NationStates Jolt Archive

Kay so I dusted off the old Fiction recently and went through it again, and noticed something that caught my eye that didn't previously.

"Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah." I think this was Gen. 2:24; 16:3

Two wives? Poly wives? Just two pages earlier I saw this: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.", and people have used this as proof that god doesn't approve of gay marriage, because it says "man shall be joined to his wife", but then two pages later the damn thing says Lamech here was joined to TWO wives, and no objections were given!

Also, as if that weren't enough:

"And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron." Gen 4:15

What the hell is this? This sounds an awful lot like Greek Mythology here, where the gods bore children and were assigned godships, i.e. music/metalworks, etc.

Next one:

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Gen 8:21) And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in His heart." Gen. 19:19

The heck? God is sorry? He didn't see this coming? This was a surprise to him? It specifically says, "THEN" the lord saw, as opposed to, "The lord knew all along", like this was breaking news - something slipped past his omnipotence, and he grieved? How the hell did he not know ahead of time? He's GOD.

Also, all these people that are "begot" all live to be at least like 800 years old - what the hell? Nobody lives that long! Especially not back in the time in which this was written, people died at like 30 and it was common! Suddenly the bible comes along and goes "No, look all these people were like almost a thousand years old. All of them."

Still moreso - all these people that are 'begot': Where from? Not all of them are listed as having wives, soooo... wtf?


By the way, this is all before page 7.

Now that you know the truth, the Vatican will be by shortly to dispose of you.

"Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah." I think this was Gen. 2:24; 16:3

Two wives? Poly wives? Just two pages earlier I saw this: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.", and people have used this as proof that god doesn't approve of gay marriage, because it says "man shall be joined to his wife", but then two pages later the damn thing says Lamech here was joined to TWO wives, and no objections were given!

You don't see a blessing on it either.

Also, as if that weren't enough:

"And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron." Gen 4:15

What the hell is this? This sounds an awful lot like Greek Mythology here, where the gods bore children and were assigned godships, i.e. music/metalworks, etc.

Or, it could be that those were there hobbies and so they contributed the most to the advancement of that area.

Next one:

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Gen 8:21) And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in His heart." Gen. 19:19

The heck? God is sorry? He didn't see this coming? This was a surprise to him? It specifically says, "THEN" the lord saw, as opposed to, "The lord knew all along", like this was breaking news - something slipped past his omnipotence, and he grieved? How the hell did he not know ahead of time? He's GOD.

It's speaking of God's plan being carried out in our temporal world. And why shouldn't He be grieved? He was so upset at the actions of His creatures (which He had made perfectly) why shouldn't He be upset, even if He knew it ahead of time? We all know we are all going to die, but we are all upset (to some degree) when the death of a loved one finally comes.

Also, all these people that are "begot" all live to be at least like 800 years old - what the hell? Nobody lives that long! Especially not back in the time in which this was written, people died at like 30 and it was common! Suddenly the bible comes along and goes "No, look all these people were like almost a thousand years old. All of them."

There were closer to perfection and therefore had fewer problems with their bodies.

Still moreso - all these people that are 'begot': Where from? Not all of them are listed as having wives, soooo... wtf?

I doubt my name will be recorded in a history book. Does that mean I never existed?

This is why I don't bother with religion, too many contradictions for a pothead.

HA HA HA HA HA, CHRISTIANS SUCK!!!

:rolleyes:

Seriously, we need more than 80,000 threads to say this?

HA HA HA HA HA, CHRISTIANS SUCK!!!

:rolleyes:

Seriously, we need more than 80,000 threads to say this?

Maybe if you write that bigger, we can go down to... about 10,000 threads on this.

Hmm, I've always wondered, which section do they hold the bible under in a library? Fiction or non-fiction? :eek:

You don't see a blessing on it either.

Normally god would make some sort of comment on it. He's pretty verbose when his kids fuck up.



Or, it could be that those were there hobbies and so they contributed the most to the advancement of that area.

... What area? The bible never says where these people are. I notice they completely skip the usage of FLINT, the first working tool/weapon material.


It's speaking of God's plan being carried out in our temporal world. And why shouldn't He be grieved? He was so upset at the actions of His creatures (which He had made perfectly) why shouldn't He be upset, even if He knew it ahead of time? We all know we are all going to die, but we are all upset (to some degree) when the death of a loved one finally comes.

This just doesn't make sense on a basic level. If we were made perfectly, we would've continued being perfect. Obviously there was a flaw - that flaw being, according to the bible, Eve, who was lured by another creature of Eden, the serpent. So that's two creatures he created that fucked up. Far from perfect.

We're upset when someone dies because we won't be able to see them anymore and we're not sure where they are. Knowing this fact ahead of time solves neither of these problems - coincidentally, god doesn't have to worry about either of these things.



There were closer to perfection and therefore had fewer problems with their bodies.

And we slowly just slipped into shittiness while god watched?



I doubt my name will be recorded in a history book. Does that mean I never existed?

Why even mention any names at all if you're not going to mention all of them? The point was to create a line of people, and to successfully do that, you need to have enough people to where you're not fucking your sister. Apparently god didn't see wisdom in giving this luxury.

.

Hmm, I've always wondered, which section do they hold the bible under in a library? Fiction or non-fiction? :eek:

Non-fiction. In most cases, it's in the same place as other religious texts and their corresponding mythology.

Regardless of its theological veracity, the Bible does contain a lot of factual statements and contains a lot of the history of the culture that produced it; it's a combination of mythology and history, and so is usually considered non-fiction for historical reasons. Effectively, religion is non-fiction because it contains a lot of factual information about historical cultures.

Hmm, I've always wondered, which section do they hold the bible under in a library? Fiction or non-fiction? :eek:
'Other', that way both sides are as equally as unhappy as the other. WHy piss off one group when you can piss off two?

Hmm, I've always wondered, which section do they hold the bible under in a library? Fiction or non-fiction? :eek:

There's a bible in the fiction section of my school library...

.

He created us perfect, but with free will. When one has free will, they can continue being perfect, or they can rebel against the perfection. Thats called sinning.

He created us perfect, but with free will. When one has free will, they can continue being perfect, or they can rebel against the perfection. Thats called sinning.

Well, unless you believe in original sin, in which case you are imperfect from birth and that sin remains until baptism.

You don't see a blessing on it either.


Not here, but he calls other polygamists good.

He created us perfect, but with free will. When one has free will, they can continue being perfect, or they can rebel against the perfection. Thats called sinning.

Logically speaking, then, the free will would be considered an imperfection.

Why are you shocked that the bible is greatly flawed?

Why are you shocked that the bible is greatly flawed?

I'm far from shocked, but I felt the need to point a few of them out, having recently read some of it.

I'm far from shocked, but I felt the need to point a few of them out, having recently read some of it.

I recommend using a mirror next time... the Christian-bashing on this forum is really tiresome.

I recommend using a mirror next time... the Christian-bashing on this forum is really tiresome.

Then find a new forum. Duh!

Now that you know the truth, the Vatican will be by shortly to dispose of you.

The Vatican regards Genesis as metaphorical and has since at least Vatican II.

Then find a new forum. Duh!

Srsly. That's about 70% of the topics on this forum. It's like walkin' up in senate and yelling about how you're tired of all the white people in there.

Except that person would kinda have political points because it wouldn't just be an annoyed observation.

Hmm, I've always wondered, which section do they hold the bible under in a library? Fiction or non-fiction? :eek:

Non-Fiction, same section as the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagva Gita(sp), the Chatechism(sp), and most other religous texts.

edit:Vetalia beat me to it.

The Vatican regards Genesis as metaphorical and has since at least Vatican II.

What about before then? The pope is infallable - if the popes before Vatican II didn't consider it metaphorical, wtf?

Then find a new forum. Duh!

