NationStates Jolt Archive


Creation, freedom of will, and use of think by Christians.

Icelove The Carnal
26-12-2007, 15:03
This thread is NOT about creationism. During the Rotovian discussion "I've lost all tolerance for religious people", I denied that a Christian (which is, me) does not think, or use his brain. BackwoodsSquatches replied that, in Genesis, God punishes mankind for reaching the Fruit, which is a symbol of knowledge. My answer was that the Fruit does not mean knowledge, for Adam's knowledge was perfect, before he ate the fruit (the ones of you who read Dante's Commedia know what I mean). Then the debate was about significance of the fruit, of the moral behind the creation tale and other minor issues. I'd love to continue this debate, and to ask others who are interested in this to join it.

I need to ask you to be kind - say your opinions, but do not launch verbal assaults agains users.


Here we were:

As I wrote a few minutes ago, the apple, or even fruit in general, symbolizes wisdom, and knowledge. (and rebirth, and all sorts of things). Google it if you doubt me.
Im right on this.

I do not doubt you. I was asking, because I did'n know what you were refferring to. And' to tell the truth, I don't know, right now, what you're referring to. I googled it, in Italian and English, but I couldn't find anything useful (which is probably because of my incapacity). Anyway, if you can link me something referring to a pre-biblical use of a fruit metaphora relating to knowledge, you'll have all my gratitude.

As for Adam and Eve, God asked them "Who toldest thou thou were naked?" They dutifully pointed the finger at the serpent.
This clearly implies that they didnt understand the term beforehand. Thus, imperfect knowledge.

Yes, but nakedness has many significances; or, better: the same nakedness can be seen from many points of view. We have the physical nakedness: a body, with no clothes upon it. Is it wrong? Is it a sin go around naked? Nakedness was a vox media, before the serpent and the fruit added the shameful significance to a natural state. Imperfect knowledge, but after eating the fruit.

Let me put it to you this way:

If God knew what was to befall his creations, and went ahead and created the tree, with the forbidden fruit, in full knowledge of what was to happen, then he is as much to blame as Eve. He KNEW they would eat it. He KNEW that he would punish them for it.
This is entrapment, clearly.
The question immediately becomes, "why would he punish them, for something he knew they could not/ would not resist?"
Would he punish a rooster for crowing?
Would he curse the sun for shining?

They ate from the tree of knowledge. They learned. They were punished for it.


I knew my brother was going to choose a certain school. He chose it. Have I entraped him? Simply, I'm not omniscent, but I know him rather well.
I recognize that this example does not work, because I didn't create that school, anyway:

Mankind was given freedom of will. Freedom of will requires a situation where it can be applied, for we are no angels, and many of our actions require a physical world. Freedom of will requires the potency of sin. God never came and said: "Hey Adam, eat the fruit! So you'll sin!". He gave an order: do not eat that, and gave the potency of eating that. If you want good action to have a value as good, you need the chance to do evil things. Otherwise, Justice would have no meaning. Between a necessitated action and a free action lies the same difference we can find between a zero and any other number.

This is a justification for God, if God needs any justification from humans. Anyway, there is something about this I still couldn't solve. Always reasoning in numbers: if God is omnipotent, and he wanted to give a value to actions, couldn't he do this without giving freedom of will? Of course, we go to fall in: "God likes good things or things are good because He likes them?". It is something I cannot answer. Not yet, at least. Probably, the answer is related with the human similitude with God enunced during Adam's creation.
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 15:21
Mankind was given freedom of will. Freedom of will requires a situation where it can be applied, for we are no angels, and many of our actions require a physical world. Freedom of will requires the potency of sin. God never came and said: "Hey Adam, eat the fruit! So you'll sin!". He gave an order: do not eat that, and gave the potency of eating that. If you want good action to have a value as good, you need the chance to do evil things. Otherwise, Justice would have no meaning. Between a necessitated action and a free action lies the same difference we can find between a zero and any other number.

While I fully agree with the "choices should have consequences or else there is no point" part, this does suggest that God does not wish us to use free will.
Doing something other than God says after all will result in punishment. With the fruit, and with the eternal hellfire debates we so often have here.

