05 AM
His crimes are much worse that what Hitler, Stalin, Mao Ze Dong, Gadafi, Bin Ladin have all done combined.
But somehow he has over 1 billion worshipers whom believe 'he' is perfect and good despite the stories in the OT that they believe are the truth and written by the god.
Congratulations! The Logic Elf rewards anyone who thinks logically. Look for an event that doesn't suck to happen soon in your life and when it does, think blue.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi43.tinypic.com%2Fv6tefm.jpg&hash=20d0d324fdb17f1f3b6b62a1429dfc447812fe8f)
As for the god of ancient Semitic desert nomads, Yo How Very Hypocritical (YHVH) - Let's be glad there's a new invisible sheriff in town whose blue face smiles bracingly on our analysis. Syllogise!