*shockingly decides not to take the advice of a self-styled pothead*

Srsly. That's about 70% of the topics on this forum. It's like walkin' up in senate and yelling about how you're tired of all the white people in there.

Except that person would kinda have political points because it wouldn't just be an annoyed observation.

Yes, but, it's pointless to whine in a thread about a redundant topic because you're showing you're unable to avoid the very thing you're seeking to avoid, thus making yourself a target for unbashed NSG mockary.

*shockingly decides not to take the advice of a self-styled pothead*

Fine, but don't whine about the number of occurances of this thread in this thread because it's futile. If the person didn't want to talk about this for the 1,294,334,900,941,932,999 time, they wouldn't have posted. Seriously? If you don't like it, just don't read it. No one is forcing you to.

*shockingly decides not to take the advice of a self-styled pothead*

I'm tired of all this pothead-bashing in NSG, blah blah blah...

What about before then? The pope is infallable - if the popes before Vatican II didn't consider it metaphorical, wtf?

The Pope is only infallible under certain conditions; I don't think there ever was an ex cathedra statement on the interpretation of Genesis. Even so, the concept was not clearly defined until Vatican I in the late 19th century, well after the theory of evolution, geology, modern astronomy and other challenges to the literal interpretation of Genesis had arisen.

I'm tired of all this pothead-bashing in NSG, blah blah blah...

Especially since I usually don't post when I'm high and I have np problem with people knowing that I smoke.

What about before then? The pope is infallable - if the popes before Vatican II didn't consider it metaphorical, wtf?

The pope is only infalliable when he specifically states that he is speaking "ex cathedra" further that wasn't established untill the first Vatican council in 1870.

Edit: Damn it, Vetalia stop beating me to the point :D

The Pope is only infallible under certain conditions; I don't think there ever was an ex cathedra statement on the interpretation of Genesis. Even so, the concept was not clearly defined until Vatican I in the late 19th century, well after the theory of evolution, geology, modern astronomy and other challenges to the literal interpretation of Genesis had arisen.

O_o What conditions?

Also, it just seems that they used the metaphor thing to dodge the science that didn't back up their claims.

The pope is only infalliable when he specifically states that he is speaking "ex cathedra" further that wasn't established untill the first Vatican council in 1870.

So he has control over when he's taken seriously? Wtf?

"I'm speaking ex cathedra - Bill is a fuckin' retard. Seriously. Ex cathedra here, so you know it's true."

What pothead bashing?

Other than Smunkee yelling at me for recommending that some kid make up his mind about trying pot (...well, that and telling him that it's fun...), I haven't really seen any bashing of teh marijuana...

O_o What conditions?

Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Conditions_for_papal_infallibility)

Also, it just seems that they used the metaphor thing to dodge the science that didn't back up their claims.

Well, I don't think it necessarily matters; there's no explicit statement that the Bible is meant to be literally interpreted (with the exception of laws), and the fact that Jesus used parables to teach people kind of supports the metaphorical interpretation since none of them would

Also, there's the fact that the Bible was written thousands of years ago for a much less advanced civilization than we have today. If God were behind the Bible, he probably knew that describing creation or the origin of man would be incomprehensible if he put it in the scientific terminology of 2006, so he simply put it in terms the people could understand at the time.

"I'm speaking ex cathedra - Bill is a fuckin' retard. Seriously. Ex cathedra here, so you know it's true."

Nope, ex cathedra only applies under certain contexts and has to meet certain guidelines.

"Bill, to quote Oscar Wilde, you are a fucking retard"

I recommend using a mirror next time... the Christian-bashing on this forum is really tiresome.

Christians are using their faith to justify all kinds of political actions I find detestable.

If they continue to use religion as justifications to fuck with peoples lifes expect us to question the basis of their decisions.

So he has control over when he's taken seriously? Wtf?

"I'm speaking ex cathedra - Bill is a fuckin' retard. Seriously. Ex cathedra here, so you know it's true."

The conditions are [from wikipedia.]
"According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)"

I would add that this has not been done very often.

And what science are you talking about exactly surely not evolution considering the Church accepts the science on that.
Edit: Damn it I need to type faster Vetalia beat me again, maybe if I wasn't doing this and writing a paper I'd stand a chance... probably not :( ;)

Christians are using their faith to justify all kinds of political actions I find detestable.

If they continue to use religion as justifications to fuck with peoples lifes expect us to question the basis of their decisions.

Really? I didn't know I was using my faith to justify all kinds of political actions that you find detestable. In fact, I didn't know I was using my faith to justify any political actions at all. I must be totally and completely unique or something.

Christians are using their faith to justify all kinds of political actions I find detestable.

If they continue to use religion as justifications to fuck with peoples lifes expect us to question the basis of their decisions.
Let's play with this a bit...

"Muslims are using their faith to justify all kinds of political actions I find detestable.

If they continue to use religion as justifications to fuck with peoples lifes expect us to question the basis of their decisions."

Do you find the above a gross generalization? If so congradulations your a hypocrite. If not, congradualtions in at least being consistant in your genraliztion of different people.

Really? I didn't know I was using my faith to justify all kinds of political actions that you find detestable. In fact, I didn't know I was using my faith to justify any political actions at all. I must be totally and completely unique or something.

You may not ... there are plenty of others that are. I am sorry you hold the same faith as them but its not exactly easy to question the basis of their faith and leave yours out when they are primarily the same faith

Let's play with this a bit...

"Muslims are using their faith to justify all kinds of political actions I find detestable.

If they continue to use religion as justifications to fuck with peoples lifes expect us to question the basis of their decisions."

Do you find the above a gross generalization? If so congradulations your a hypocrite. If not, congradualtions in at least being consistant in your genraliztion of different people.

Not particularly ... they do use their faith to justify all sort of horrible shit.

You are confused I am not saying (or at least did not intend to say) that all Christians do. But there are many that do propose their faith as justification for legal changes.

I am sorry that other perfectly awesome people happen to hold the same faith as them but it is hard to question the religion that THOES people use to justify all sorts of things without questioning the awsome peoples because at least in the generals they are the same faith

The awesome people just realize that faith is for their personal enrichment, not to be forcing on the rest of us

Not particularly ... they do use their faith to justify all sort of horrible shit.

You are confused I am not saying (or at least did not intent to say) that all Christians do. But there are many that doe propose their faith as justification for legal changes.

I am sorry that other perfectly awesome people happen to hold the same faith as them but it is hard to question the religion that THOES people use to justify all sorts of things without questioning the awsome peoples because at least in the generals they are the same faith

The awsome people just realize that faith is for their personal enrichment, not to be forcing on the rest of us
It's all right I'm just trying to point out that if you don't want to accuse a whole group you should put a qualifier of some sort in there, like saying some or eve many, instead of just Christians, which tends to imply all.

It's all right I'm just trying to point out that if you don't want to accuse a whole group you should put a qualifier of some sort in there, like saying some or eve many, instead of just Christians, which tends to imply all.

Fair enough I just woke up I did not mean for it to sound like all christians do

But increasingly out of the right we do see the christian faith used as justification for things.

Yes there are other perfectly awesome people that ALSO hold that faith out there that I have no issue with. But in the end I have to question the base that the bad people use for justification ... which happens to at least be in part the same faith as what the good people use

I am sorry good people I really am, but as long as they keep using the Christian faith for things like restricting freedom and for censorship I will continue to try to question what they are basing it on.

The awesome people just realize that faith is for their personal enrichment, not to be forcing on the rest of us

I don't try to force my faith on anyone. I just don't like being constantly bashed for my beliefs on this forum (and in RL, for that matter), and I find it hypocritical and, frankly, disgusting, that all these supposedly open-minded, liberal people despise those who have different beliefs than they do.

Polygamy is not forbidden by the Bible - Jacob had two wives (Leah and Rachel) and this was perfectly allowed.