So basicly "you have the freedom to choose to do what I say or suffer". Not even "suffer the consequences" but "suffer".
Similization
26-12-2007, 15:23
I'm pretty sure it's traditional to distinguish between choice and coersion.
G3N13
26-12-2007, 15:34
I'm pretty sure it's traditional to distinguish between choice and coersion.

Well, eating is a choice too (assuming there's food around in the first place)

If you choose not to eat anything there will be consequences, however you can still choose to ståp eating.

If G/god(s) existed and there was a mechanism to reward certain type of - usually hypocritical - behaviour then choosing not to act would still constitute as a choice even if it inevitably would lead to bad consequences.

The real question is how can there be freedom of will if there are omniscient dieties around?

While pondering that question what about the following scenario:
You're sitting on a couch and ask your omniscient entity, future predicting machine, or whatever whether you'll be sitting on the couch a minute from now?

Assuming you're healthy, remain healthy and retain free mobility how could the omniscient entity answer the question truthfully if you had already decided to go against the answer ie. 'You remain sitting' -> stand up and walk away, 'You won't be sitting' -> remain in place?

Can sufficiently distant future even be known?
Similization
26-12-2007, 16:08
Well, eating is a choice too (assuming there's food around in the first place)Yes, but my point was that humans tend to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary behaviour. That's what the free will thing is about. If I don't want to suffer the agonies of Hell for all eternity, for example, I'm not free to decide whether or not to indulge my curiosity.The real question is how can there be freedom of will if there are omniscient dieties around?It's a paradox. Same as asking if an omnipotent being can do something it can't (like creating a rock it can't lift or whatever).While pondering that question what about the following scenario:
You're sitting on a couch and ask your omniscient entity, future predicting machine, or whatever whether you'll be sitting on the couch a minute from now?

Can sufficiently distant future even be known?Both questions depend on whether you'll accept mock answers, and to what degree reality is deterministic.

A mock answer could be something like chance. For example, you might have insufficient time between finding out you'd stay seated & a flying pan knocking you senseless, to stand up. Or in the opposite scenario, a hungry critter might decide to snack on your bum, compelling you to get up in spite of yourself.

The deterministic answer is that something might be able to make that sort of accurate prediction, if the workings of the reality allows it. The something would likely have to be at least slightly more complicated than the sum total of reality. More complicated, because it'd have to be able to emulate reality at a greater speed than reality itself.

The less precise an answer you want, however, the less important the question of complexity and determinism becomes. Because regardless of whether or not weak, strong or any determinism is true, reality is consistent enough to represent as functions. Thus, the less precise the answer has to be, the easier it is to make accurate predictions. Humans are brilliant at understanding and doing this intuitively, which is part of the reasons conmen with "magic powers" have such an easy time of it.

On a side note, am I the only one who thinks this determinism thing is far more interesting than the religion stuff?
Soheran
26-12-2007, 16:33
Assuming you're healthy, remain healthy and retain free mobility how could the omniscient entity answer the question truthfully if you had already decided to go against the answer ie. 'You remain sitting' -> stand up and walk away, 'You won't be sitting' -> remain in place?

The omniscient entity knows (a) if it says "sitting", you will not be sitting, and (b) if it says "not sitting", you will be sitting. If it also knows which one it will say, it can perfectly predict your action.

True, it cannot answer the question truthfully. But so what? It's still omniscient. If it has some prohibition against lying, it can say nothing at all.
Pirated Corsairs
26-12-2007, 16:56
The omniscient entity knows (a) if it says "sitting", you will not be sitting, and (b) if it says "not sitting", you will be sitting. If it also knows which one it will say, it can perfectly predict your action.

True, it cannot answer the question truthfully. But so what? It's still omniscient. If it has some prohibition against lying, it can say nothing at all.

Well, that's assuming that he holds himself to the same standard as he holds everybody else. If we're talking about the biblical God, then that is clearly not the case.
Free Soviets
26-12-2007, 19:06
Well, that's assuming that he holds himself to the same standard as he holds everybody else. If we're talking about the biblical God, then that is clearly not the case.

yeah, they could avoid a lot of the tricky theological problems they run into if they were happy with the god they have, rather than the god they wished they had. problem of evil? no problem, bible god's a fucking dick. omniscience and free will? no problem, bible god clearly doesn't know very much, let alone everything. etc.
Call to power
26-12-2007, 19:50
Mankind was given freedom of will.

evidence for this is?
Dyakovo
26-12-2007, 20:05
Mankind was given freedom of will.

evidence for this is?