I don't try to force my faith on anyone. I just don't like being constantly bashed for my beliefs on this forum (and in RL, for that matter), and I find it hypocritical and, frankly, disgusting, that all these supposedly open-minded, liberal people despise those who have different beliefs than they do.

Can we help it that others use your faith to justify this shit? I am sorry if someone personally attacked you with this when you did nothing. That is not justified.

But your faith is being used by not so nice people ... its going to be questioned specially when they broadcast it loud that their faith is the reason they think these actions should be done.

If someone was using atheism to justify public changes and messing with peoples life's I would expect the reasoning behind atheism to be questioned too (harder cause there is no real doctrine) Yes I am an atheist but I would be smart enough to realize that they are just questioning the basis for which people with my (lack of) faith are messing with their personal life.

Can we help it that others use your faith to justify this shit?
Yes, you can. You could specify Christian leadership (US Government, the Vatican), instead of lumping us all together.

But your faith is being used by not so nice people ...
How patronizing. :rolleyes:
Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I have to be talked down to like an infant. I can speak the English language very well, I know the meaning of words such as "evil", "bad", "maladjusted", "misanthropic", etc.

Yes, you can. You could specify Christian leadership (US Government, the Vatican), instead of lumping us all together.


How patronizing. :rolleyes:
Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I have to be talked down to like an infant. I can speak the English language very well, I know the meaning of words such as "evil", "bad", "maladjusted", "misanthropic", etc.

Ok I am going to come back and argue when I haven't just woke up after a 36 hour shift. I cant keep up with all the nitpicking when it was rather clear that all I was saying is I feel free to question the Christian faith because some Christians use it to justify shit.

Apparently you have had issues in real life with some people and for that I am sorry, but hell I haven't even questioned a damn thing about your faith in this thread and I am already being jumped on.

The Vatican regards Genesis as metaphorical and has since at least Vatican II.

I regard the entire bible in whole as an interesting story. Thanks for the reminder, though. Yet another thing I completely erased from my mind after all of the religion classes at Catholic School.

*sigh*

The Vatican regards Genesis as metaphorical and has since at least Vatican II.

It is disappointing to see how far the Catholic Church has strayed from the Truth.

Kay so I dusted off the old Fiction recently and went through it again, and noticed something that caught my eye that didn't previously.

"Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah." I think this was Gen. 2:24; 16:3

Two wives? Poly wives? Just two pages earlier I saw this: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.", and people have used this as proof that god doesn't approve of gay marriage, because it says "man shall be joined to his wife", but then two pages later the damn thing says Lamech here was joined to TWO wives, and no objections were given!

Also, as if that weren't enough:

"And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron." Gen 4:15

What the hell is this? This sounds an awful lot like Greek Mythology here, where the gods bore children and were assigned godships, i.e. music/metalworks, etc.

Next one:

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Gen 8:21) And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in His heart." Gen. 19:19

The heck? God is sorry? He didn't see this coming? This was a surprise to him? It specifically says, "THEN" the lord saw, as opposed to, "The lord knew all along", like this was breaking news - something slipped past his omnipotence, and he grieved? How the hell did he not know ahead of time? He's GOD.

Also, all these people that are "begot" all live to be at least like 800 years old - what the hell? Nobody lives that long! Especially not back in the time in which this was written, people died at like 30 and it was common! Suddenly the bible comes along and goes "No, look all these people were like almost a thousand years old. All of them."

Still moreso - all these people that are 'begot': Where from? Not all of them are listed as having wives, soooo... wtf?


By the way, this is all before page 7.


It is the simplest of tasks to merely identify discrepancies. It is indeed the more difficult task, and far more preferable to reconcile seeming contradictions. In this way rational thought becomes the foundation of knowledge, and the mind is thus strengthened. So also is the faith.

God created us perfect.
God created free will.
Free will is a sin.
God created sin.
Sin is perfect.

Q.E.D.

God created us perfect.
God created free will.
Free will is a sin.
God created sin.
Sin is perfect.

I don't think free will is a sin in and of itself; after all, Adam and Eve had free will before they were kicked out of the Garden. If they didn't, that would mean God created them with the intent of disobedience, which would probably raise a lot more questions than the nature of free will itself...

I don't think free will is a sin in and of itself; after all, Adam and Eve had free will before they were kicked out of the Garden. If they didn't, that would mean God created them with the intent of disobedience, which would probably raise a lot more questions than the nature of free will itself...

Does God sin?

God created us perfect.
God created free will.
Free will is a sin.
God created sin.
Sin is perfect.

Q.E.D.

God created us in His image.
God created free will in us.
Free will gives us the capability to worship God as we choose.
Man fell into sin through an act of free will.
Sin is death. It is a product of free will. As we choose to fall into temptation and sin, we die. As we repent our sin, we are reconciled, and through faith we are saved.

Does God sin?

No.

Does God sin?

Well, according to the Abrahamic religions, no. God is perfect, and can't sin because it would be a contradiction in terms.

God is perfect, and can't sin because it would be a contradiction in terms.

Yet He has free will, yes? So it follows that something about Him makes Him capable of being free and simultaneously being sinless in His perfection.

Why didn't He create humans the same way?

Yet He has free will, yes? So it follows that something about Him makes Him capable of being free and simultaneously being sinless in His perfection.

Why didn't He create humans the same way?

Could it be that that would create us as equals to God, if our agency was such that we knew right from wrong, good from evil, and still always walked the perfect path?

Could it be that that would create us as equals to God

This is an objection?

Yet He has free will, yes? So it follows that something about Him makes Him capable of being free and simultaneously being sinless in His perfection.

I imagine its his very divinity that gives him such capability.

Why didn't He create humans the same way?

Well, for one humans are not God; they are less than God, so they can't achieve the same nature as God.

However, in a way, he did give them perfection as well as free will. Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree and violated God's command, they were perfect as well as free. However, they decided to go against God and so were forced out of the Garden as a result.

I imagine its his very divinity that gives him such capability.

And can not an omnipotent being create divine beings?

Well, for one humans are not God; they are less than God, so they can't achieve the same nature as God.

God created us less than Him. Why?

However, in a way, he did give them perfection as well as free will. Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree and violated God's command, they were perfect as well as free.

If perfection excludes sin, as you say is true of God, then Adam and Eve were either perfect and sinless (in which case they would not have violated God's command) or imperfect and capable of sin.

Neither precludes freedom.

This is an objection?

Yes. God cannot be equalled. Thus, it stands to reason that He would not--could not--create man as an equal, a perfect being whose agency of free will was on par with the perfect will of God.

Yes. God cannot be equalled.

Why not?

And can not an omnipotent being create divine beings?

I imagine so; depending on your interpretation, creatures like angels or the human soul could be seen as examples of a supernatural, or even divine force created by God.

An interesting thing regarding Judaism is that it was originally a henotheistic religion; it suggests that the ancient Israelites did accept the existence of other Gods. However, God was repeatedly referred to as "God of gods" or "supreme ruler", which could suggest the possibility that he was the creator of all of the Gods but still supreme, sort of like Kronos in Greek mythology or Brahman in Hinduism.

God created us less than Him. Why?

Well, if God is infinite it would be impossible to create something equal or greater than himself; if he's as high as it gets, I imagine it would be impossible to do so even if he wanted to.

If perfection excludes sin, as you say is true of God, then Adam and Eve were either perfect and sinless (in which case they would not have violated God's command) or imperfect and capable of sin.

However, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong until after they ate from the tree, so they didn't actually know they were sinning until after the fact. So, they were free to choose but had no knowledge of the ramifications of their actions; they were kind of like children, who are usually taught right from wrong initially from their parents. They could do wrong, but didn't know it was wrong until after they ate from the tree.

Why not?

Why, besides the fact that he's God? ;)

Why would one think he could be?

Trying to critique the Bible in English is a pointless exercise. Almost all English translations of it just plain out suck. Try reading it in Hebrew. The Bibles you read here were first translated from Hebrew to Greek and then from Greek to English.

Heck the Christians have the dumb idea Mary was a virgin. Anyone who knows Hebrew knows that the word for young woman is the same word for virgin. Someone really fucked up the translation there.

However, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong until after they ate from the tree, so they didn't actually know they were sinning until after the fact. So, they were free to choose but had no knowledge of the ramifications of their actions; they were kind of like children, who are usually taught right from wrong initially from their parents. They could do wrong, but didn't know it was wrong until after they ate from the tree.

Which sort of sounds like major overreaction on the part of God doesn't it? Especially if you compare the minds of Adam and Eve to that of a child. Children don't necessarily know right from wrong either, but they know what Mommy and Daddy tell them not to do. "Don't touch that!" What's the first thing that child is going to do? Touch it. Still, we don't kick our toddlers out of the house now do we?

An interesting thing regarding Judaism is that it was originally a henotheistic religion; it suggests that the ancient Israelites did accept the existence of other Gods. However, God was repeatedly referred to as "God of gods" or "supreme ruler", which could suggest the possibility that he was the creator of all of the Gods but still supreme, sort of like Kronos in Greek mythology or Brahman in Hinduism.

Indeed. It actually seems that the Jews did not exclusively worship God until very late; the rule of King Josiah, perhaps. Most of the monotheistic exhortations in the Bible seem to be latter editions, and certain episodes (the use of a bronze serpent to cure snake poison, for instance) are pretty clearly examples of pagan worship later brought into accord with the orthodoxy by editors.

Well, if God is infinite it would be impossible to create something equal or greater than himself; if he's as high as it gets, I imagine it would be impossible to do so even if he wanted to.

Okay, but why is the combination of sinlessness and freedom a quality that God would find it impossible to create?

It is not, after all, the equivalent of creating a rock of infinite weight that even He cannot lift; it is something quite finite.

However, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong until after they ate from the tree, so they didn't actually know they were sinning until after the fact.

Isn't that a pretty significant imperfection?

And if they didn't know they were sinning, why were they punished for it?

Trying to critique the Bible in English is a pointless exercise. Almost all English translations of it just plain out suck. Try reading it in Hebrew. The Bibles you read here were first translated from Hebrew to Greek and then from Greek to English.

Heck the Christians have the dumb idea Mary was a virgin. Anyone who knows Hebrew knows that the word for young woman is the same word for virgin. Someone really fucked up the translation there.

So if it's the same word, it could mean either. And I'm sure it doesn't help matters that the New Testament, which records the Virgin Birth, was not written in Hebrew.

Which sort of sounds like major overreaction on the part of God doesn't it? Especially if you compare the minds of Adam and Eve to that of a child. Children don't necessarily know right from wrong either, but they know what Mommy and Daddy tell them not to do. "Don't touch that!" What's the first thing that child is going to do? Touch it. Still, we don't kick our toddlers out of the house now do we?

Of, course it could be that once they knew the diference between good and evil they had lost the innocence that made Eden a paradise, and that it was that awarness that "kicked" them out they were just not blissfuly ignorant of the good and evil in the world.

That a course is still a fairly literal interpetation, it could be that it is a metaphore for mankind becoming self aware and capable of understanding things like the inevetability of its own death, as an example of a less literal look.

Okay, but why is the combination of sinlessness and freedom a quality that God would find it impossible to create?

It is not, after all, the equivalent of creating a rock of infinite weight that even He cannot lift; it is something quite finite.

Is it really that finite? The concept of sinlessness and freedom, together, the concept of knowledge of good and evil and the capacity to only do what is perfect, perhaps it is an inherent quality of God's infinite being?

Is it really that finite? The concept of sinlessness and freedom, together, the concept of knowledge of good and evil and the capacity to only do what is perfect, perhaps it is an inherent quality of God's infinite being?

How would it be so?

Knowledge of evil doesn't require a tendency to do evil.

How would it be so?

Knowledge of evil doesn't require a tendency to do evil.

It requires the possibility of doing evil. God knows good from evil, yet it is impossible for him to do evil--the essence of being perfect.

It requires the possibility of doing evil.

Why does it?

God knows good from evil, yet it is impossible for him to do evil--the essence of being perfect.

This is perfectly possible while retaining freedom, if the impossibility is contained in a lack of desire to commit evil.

Human beings do have a tendency (not necessarily a prevailing tendency, but an existing tendency) towards evil. If God created us, why do we?

It requires the possibility of doing evil. God knows good from evil, yet it is impossible for him to do evil--the essence of being perfect.

So God doesn't have free will, since he can't chose between good and evil?

Of, course it could be that once they knew the diference between good and evil they had lost the innocence that made Eden a paradise, and that it was that awarness that "kicked" them out they were just not blissfuly ignorant of the good and evil in the world.

That a course is still a fairly literal interpetation, it could be that it is a metaphore for mankind becoming self aware and capable of understanding things like the inevetability of its own death, as an example of a less literal look.

Fair enough. There are numerous possible interpretations.

I know you are probably pulling your hair out with my literal analysis. You must understand that I do not think there was a real Adam and Eve who actually got kicked out of Eden with a unicorn at their side.

Still, whether these stories are metaphorical or not, each one in some way or another is intended to give us insight into the "ways of God". So far I don't get the impression that God is perfect either. I actually would tend to think he's bipolar or plagued with multiple personalities. Could be the result of so many different people writing these stories.

Indeed. It actually seems that the Jews did not exclusively worship God until very late; the rule of King Josiah, perhaps. Most of the monotheistic exhortations in the Bible seem to be latter editions, and certain episodes (the use of a bronze serpent to cure snake poison, for instance) are pretty clearly examples of pagan worship later brought into accord with the orthodoxy by editors.

The story of the Golden Calf is arguably one of the most clear signs of the struggle between the strict monotheists of Abraham and other tribes whose beliefs might had drifted more and more towards paganism rather than henotheism, especially given that it corresponds with the various Sacred Bulls of almost all of the religious beliefs in the area, especially the god El.

There is a lot of influence in there from other traditions; God was always seen as the highest, but that didn't even necessarily preclude other Gods as long as he was placed first in their worship and respect.

Also, the fact that El and Yahweh are considered the same God is an interesting property, possibly a sign of syncretism that might even explain the double creation account in the book of Genesis. Another interesting relationship is the fact that the ancient Greeks identified El with Kronus, the Titan who was the father of the Olympian Gods.


Okay, but why is the combination of sinlessness and freedom a quality that God would find it impossible to create?

It is not, after all, the equivalent of creating a rock of infinite weight that even He cannot lift; it is something quite finite.

I imagine the only way to really answer that would be to ask why God even created a universe at all; otherwise, no answer would really be valid.

Now, in Greek mythology, the primordial chaos, or void, arose spontaneously and from that came the Protogenoi, a group of Gods who were the parents of all those who came after them. It's important to note that this action was spontaneous, which might suggest that God's decision to create was either involuntary or that he emerged from a primordial chaos which literally arose ex nihilo.

Isn't that a pretty significant imperfection?

I imagine it would depend on if you were to see total innocence and (for lack of a more neutral term) ignorance as an undesirable state. It might be seen as a perfection rather than imperfection to not have that kind of knowledge and to be able to live blissfully without that pressure.

And if they didn't know they were sinning, why were they punished for it?

God told them not to...really, that's the main reason why. The fact that they hid from God because of guilt rather than confess might have had something to do with it too, but I don't know.

Why does it?



This is perfectly possible while retaining freedom, if the impossibility is contained in a lack of desire to commit evil.

Human beings do have a tendency (not necessarily a prevailing tendency, but an existing tendency) towards evil. If God created us, why do we?

The idea of free will rests on the basis that one is presented with two options and makes a choice. Of course, there is always a third option, that is neither, but when one is presented with two options and chooses neither, that in itself is a choice.