I have no slaves named Will? ;)
Fnordgasm 5
26-12-2007, 21:02
Well, that's assuming that he holds himself to the same standard as he holds everybody else. If we're talking about the biblical God, then that is clearly not the case.

That's always puzzled me. In the bible, God kills. That's against his rules. Surely that implies morality is subjective, right?
Soheran
26-12-2007, 21:30
In the bible, God kills. That's against his rules.

God also prescribes the death penalty for a whole list of crimes. The conclusion is simple: "Thou shalt not kill" effectively means "Thou shalt not murder", and does not apply to killing in wartime, to civil punishment, or to God's commands.

Edit: Now, Jesus. Harder to get out of that one, at least in terms of humans killing--God can always get away with "I can judge, but you can't."
Dyakovo
26-12-2007, 21:36
That's always puzzled me. In the bible, God kills. That's against his rules. Surely that implies morality is subjective, right?

The commandment states Thou shalt not kill, not I shall not kill ;) so its perfectly ok for him to do it.
The Alma Mater
26-12-2007, 21:46
That's always puzzled me. In the bible, God kills. That's against his rules. Surely that implies morality is subjective, right?

No, just that God does not tell you the whole rules. You get a few on a heap without a consistent underlying explanation and are expected to obey.
Laerod
26-12-2007, 22:19
That's always puzzled me. In the bible, God kills. That's against his rules. Surely that implies morality is subjective, right?Just because you nead to go to bed early doesn't mean your parents do as well, does it?
Icelove The Carnal
26-12-2007, 22:35
evidence for this is?

The fact that I can hurt the one I love and shake my hand with the one I hate.
South Lorenya
26-12-2007, 22:44
My opinions, you say? Here goes:

(1) Christianity has far too many flaws that DESPERATELY need fixing. For example:
* God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). Genesis 1:3-5
* God decides to kill all living things because the human imagination is evil. Later (Genesis 8:21), after he kills everything, he promises never to do it again because the human imagination is evil. Go figure. Genesis 6:5
* God says that Abraham didn't know that his name was Jehovah. Yet in Gen.22:14 Abraham names the place where he nearly kills Isaac after God's name, Jehovah. Exodus 6:3
(2) Why should I worship a deity that let 9/11 happen? Why should I worship a deity that let the 12/26/04 quake + tsunami kill two hundred thousand people? Why should I worship a deity that let WWII happen? And while we're at it, why should I believe people who think 'God works in mysterious ways" is a suitable answer for those questions?
Ohshucksiforgotourname
26-12-2007, 23:13
This thread is NOT about creationism. During the Rotovian discussion "I've lost all tolerance for religious people", I denied that a Christian (which is, me) does not think, or use his brain. BackwoodsSquatches replied that, in Genesis, God punishes mankind for reaching the Fruit, which is a symbol of knowledge. My answer was that the Fruit does not mean knowledge, for Adam's knowledge was perfect, before he ate the fruit (the ones of you who read Dante's Commedia know what I mean). Then the debate was about significance of the fruit, of the moral behind the creation tale and other minor issues. I'd love to continue this debate, and to ask others who are interested in this to join it.

I happen to be a Bible-believing Christian, and when I saw the OP on that thread, it (Rotovia-'s intolerance of religious people) made me VERY angry, and I'm glad Katganistan locked the thread. I wish that entire thread could be deleted.

But you're right; being a Christian does NOT mean lack of thinking, or non-use of one's brain.
South Lorenya
26-12-2007, 23:23
If you're a bible-believing christian, then please explain why god did nothing to stop WWII, 9/11, and the 12/26/04 tsunamiquake. Rememeber, I do not find "God works in mysterious ways!" acceptable.
G3N13
26-12-2007, 23:29
The omniscient entity knows (a) if it says "sitting", you will not be sitting, and (b) if it says "not sitting", you will be sitting. If it also knows which one it will say, it can perfectly predict your action.

True, it cannot answer the question truthfully. But so what? It's still omniscient. If it has some prohibition against lying, it can say nothing at all.

Omniscient being would know - by definition - how to answer the question truthfully and without weasel words.