So free will is the capability to choose.

A choice thus made is necessarily an act of free will; of these, the most basic is the choice between good and evil. The knowledge of both, and the capacity to decide between either, is the essence of free will.

Since God created us with free will, or the agency to decide between two options, we are therefore not bound to perfection, as our decision may lead us into temptation.

*snip*

The "agency" to decide only means that we have no external compulsion to go with one or the other. It does not mean that we must actually desire to choose evil.

So God doesn't have free will, since he can't chose between good and evil?

The exact nature of God's will, free or no, is impossible to determine. We can assume that because he is perfect, he cannot choose an evil course; or, we can assume that because he is perfect, he does not choose because he has no desire, or will, to choose evil over good.

The "agency" to decide only means that we have no external compulsion to go with one or the other. It does not mean that we must actually desire to choose evil.

What decision can be made without the desire to make it?

Yes, agency is simply the capability to choose. But acting on that agency, actually making use of free will, requires a level of desire to make a decision one way or the other.

If God is perfect, that means he has never done anything to cause evil.
God created everything.
Everything includes evil.
Therefore, God created evil.
Therefore, God cannot be perfect, because the very fact that there is such a thing as evil is his fault.

Why did God not create us with free will, but not create evil in the first place? Why could he not create a universe in which no possible choice is evil, everything is good?

In fact, why did he set such nonsensical and arbitrary rules? Why did he make some of the things that feel the best and most natural (sex, for example) sins?

And if God is all loving, why does he condemn people who don't realize that he exists to eternal torment? That's not all loving at all.

God: Yeah, uh. Just because you happened to be born in an area where I'm not worshipped, I'm going to torture you forever and ever. But I love you!
I'd understand if people who were sent to Hell eventually got out and went to Heaven. Punishment is one thing when it serves a useful purpose. Hell is just a sadistic idea, where God can say "Wooo! Look at 'em burn! Pass the popcorn, Jesus!"

EDIT: And a thought occurs to me now.

The reason the Christian God is perfect isn't anything innate within himself. It's not some special power.
It's that he gets to make the rules. If I got to choose what was good and what was evil, I'd be perfect, too.

The story of the Golden Calf is arguably one of the most clear signs of the struggle between the strict monotheists of Abraham and other tribes whose beliefs might had drifted more and more towards paganism rather than henotheism,

Most likely, there were no "strict monotheists" among the Jews (or, at least, they were an extremely marginalized group) until substantially after the monarchy had been established.

I don't have my books with me, so I can't provide for you all the evidence on this question, but this question (among many other interesting ones) is dealt with in more detail in Stanley Rosenbaum's Understanding Biblical Israel, which I read a couple summers ago and enjoyed immensely.

especially given that it corresponds with the various Sacred Bulls of almost all of the religious beliefs in the area, especially the god El. There is a lot of influence in there from other traditions; God was always seen as the highest, but that didn't even necessarily preclude other Gods as long as he was placed first in their worship and respect.

Also, the fact that El and Yahweh are considered the same God is an interesting property, possibly a sign of syncretism that might even explain the double creation account in the book of Genesis.

Most of the names for God in the Bible are likely examples of syncretism. Either the being was incorporated into the concept or suppressed by the monotheists.

I imagine the only way to really answer that would be to ask why God even created a universe at all; otherwise, no answer would really be valid.

There is no necessary contradiction in the notion of a perfect universe.

Now, in Greek mythology, the primordial chaos, or void, arose spontaneously and from that came the Protogenoi, a group of Gods who were the parents of all those who came after them. It's important to note that this action was spontaneous, which might suggest that God's decision to create was either involuntary or that he emerged from a primordial chaos which literally arose ex nihilo.

This makes a lot more sense to me.

I've said before to you that pagan polytheism is easier for me to accept intellectually than "Abrahamic" monotheism; the fact that it does not attempt to make the divine omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and supreme in every potential respect is the chief reason for this.

I imagine it would depend on if you were to see total innocence and (for lack of a more neutral term) ignorance as an undesirable state. It might be seen as a perfection rather than imperfection to not have that kind of knowledge and to be able to live blissfully without that pressure.

If it allows you to sin, of course it is an imperfect (though not necessarily undesirable) state.

God told them not to...really, that's the main reason why.

But they did not understand why they should listen to God, because they had no notion of good and evil.

What decision can be made without the desire to make it?

None. That's why someone can be free and nevertheless never commit sin, if she is not externally restrained yet nevertheless does not desire evil.

Yes, agency is simply the capability to choose. But acting on that agency, actually making use of free will, requires a level of desire to make a decision one way or the other.

Does God desire evil?

Fair enough. There are numerous possible interpretations.

I know you are probably pulling your hair out with my literal analysis. You must understand that I do not think there was a real Adam and Eve who actually got kicked out of Eden with a unicorn at their side.

Still, whether these stories are metaphorical or not, each one in some way or another is intended to give us insight into the "ways of God". So far I don't get the impression that God is perfect either. I actually would tend to think he's bipolar or plagued with multiple personalities. Could be the result of so many different people writing these stories.

I agree, personaly its part of why I'm leaning to agnosticism. Still personally I think it can be kind of fun trying to interpert possible meaning for stuff like this which is the main reason I wind up geting in these discussions. Well that and I for some reason still feel the need to at least correct the inacurate criticisms against the Church not sure why, partially because inaccuracies like that bug me and then also a little bit that I feel it destracts from those things that actually deserve criticism. And then I think theres a bit of me that just like arguing;)

But they did not understand why they should listen to God, because they had no notion of good and evil.

They didn't need to. Because they had no knowledge of good and evil, they were required only to obey the Lord; thus, God just was, they just were. There was really no need for anything else.

They didn't need to. Because they had no knowledge of good and evil, they were required only to obey the Lord; thus, God just was, they just were.

"Required" implies obligation. "Obligation" implies morality, that is, good and evil.

If they understood that they ought to obey God, then they understood that obedience to God is good, and disobedience is evil; it follows that they knew good and evil.

None. That's why someone can be free and nevertheless never commit sin, if she is not externally restrained yet nevertheless does not desire evil.

If at any point she decides to commit sin, she then desires evil.


Does God desire evil?

No.

If God is perfect, that means he has never done anything to cause evil.
God created everything.
Everything includes evil.
Therefore, God created evil.
Therefore, God cannot be perfect, because the very fact that there is such a thing as evil is his fault.

Why did God not create us with free will, but not create evil in the first place? Why could he not create a universe in which no possible choice is evil, everything is good?

In fact, why did he set such nonsensical and arbitrary rules? Why did he make some of the things that feel the best and most natural (sex, for example) sins?

And if God is all loving, why does he condemn people who don't realize that he exists to eternal torment? That's not all loving at all.

God: Yeah, uh. Just because you happened to be born in an area where I'm not worshipped, I'm going to torture you forever and ever. But I love you!
I'd understand if people who were sent to Hell eventually got out and went to Heaven. Punishment is one thing when it serves a useful purpose. Hell is just a sadistic idea, where God can say "Wooo! Look at 'em burn! Pass the popcorn, Jesus!"

EDIT: And a thought occurs to me now.

The reason the Christian God is perfect isn't anything innate within himself. It's not some special power.
It's that he gets to make the rules. If I got to choose what was good and what was evil, I'd be perfect, too.

Evil and perfection are not mutually exclusive.

If at any point she decides to commit sin, she then desires evil.

It is the other way around. She desires to commit sin, and then she actually commits it.

No.

So God is not free?

Kay so I dusted off the old Fiction recently and went through it again, and noticed something that caught my eye that didn't previously.

It's NOT fiction! That Bible is a HISTORY book, a story of the history of mankind, both past history and FUTURE HISTORY.

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Gen 8:21) And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in His heart." Gen. 19:19

The heck? God is sorry? He didn't see this coming? This was a surprise to him? It specifically says, "THEN" the lord saw, as opposed to, "The lord knew all along", like this was breaking news - something slipped past his omnipotence, and he grieved? How the hell did he not know ahead of time? He's GOD.

1. You got the Scripture reference wrong! It's Genesis 6:5,6, NOT
8:21 or 19:19
2. You're reading the WRONG "bible!" The correct reading can be found in a King James 1611 Bible:
"5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
"6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
3. Of COURSE God knew this all along! But, you see, GOD HAS EYES
and He LOOKS at things and He SEES them! The correct reading
is "AND God saw", not "THEN God saw!"


Also, all these people that are "begot" all live to be at least like 800 years old - what the hell? Nobody lives that long! Especially not back in the time in which this was written, people died at like 30 and it was common! Suddenly the bible comes along and goes "No, look all these people were like almost a thousand years old. All of them."

You see, atmospheric conditions were different in those days, But there was this thing called a FLOOD, which changed all that and caused man not to live as long.

HA HA HA HA HA, CHRISTIANS SUCK!!!

:rolleyes:

Seriously, we need more than 80,000 threads to say this?

OK, if THAT is true, I assume you wouldn't object to my suggestion that we also have >80,000 threads saying things like "Muslims suck!" or "Hindus suck!" or "Atheists suck!" or "Satanists suck!" or "Agnostics suck!" or "Wiccans suck!" or "Mormons suck!" or "(Insert your least favorite religion here)s suck!"

"Required" implies obligation. "Obligation" implies morality, that is, good and evil.

If they understood that they ought to obey God, then they understood that obedience to God is good, and disobedience is evil; it follows that they knew good and evil.

Point the first: If I am obligated to do something, I do it. There is no external knowledge of that obligation being good or evil--it is just an action.

Point the second: They understood the ought to obey God. They did not know that it was good, and disobedience was evil, for they did not know the difference. For them, God simply was. His will simply was. It is difficult for us to grasp the idea that something can just be, without any of the external rationalization that we have become accustomed to.

Point the first: If I am obligated to do something, I do it. There is no external knowledge of that obligation being good or evil--it is just an action.

Then you are not free. Adam and Eve clearly were, insofar as they were capable of choosing to disobey God. If they were obligated in the sense you provide, that would never have been possible.

Point the second: They understood the ought to obey God. They did not know that it was good, and disobedience was evil, for they did not know the difference.

What else does "ought" imply, but good and evil?

For them, God simply was. His will simply was. It is difficult for us to grasp the idea that something can just be, without any of the external rationalization that we have become accustomed to.

What's your point?

It is the other way around. She desires to commit sin, and then she actually commits it.

Once she makes the decision to commit sin, she has then expressed a desire to commit sin. The decision and desire come before the action.

So God is not free?

Who's to say? I stated that he has no desire to commit evil. Of course, it could be that his perfection necessarily cancels out any possibility of evil, desire or action. I don't think we can ever know for sure (at least, on Earth).

Once she makes the decision to commit sin, she has then expressed a desire to commit sin. The decision and desire come before the action.

But if she never desires to commit sin, she is still perfectly free. Freedom does not require a desire to commit evil. It follows that God could have created humans as free-willed beings without creating them also with the desire to commit evil.

Most likely, there were no "strict monotheists" among the Jews (or, at least, they were an extremely marginalized group) until substantially after the monarchy had been established.

I would say that is most likely. It may even be possible that some events in the Torah, especially Exodus, might have had influence from later writers who possibly sought to change it to be more in line with the other, later books. I think there was at least some retroactive continuity applied to these earlier books.

I don't have my books with me, so I can't provide for you all the evidence on this question, but this question (among many other interesting ones) is dealt with in more detail in Stanley Rosenbaum's Understanding Biblical Israel, which I read a couple summers ago and enjoyed immensely.

I'll have to take a look at it. They most likely carry it at the local bookstore since it's a college store and a lot of te

Most of the names for God in the Bible are likely examples of syncretism. Either the being was incorporated into the concept or suppressed by the monotheists.

I think the former is more likely; in translation, the two creation accounts immediately stand out as a sign of this, and the use of God's multiple names as well as their similarity or outright identical nomenclature with other Semitic and Mediterranean religions really suggests syncretism as the most likely path.

There is no necessary contradiction in the notion of a perfect universe.

No, there isn't. Although you could say that the nonliving, or even broaden it to the non-sapient component of universe is "perfect" and man is the exception because of his free will.

This makes a lot more sense to me.

I've said before to you that pagan polytheism is easier for me to accept intellectually than "Abrahamic" monotheism; the fact that it does not attempt to make the divine omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and supreme in every potential respect is the chief reason for this.

Yes, and that's why I've tended to lean more and more towards it, moreseo than ever in the past couple of weeks.

Interestingly, the Greek theology is also notable because it involves lesser Gods overthrowing their progenitors and installing themselves as the new, more limited and competitive rulers, something that isn't very common in the other beliefs of the time. Some of this may tie culturally with the ancient Boeotian (Hesiod was from a village in Boeotia) distrust of organized and centralized power as well as well as their struggle against the king-ruled city state of Athens, one of the most powerful city-states in the time of Hesiod, which was the 9th century BC.

If it allows you to sin, of course it is an imperfect (though not necessarily undesirable) state.

But if you weren't free, wouldn't you be imperfect in the same sense because you are limited?

But they did not understand why they should listen to God, because they had no notion of good and evil.

All we know is that God told them what to do, and that they were tempted in to disobeying him. Presumably, they had the knowledge to listen to God's command and the free will to disobey him but they lacked the knowledge of good and evil that could only be attained by eating the fruit from the tree.

I've always wondered two things.
1, Why do Atheists actively pursue the denial of God.
I never feel the need to disprove Santa Clause.

2, Why is it Christians they go after? The World has many religions, yet only this one seems offensive.

I've always wondered two things.
1, Why do Atheists actively pursue the denial of God.
I never feel the need to disprove Santa Clause.

2, Why is it Christians they go after? The World has many religions, yet only this one seems offensive.

Probably because Christians are a majority at least in the US, and the publicly outspoken atheists want attention. My assumption would be your average atheist is like your average person: interested in their own business and only bite if bitten.

Still moreso - all these people that are 'begot': Where from? Not all of them are listed as having wives, soooo... wtf?

DUH! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they had wives!
Just because their wives are not NAMED or MENTIONED in the genealogies doesn't mean they didn't have any. Read Matthew 1:1-16; very few wives are named there. Doesn't mean the rest didn't HAVE any.

I've always wondered two things.
1, Why do Atheists actively pursue the denial of God.
I never feel the need to disprove Santa Clause.

2, Why is it Christians they go after? The World has many religions, yet only this one seems offensive.

It's because atheists know that Christianity's "holy book", the Bible, is unique among books; it's the only book that is ALIVE.

The ink, paper, and binding are inanimate objects; I'm not talking about those. But the WORDS in that book are alive, and while you read that Book, IT also reads YOU, knows your thoughts, and adapts itself accordingly, based on your attitude toward it.

If you want to be misled, it will mislead you.
If you want an alibi for some sin(s) you are committing, it will give you one (Proverbs 31:6,7 for example)
If you want to be deceived, it will deceive you.
If you want the truth bad enough to obey it, it will give you the truth, and yet every word in the Book is truth.
If you think negatively of that Book when you read it, it will spiritually and theologically disembowel you.
If you think positively of that Book (and obey it) when you read it, it will be a fountain of life to you.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOUR HEART! (Not the beating heart in your chest, but the seat of your emotions - THAT heart)

Atheists cannot tolerate such a book because it knows all about them (and the rest of us) and TELLS it. They are against IT because IT is against THEM.

I've always wondered two things.
1, Why do Atheists actively pursue the denial of God.
I never feel the need to disprove Santa Clause.