If the being/computer/crystal ball is not forced to give answer but is allowed to write it in a hidden envelope then, yes, the being can predict (dictate?) future with absolute certainty but if the person is given a choice then the future becomes uncertain - but only if the person is given enough time to react to the predicted 'truth' for if he/she isn't given enough time the future unfolds completely predictably because the subject is incapable of reacting to the answer.

For that matter, one doesn't even have to have a quality called free will in order to violate the answer of the future knowing entity: A computer could do the same - Just program a bot to stand up if predicted to stay put and vice versa.

Also, consider if the link to the future is actually a "time window": A TV set tuned to the couch you're sitting 1 minute into the future. If you see yourself sitting on the couch one minute away you can still stand up, leave and violate the absolute future (but not, if you only see 1/100th of a second into the future).
Free Soviets
26-12-2007, 23:30
But you're right; being a Christian does NOT mean lack of thinking, or non-use of one's brain.

it does, however, imply a certain lack of critical thinking - a willful disregard for the evidence in some circumstances and a willingness to hold a number of utterly ludicrous propositions as true for no epistemically justifiable reason.
Soheran
27-12-2007, 00:44
Omniscient being would know - by definition - how to answer the question truthfully and without weasel words.

Only if there is such a way. Omniscience isn't omnipotence.

If the being/computer/crystal ball is not forced to give answer but is allowed to write it in a hidden envelope then, yes, the being can predict (dictate?) future with absolute certainty but if the person is given a choice then the future becomes uncertain

The person is given a choice either way, and even if the being gives an answer, the choice is still perfectly predictable.

It just predicts that the person will do the opposite of whatever the being says.

Also, consider if the link to the future is actually a "time window": A TV set tuned to the couch you're sitting 1 minute into the future. If you see yourself sitting on the couch one minute away you can still stand up, leave and violate the absolute future (but not, if you only see 1/100th of a second into the future).

That's right. Perfect prescience is definitely incompatible with your own free will. The real question is whether prescience is also incompatible with everyone else's free will.
Soheran
27-12-2007, 01:32
Atheistic evolutionists are also guilty of "a willful disregard for the evidence in some circumstances and a willingness to hold a number of utterly ludicrous propositions as true for no epistemically justifiable reason".

Because the theory of evolution is an "utterly ludicrous proposition", and many, if not most, people who accept it willfully disregard any scientific evidence which suggests otherwise, and will not produce the "evidence" they claim proves their theory.

If you want to dispute his characterization of Christians, it might help not to confirm his assessment.
Ohshucksiforgotourname
27-12-2007, 01:32
it does, however, imply a certain lack of critical thinking - a willful disregard for the evidence in some circumstances and a willingness to hold a number of utterly ludicrous propositions as true for no epistemically justifiable reason.

Atheistic evolutionists are also guilty of "a willful disregard for the evidence in some circumstances and a willingness to hold a number of utterly ludicrous propositions as true for no epistemically justifiable reason".

Because the theory of evolution is an "utterly ludicrous proposition", and many, if not most, people who accept it willfully disregard any scientific evidence which suggests otherwise, and will not produce the "evidence" they claim proves their theory.
Hoyteca
27-12-2007, 02:37
If you're a bible-believing christian, then please explain why god did nothing to stop WWII, 9/11, and the 12/26/04 tsunamiquake. Rememeber, I do not find "God works in mysterious ways!" acceptable.

Maybe it's not his job to fix our mistakes every time we make mistakes? Maybe he's like a parent who sees his kid failing school, offers guidance, but, in the end, doesn't just go and stop the failure? If he was just going to fix every little problem we make, then why give us free will? Why let us make choices? He works in mysterious ways because we don't know how he works. There's mystery. Does he use a dart board? Does he pur alphabet soup and do whatever actions the letters spell out? How the hell would anyone, but him, know?
G3N13
27-12-2007, 02:45
Only if there is such a way. Omniscience isn't omnipotence.
One could argue that omniscient being would know how to be, or at the minimum how to become, omnipotent.

It just predicts that the person will do the opposite of whatever the being says.
But there's absolutely no need or requirement to do the opposite.

If the "test" is run for example 3 times, one could counter the future twice and go along once.

The being, machine or window couldn't still show/tell exactly how many times - if any - the tables will be turned, so to speak.

I think that at best the result given would have to be a probability instead of an actual absolute truth.