I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I or Soheran are trying to prove or disprove the existence of God; it's a discussion about the philosophy of religion and the nature of God, but not an argument about existence. We're analyzing the Bible from a secular standpoint, but that doesn't have anything to do with its veracity unless you literally interpret the Bible as the perfect word of God. After all, if God wrote the Bible he was working through many fallible human beings over thousands of years and dozens of books to transmit his Word in the first place.

2, Why is it Christians they go after? The World has many religions, yet only this one seems offensive.

Not offensive to me. I'm interested in the Bible and Christianity because it's pretty much the religious forefather of the Western world as well as a source of a lot of our cultural, moral, and spiritual conceptions as well as millenia of thought-provoking philosophical and theological discourse.

Also, it's because this forum doesn't attract as many Muslims to discuss with, and because many of us simply aren't as knowledgeable about Islam or the Qur'an as we are Judeo-Christian beliefs and the Bible due to a number of factors, of which the two main factors are geography and cultural background. Most members here are of European descent and live in Europe or North America, and so we are more likely to come from a Christian or Jewish background and our culture is more heavily influenced by Christianity and the Bible than any other region of the world.

DUH! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they had wives!
Just because their wives are not NAMED or MENTIONED in the genealogies doesn't mean they didn't have any. Read Matthew 1:1-16; very few wives are named there. Doesn't mean the rest didn't HAVE any.



It's because atheists know that Christianity's "holy book", the Bible, is unique among books; it's the only book that is ALIVE.

The ink, paper, and binding are inanimate objects; I'm not talking about those. But the WORDS in that book are alive, and while you read that Book, IT also reads YOU, knows your thoughts, and adapts itself accordingly, based on your attitude toward it.

If you want to be misled, it will mislead you.
If you want an alibi for some sin(s) you are committing, it will give you one (Proverbs 31:6,7 for example)

As a Christian, I think that other Christians who use the devil/Bible to explain away their sin makes them a whiny bitch.

I would say that is most likely. It may even be possible that some events in the Torah, especially Exodus, might have had influence from later writers who possibly sought to change it to be more in line with the other, later books. I think there was at least some retroactive continuity applied to these earlier books.

The narrative is heavily edited, and the legal codes are probably almost entirely interpolation, especially Deuteronomy.

The writers were attempting to create a national mythology to maintain unity, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

I think the former is more likely; in translation, the two creation accounts immediately stand out as a sign of this, and the use of God's multiple names as well as their similarity or outright identical nomenclature with other Semitic and Mediterranean religions really suggests syncretism as the most likely path.

Oh, in El's case, it was probably mostly syncretism. But entities like Baal (which may be an amalgation in its own right) were suppressed.

No, there isn't. Although you could say that the nonliving, or even broaden it to the non-sapient component of universe is "perfect" and man is the exception because of his free will.

This makes a lot more sense to me.

Well, "perfection" at least in the moral sense is relative to the welfare of sapient beings.

Yes, and that's why I've tended to lean more and more towards it, moreseo than ever in the past couple of weeks.

If my spiritual self can ever overcome the aggressively materialist portions of my rational mind, I may end up somewhere similar.

Whatever else you say about atheism, it is certainly boring.

Interestingly, the Greek theology is also notable because it involves lesser Gods overthrowing their progenitors and installing themselves as the new, more limited and competitive rulers, something that isn't very common in the other beliefs of the time. Some of this may tie culturally with the ancient Boeotian (Hesiod was from a village in Boeotia) distrust of organized and centralized power as well as well as their struggle against the king-ruled city state of Athens, one of the most powerful city-states in the time of Hesiod, which was the 9th century BC.

Religion has taken on a wide variety of political roles in its history; use against "organized and centralized power" ranks up there among the best ones.

If only they did not have such a tendency, at least in our centralized hierarchical societies, to themselves become "organized and centralized."

But if you weren't free, wouldn't you be imperfect in the same sense because you are limited?

Well... yes. I should have said "unknowingly sin."

The perfect being must be both free and sinless; sinlessness requires knowledge of good and evil. Once you have knowledge of sin, you are capable of choosing not to do it, as you would if you were a morally perfect being.

All we know is that God told them what to do, and that they were tempted in to disobeying him. Presumably, they had the knowledge to listen to God's command and the free will to disobey him but they lacked the knowledge of good and evil that could only be attained by eating the fruit from the tree.

But why punish people who did not know that they were doing anything wrong? What purpose does it serve?

[/B]

As a Christian, I think that other Christians who use the devil/Bible to explain away their sin makes them a whiny bitch.

I agree wholeheartedly!:D

1, Why do Atheists actively pursue the denial of God. I never feel the need to disprove Santa Clause.

My objective is the internal goods of the process of thoughtful discussion rather than any particular conclusion, though a good philosophical foundation for belief in God would certainly be interesting to read or listen to.

2, Why is it Christians they go after? The World has many religions, yet only this one seems offensive.

Why do you assume it is only Christians we go after? I don't like any form of organized religion.

I find some aspects of some kinds of Christianity beautiful, and others offensive. The same is pretty much true of all organized religions for me.

After all, if God wrote the Bible he was working through many fallible human beings over thousands of years and dozens of books to transmit his Word in the first place.

Incidentally, I read the book (and others like it) when I was still a fairly strongly believing Jew.

My ultimate conclusion was that arguing over the truth of the narrative is missing the point; the narrative is meant to serve a function, to be morally relevant and to clarify our place in the world, and whether or not anyone really crossed the Sea of Reeds in the manner depicted is irrelevant to that.

Indeed, the only thing it really does is negate the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, both in its insistence that every word is literally true and in its demand that everyone worship the same way.

Trying to critique the Bible in English is a pointless exercise. Almost all English translations of it just plain out suck. Try reading it in Hebrew. The Bibles you read here were first translated from Hebrew to Greek and then from Greek to English.

Heck the Christians have the dumb idea Mary was a virgin. Anyone who knows Hebrew knows that the word for young woman is the same word for virgin. Someone really fucked up the translation there.

I am pretty sure the entirety of the "Bible" was not originally in Hebrew" if I remember right the OT yes, the NT not so much.

I am pretty sure the entirety of the "Bible" was not originally in Hebrew" if I remember right the OT yes, the NT not so much.The oldest OT, the Septuagint, also was Greek. No Hebrew texts exist today that predate the Septuagint and propagate the same monotheistic theology. Judaism is a fabrication of the Persian (and thus also well Zoroastrian) era and it was finally put into a book in the Ptolemaic era.
.

Everybody knows that the OT is crap. It's now theorised that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob weren't related, but were separate preachers working in northern, southern and central Israel.

The bible is inherently contradictory, but what else can be expected from a collection of texts written by different people at different times. How anyone can believe it literally is beyond my understanding of rational thought.

I find it impossible to reconcile the idea of an all knowing god with free will.

Logic tells me it is impossible:
Since God is all knowing, He knows what I will do in the future.
Since He is perfect, He cannot be wrong.
Therefore, I will do what he knows I will do.
Therefore I have no free will.

The Bible agrees with me:
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Rom.8:29-30
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
2 Tim.1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.

In any non-determinist universe, there must be an unknowable element to the future.

the bible is a funny piece of propaganda.

the bible is a funny piece of propaganda.And we all know whose.
.

The narrative is heavily edited, and the legal codes are probably almost entirely interpolation, especially Deuteronomy.

The writers were attempting to create a national mythology to maintain unity, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Oh yeah; unfortunately, I don't know ancient or contemporary Hebrew so I can't really look at the ancient texts or modern day Torah scrolls so my knowledge of the internal consistency of the Old Testament is limited to the references in the translations.

Oh, in El's case, it was probably mostly syncretism. But entities like Baal (which may be an amalgation in its own right) were suppressed.

Or Astarte, who was demonized as a demon of lust by the ancient Jews. There was a lot of that suppression, primarily focused on the Gods whose domains concerned elements of human nature seen as immoral by the ancient Jews.