Perfect prescience is definitely incompatible with your own free will. The real question is whether prescience is also incompatible with everyone else's free will.

From a mortal viewpoint...Let's take an example, if I'm told - by a deity, machine, orb - that person A will die when he enters building B at a time C and I can reach C in time to prevent A from entering building B then wouldn't it be *me* who makes the free-willed decision instead of person A who is destined to go into the building if I didn't try to stop him/her?

So it follows, if the viewpoint is an all-knowing external voyeur - an extradimensional deity of sorts - then knowing the future (if possible) and not telling it to subjects is basically equal of stripping them of freedom of choice because any perceived free choice (A will enter the building B because it piques his interest) the subjects make would already have a result (A will die in B because the building will collapse) that is known to the being.

Things would get interesting if the being could be asked anytime what happens in the future and how one's actions affect the outcome.
Soheran
27-12-2007, 02:57
One could argue that omniscient being would know how to be, or at the minimum how to become, omnipotent.

If there is no such way, knowledge of everything would not inform you of how to do it.

Omniscience does not, in and of itself, necessitate a world in which omnipotence is possible.

But there's absolutely no need or requirement to do the opposite.

Now this is a different argument entirely.

Theoretically the omniscient being would be familiar enough with the personality of the entity in question to guess which one it would go with. I would agree with you that if this gives the omniscient entity certainty, then the entity who is choosing does not have free will.

From a mortal viewpoint...Let's take an example, if I'm told - by a deity, machine, orb - that person A will die when he enters building B at a time C and I can reach C in time to prevent A from entering building B then wouldn't it be *me* who makes the free-willed decision instead of person A who is destined to go into the building if I didn't try to stop him/her?

I don't see why your decision is any more free-willed than Person A's. The difference is simply this: the deity/machine/orb makes a prediction about you (that you won't stop Person A) without taking into account the effects of you hearing the prediction, and thus cannot accurately predict your action when considering those effects.

Person A doesn't hear the prediction and isn't affected.

This holds true even if we have no free will.
G3N13
27-12-2007, 03:44
If there is no such way, knowledge of everything would not inform you of how to do it.
An omnipotent being must know how to lose omnipotence and then become omnipotent again (almost liek teh story of Jesus: god -> mortal -> god) - Therefore an omniscient being must know how a being can become omnipotent while not being one. ;)
Omniscience does not, in and of itself, necessitate a world in which omnipotence is possible.
Omniscience - as a term - is not limited to knowing what is possible but would also incorporate absolute knowledge of how to do/become the impossible.

However, this is pedantic semantics and in a sense of knowing everything knowable - instead of just knowing everything - you are right.

I don't see why your decision is any more free-willed than Person A's. The difference is simply this: the deity/machine/orb makes a prediction about you (that you won't stop Person A) without taking into account the effects of you hearing the prediction, and thus cannot accurately predict your action when considering those effects.
Consider the alternative that I wouldn't do anything - or did the wrong thing - about it even if I was informed about the event.

I don't think any accurate future prediction can be absolutely true if it is known to a sentient being who is a subject of the prediction.

This holds true even if we have no free will.
If there's a being who knows the future and will not share it with us - at will, so to speak - then we have no free will.

I have a belief that for an outside spectator universe can behave deterministically but to a being within the universe must be inherently (up to a point) unpredictable. Furthermore, I think the more involved such an outside being would become the less accurately could it/he/she/they know the system.
Icelove The Carnal
27-12-2007, 10:01
My opinions, you say? Here goes:

(1) Christianity has far too many flaws that DESPERATELY need fixing. For example:
* God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). Genesis 1:3-5

This does not seem all that strange to me. It was a man (or more than one man) who wrote the Book, although inspired. Such husteron-proteron problems can be imputed to humans and tradition of the Text; and, anyway, I consider the Genesis mainly as an allegory.
Here is Milton's explanation (Paradise Lost, Book Third). Truely wonderful verses.

"Hail holy light, ofspring of Heav'n first-born,
Or of th' Eternal Coeternal beam
May I express thee unblam'd? since God is light,
And never but in unapproached light
Dwelt from Eternitie, dwelt then in thee, [ 5 ]
Bright effluence of bright essence increate.
Or hear'st thou rather pure Ethereal stream,
Whose Fountain who shall tell? before the Sun,
Before the Heavens thou wert, and at the voice
Of God, as with a Mantle didst invest [ 10 ]
The rising world of waters dark and deep,
Won from the void and formless infinite."

I don't think I can explain better than so.

There is a far more complex problem, however. God is Light; yet, He creates light. How does this work? For, supposing light to be God's efficience, it's still part of the Trinity (the Holy Ghost), which is not created. Milton seems to suggest the existence of two different kinds of light, which I think to be right.

* God decides to kill all living things because the human imagination is evil. Later (Genesis 8:21), after he kills everything, he promises never to do it again because the human imagination is evil. Go figure. Genesis 6:5

I'm not sure because I do not have the original text in my hands, but I think it could be a matter of translation. I think it could be not the reason because of which He won't do it again, but the reason why He did it. I have some problem explaining this because I am using an Italian translated Bible. I have also read this part in Latin and it didn't solve the problem. Propbably you're right, but I'll take a look for other translations.

Anyway, Bible nowadays is not supposed to say how things worked. At least, my Church usually uses it as a moral book, not as a history book. What do we have to learn from this? That God is a skizoid? I don't think so. The teaching should be something like "obey to God".

* God says that Abraham didn't know that his name was Jehovah. Yet in Gen.22:14 Abraham names the place where he nearly kills Isaac after God's name, Jehovah. Exodus 6:3

Again: I'd catalogue this as a human error. It wasn't God the one who wrote the Bible. I don't think these three to be real problems in faith.

(2) Why should I worship a deity that let 9/11 happen? Why should I worship a deity that let the 12/26/04 quake + tsunami kill two hundred thousand people? Why should I worship a deity that let WWII happen? And while we're at it, why should I believe people who think 'God works in mysterious ways" is a suitable answer for those questions?

These are the TRUE problems. Human action is free, freedom of will is the best gift ever given us (speaking in a religious and "Dantesc" way) and God, respecting it, lets evil things to be done.
But, if you ask me: why the tsunami? why did your friend die with a cancer when he was 17? why Pompei?, I have no answer. The Bible refuses to give an answer. Theology says that it's man's fault - sin has corrupted the world, not only mankind, perverting the natural order. I don't know what to say.
Peepelonia
27-12-2007, 11:52
If you're a bible-believing christian, then please explain why god did nothing to stop WWII, 9/11, and the 12/26/04 tsunamiquake. Rememeber, I do not find "God works in mysterious ways!" acceptable.

Okay do you find 'Only God has knowledge of what the future holds' acceptable?
BackwoodsSquatches
27-12-2007, 12:16
I do not doubt you. I was asking, because I did'n know what you were refferring to. And' to tell the truth, I don't know, right now, what you're referring to. I googled it, in Italian and English, but I couldn't find anything useful (which is probably because of my incapacity). Anyway, if you can link me something referring to a pre-biblical use of a fruit metaphora relating to knowledge, you'll have all my gratitude.

Pre-biblical?
You mean like pre-hebrew oral traditional references to apples, or fruit symbolism?
Well several religious stories use fruit as symbols.
The Norse pantheon gained thier immortality from eating Golden Apples.
Apples, or Pommegranets are used in Greek Mytholgy, particularly in the story of Persephone.
But If you insist upon links, I'll see what I can dig up.

Heres a lovely little one, athough its not terribly explicit:

http://www.usapple.org/consumers/applebits/stories.cfm#mythology




Yes, but nakedness has many significances; or, better: the same nakedness can be seen from many points of view. We have the physical nakedness: a body, with no clothes upon it. Is it wrong? Is it a sin go around naked? Nakedness was a vox media, before the serpent and the fruit added the shameful significance to a natural state. Imperfect knowledge, but after eating the fruit.

Nakedness is fairly condemned in later parts of Genesis and others.
Ham, (I believe) for instance, paid a dear price for accidently seeing his drunken Father naked.
His crime was a small one, and he paid with his banishment.
Or, we can assume this too, is a metaphor, and discuss how too much metaphor leads to open interperetation. At what point do we stop saying "well, that could mean anything"?

Either we adhere to most literal interperetations, or use it all very loosely, at wich point, debate breaks down becuase all those metaphors leave the door wide open, so to speak.