Well, "perfection" at least in the moral sense is relative to the welfare of sapient beings.

That's true; I imagine God is perfect in both senses, so presumably the non-sapient universe is also perfect in a non-moral sense but rather a physical sense.


If my spiritual self can ever overcome the aggressively materialist portions of my rational mind, I may end up somewhere similar.

Whatever else you say about atheism, it is certainly boring.

I imagine it's one of those things that just takes time to develop. If you look in to it and find it can work with your other beliefs, it's probably a safe bet to go with that particular belief system.

The reason why I'm attracted to the Greek pantheon is because their culture was a lot more rational and developed a belief system which was more logically rigorous than others of its time; there were people then that were asking the same questions we ask today, and the ancient Greeks answered them in ways that made more sense than other arguments.

The concept of creation being spontaneous, nontheistic and ex nihilo is very thought-provoking and quite plausible, especially compared to other explanations.

Religion has taken on a wide variety of political roles in its history; use against "organized and centralized power" ranks up there among the best ones.

If only they did not have such a tendency, at least in our centralized hierarchical societies, to themselves become "organized and centralized."

That's true. Obviously, it's one of the biggest conflicts throughout the history of our civilization and really falls in to the larger struggle between individual rights and the centralized powers that try to control them. I might see religion as a force opposed to that kind of power, but there are other religions which believe the total opposite...it's not an easy to answer question.

Well... yes. I should have said "unknowingly sin."

The perfect being must be both free and sinless; sinlessness requires knowledge of good and evil. Once you have knowledge of sin, you are capable of choosing not to do it, as you would if you were a morally perfect being.

Which is what God is; he had knowledge of sin, but because he is perfect he would not choose to do so at any point. However, I think it is impossible for him to sin regardless because he is not limited by the same laws that he gave to man. What we might see as a sin might ultimately prove to be an inherently good action because God might look at the ramifications of a particular event 20 years in the future rather than right now.

Yes, that's true;

But why punish people who did not know that they were doing anything wrong? What purpose does it serve?

That's a good question. It's also a good question as to why God would create such a "tree" and a tempter (obviously it wasn't a literal tree) in the first place, yet would not give the two the knowledge that disobedience was wrong.

I imagine we'd ultimately find out that God intended for it to happen, for whatever reasons he felt such an aim was desirable.

I see a few problems with this debate, some of which people have pointed out, some of which haven't been.

I find it funny that people who totally disdain the Bible and God also prescribe to Christian ideas of good and evil, even in the abstract sense, and argue that if God is good then he could not create evil. If he is perfect, he could not create or allow evil.

You agree to beliefs that they believe in. I'll give you an easy cop out and say it's possible that you're arguing the topic through the world-view of the Christians, more or less giving them the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead and say that's what you're doing now if you want to stop reading.

Anyhoo, the problem with the concepts of evil, perfection, and morality as we're discussing it are moot.

We can make the assumption that God, or any god, is a being of a higher evolution than us. That's a given, he's perfect, right? That makes it hard for us to judge good and evil on the same level as God.

It's also a given that he's omnipotent, yes? Then he can create anything he likes, including good and evil.

The introduction of evil in the world is not itself an evil act, because without evil, there's no good. See what I mean? In the absence of evil there is no good, and vice versa.

Therefore, by existing as a perfect deity, God transcends good and evil as we know it. You can blame him for destroying an island full of innocent people and point and scream "Where is your God now? How can he let evil happen?"

I tell you now, nothing in nature itself is evil. He's not letting bad things happen, he's letting natural things happen.

Along those lines, you cannot complain about evil things happening in the world, because if God were to step in and stop it, we'd lose free will. He does not exist to be a beat-cop all the time. He's not a super-hero. He does not correct evil, because if He did, evil would cease to have a point, and would no longer exist. Then our free will is trumped and we're back to square one: happy clams with no morality at all.

I say to you, evil exists so that good may exist. Without light there is no dark, with no dark there is no light.

Bringing this back to the beginning, God as all powerful and all that would also transcend paradox. How? He's perfect, move along please.

Now, before I get blasted, yes I am a Christian and believe the basic foundations of the church. I do not, however, let it keep me from seeing in shades of gray.

Many, MANY people here though, do exactly what they proclaim they have overcome by denying religion: they see in black and white.

Nothing is absolute. God could be a duck-billed fucking platypus and all the shit that goes on could be totally meaningless. I don't believe that, but I'm open to it being possible.

It's time for everyone to see the world in color. The black and white makes everyone look backwards and stupid.

Oh yeah; unfortunately, I don't know ancient or contemporary Hebrew so I can't really look at the ancient texts or modern day Torah scrolls so my knowledge of the internal consistency of the Old Testament is limited to the references in the translations.

I'm getting most of this from books, not from individual textual study. Other people with far more knowledge than me have done much more work on this subject than I ever could; I'd rather rely on them.

Or Astarte, who was demonized as a demon of lust by the ancient Jews. There was a lot of that suppression, primarily focused on the Gods whose domains concerned elements of human nature seen as immoral by the ancient Jews.

And in accordance with that came the ritual prohibitions of the Old Testament. The Christians took the idea and ran with it.

I imagine it's one of those things that just takes time to develop. If you look in to it and find it can work with your other beliefs, it's probably a safe bet to go with that particular belief system.

Or I might just make up or syncretize something as I go along, moving from abstraction to particularity under the assumptions that if there's something divine out there deserving of respect, it probably won't care, and that most of it is just symbol and metaphor anyway.

I don't particularly like most of the current options.

The concept of creation being spontaneous, nontheistic and ex nihilo is very thought-provoking and quite plausible, especially compared to other explanations.

Especially considering that all three of those conditions are met by the current scientific explanation.

That's true. Obviously, it's one of the biggest conflicts throughout the history of our civilization and really falls in to the larger struggle between individual rights and the centralized powers that try to control them. I might see religion as a force opposed to that kind of power, but there are other religions which believe the total opposite...it's not an easy to answer question.

It can go either way.

On the one hand you have this concept of a being who is supposed to be naturally supreme over humans, and it doesn't take much for that kind of notion to be exploited by the powerful to justify their own role. Add to it the way organized religions tend to create religious hierarchies as well, with human intermediaries between the common people and God and so on, and a recipe for centralized power is created.

On the other hand religions often have a grassroots popular basis, and in that role they can be quite empowering. Oscar Romero and Martin Luther King were not opiates of the masses.

Which is what God is; he had knowledge of sin, but because he is perfect he would not choose to do so at any point.

Exactly. And if He is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, I don't see why He wouldn't have created us the same way.

That "omnipotent" clause gets the Abrahamic religions in a lot of trouble.

However, I think it is impossible for him to sin regardless because he is not limited by the same laws that he gave to man. What we might see as a sin might ultimately prove to be an inherently good action because God might look at the ramifications of a particular event 20 years in the future rather than right now.

The utilitarians will tell you that human beings, at least if they have enough knowledge, can and should act in the same way.

It seems more an issue of capability than law; perhaps the moral law is equivalent for both God and humans, but the way in which it is followed is relative to one's capability to do so.

That's a good question. It's also a good question as to why God would create such a "tree" and a tempter (obviously it wasn't a literal tree) in the first place, yet would not give the two the knowledge that disobedience was wrong.

I imagine we'd ultimately find out that God intended for it to happen, for whatever reasons he felt such an aim was desirable.

My guess would be that either "knowledge of good and evil" really isn't what it seems to be (indeed, all Adam and Eve seem to get from it is shame about their nakedness, hardly a useful trait, and perhaps more of an eye-closer than an eye-opener), or that for some reason God wanted them to disobey His command, and what is seen to be "punishment" really isn't.

Wowzoration!!!!! Christians are ignorant hypocrites!!!!!