I knew my brother was going to choose a certain school. He chose it. Have I entraped him? Simply, I'm not omniscent, but I know him rather well.
I recognize that this example does not work, because I didn't create that school, anyway:

If you were to punish your brother, by doing the worst thing you could think of, something the equivialent of damning him to hell, along with all his children, and all of humanity that would ever be, becuase he went to the school you didnt approve of?

Meaning, if your brother attended the school anyway, after you warned him not to, ecen though you knew full well that he would make his choice regardless, then yes, your punishment would be infinitely unfair.



Mankind was given freedom of will. Freedom of will requires a situation where it can be applied, for we are no angels, and many of our actions require a physical world. Freedom of will requires the potency of sin. God never came and said: "Hey Adam, eat the fruit! So you'll sin!". He gave an order: do not eat that, and gave the potency of eating that.

Humanity is weak. we give in to temptation on regular intervals.
We both know this is true, yes? It is the epitome of human nature to do what we know is bad for us, or forbidden, every single day.
If we are truly made in God's image, then this is by design as well, would you agree?

So then, in realistic terms, does it make sense for God, to make a "Tree of Knowledge", and have it bear fruit. Naturally, anything eaten from such a thing called "a tree of knowledge" would impart knowledge upon its consumer.
God presented this tree, and warned the two not to eat from it, knowing full well that they would fail. Is it free will then, if you are designed to fail?
If God is omniscient, then he knew the inevitable outcome.
If he did not, he is not truly omniscient, and does not exist, and that would make this all irrelavant. So for the purposes of arguement, lets assume he is all-knowing, agreed?



If you want good action to have a value as good, you need the chance to do evil things. Otherwise, Justice would have no meaning. Between a necessitated action and a free action lies the same difference we can find between a zero and any other number.

Again, im assuming your speaking of free will. Once again, I say, its not truly free will, if one is designed to fail. The possibilty of succeeding, is removed in the case above.

I hope ive elaborated on my arguements from earlier.
I also must say Im a bit flattered you felt this needed its own thread.
Eureka Australis
27-12-2007, 12:54
I'm pretty sure it's traditional to distinguish between choice and coersion.

Choice does not exist, because it implies a total freedom of the individual from any corresponding external (social) consequences for certain actions that maybe taken by that individually using that freedom. In short, in need freedom is latent.
Chumblywumbly
27-12-2007, 13:08
Choice does not exist, because it implies a total freedom of the individual from any corresponding external (social) consequences for certain actions that maybe taken by that individually using that freedom.
'Choice' per se doesn't require total freedom from external social consequences. It would be foolish to say that I had no 'choice' in the matter of, for example, murdering a close friend because I would face repercussions; both from fellow friends who probably wouldn't want to associate with me, and obvious legal ramifications.

We humans are social creatures; because of this there are very few, if any choices we make that do not affect others. Thus defining 'choice' as the ability to perform any action without any potential repercussions (if this is indeed what you are saying; apologies if not) seems rather stringent.

If you were to define it thus, then your assertion that 'choice does not exist' would be true. However, I think we can cogently define choice in a less harsh manner.

In short, in need freedom is latent.
Could you rephrase this?
Longhaul
27-12-2007, 13:11
Atheistic evolutionists are also guilty of "a willful disregard for the evidence in some circumstances and a willingness to hold a number of utterly ludicrous propositions as true for no epistemically justifiable reason".

Because the theory of evolution is an "utterly ludicrous proposition", and many, if not most, people who accept it willfully disregard any scientific evidence which suggests otherwise, and will not produce the "evidence" they claim proves their theory.
Ok, at the risk of (oh, hell, who am I kidding... with the clear intention of) derailing this thread in the old ToE 'debate' direction, I'll bite...

What makes theories of evolution an "utterly ludicrous proposition"?
What evidence is being wilfully disregarded?
Who, outside of a few reactionary hacks (we have them, too), is claiming to have evidence "they claim proves their theory" that they "will not produce"?

Oh, and "evolutionists"? What the hell are you talking about? Am I also a thermodynamicist, because I admire the elegance of the laws of thrmodynamics? A "gravitationist" for believing that gravity exists? What a silly, silly comment.

I happen to be a Bible-believing Christian, and when I saw the OP on that thread, it (Rotovia-'s intolerance of religious people) made me VERY angry, and I'm glad Katganistan locked the thread. I wish that entire thread could be deleted.
That thread had to go... the flaming had completely taken over, and any valuable comments would have been quickly lost amidst the vitriol.

However, your stated wish that the entire thread "be deleted" and your self-righteous anger that people would dare criticise the cosy little comfort zone that you derive from that old collection of myths simply make you look narrow minded - just another one of a (hopefully declining) number of people clinging to millenias-old explanations of natural phenomena. It strikes me that you probably think that we should simply stop investigating, and accept the old stories as Truth, with a capital 'T'. Is that the case?
Woonsocket
27-12-2007, 13:19
Because the theory of evolution is an "utterly ludicrous proposition", and many, if not most, people who accept it willfully disregard any scientific evidence which suggests otherwise...

Um, specifically to which scientific evidence are you referring?
Eureka Australis
27-12-2007, 13:30
Well my point is regarding coercion, choice as purported by many libertarians is defined strictly in an individual sense, and thus divorces 'free will' from external factors. Not trying to get off topic but it's these external social factors that determine the actions of individuals, we live in a shared social framework and thus behave in the respected norms of that framework. Any 'permissive' or 'liberal' countries are just the state permitting certain things.

'We humans are social creatures; because of this there are very few, if any choices we make that do not affect others.'
Exactly my point, and as such people acting on 'free will' is a delusion because the actions of any individual are ultimately a reflection of a corresponding social reality.

But how would you like to define choice? Simply watering it down seems like the same ethically self-contradictory line that minarchists inevitably always fall into.

As for my end statement, it's quite simple, once one individual controls the 'need' or 'product of consequence' for one or more other individuals, the one in need immediately becomes beholden to the one who has the need. The 'controller' can immediately exploit the situation to their own benefit as it were. Thus, in need freedom is latent. My point simply is, as interdependent social creatures, dependent on each other, we cannot hope for individual freedom, to do so ignores the fundamental solidarity of humans which forced us to build common societies, common languages etc. Individualism is division and a socially-dangerous idea.
Chumblywumbly
27-12-2007, 13:50
Not trying to get off topic but it's these external social factors that determine the actions of individuals, we live in a shared social framework and thus behave in the respected norms of that framework.
But social factors don't determine the actions of individuals. They influence actions, certainly, but 'determine' is far too strong a word. This idea is the complete opposite of the behaviourists' assertion that biology determines individuals' actions; and just as wrong. If it were true, then people born in the same social environments would react and act in exactly the same manner.

This simply doesn't happen.

Exactly my point, and as such people acting on 'free will' is a delusion because the actions of any individual are ultimately a reflection of a corresponding social reality.
So, to you, acting on free will would only be possible in a complete social vacuum, devoid of any influence from a fellow human being?

But how would you like to define choice? Simply watering it down seems like the same ethically self-contradictory line that minarchists inevitably always fall into.
It's not 'watering it down', it's defining 'choice' in a sensible manner.

All choices have repercussions, big and small. Just because our choices have effects, doesn't mean there was no choice to begin with. True, political or economic elites can limit choices through repercussions in such a way that there is no true choice left for an individual, but this is not the case for all choices and their repercussions.

My point simply is, as interdependent social creatures, dependent on each other, we cannot hope for individual freedom, to do so ignores the fundamental solidarity of humans which forced us to build common societies, common languages etc. Individualism is division and a socially-dangerous idea.
I'd broadly agree; it's foolish to ignore the necessarily social nature of human existence; "man is by nature a political animal".
Icelove The Carnal
27-12-2007, 15:00
Pre-biblical?

http://www.usapple.org/consumers/applebits/stories.cfm#mythology


Thank you.


Nakedness is fairly condemned in later parts of Genesis and others.
Ham, (I believe) for instance, paid a dear price for accidently seeing his drunken Father naked.
His crime was a small one, and he paid with his banishment.
Or, we can assume this too, is a metaphor, and discuss how too much metaphor leads to open interperetation. At what point do we stop saying "well, that could mean anything"?

Either we adhere to most literal interperetations, or use it all very loosely, at wich point, debate breaks down becuase all those metaphors leave the door wide open, so to speak.

You are partially right in saying so, but I think litteral interpretation of the Bible to be dangerous. For what I have understood, in Catholic Church nowadays the Bible is read as a book which tells you how to reach heaven, not how heavens work (Galileus). When you read the Bible, of course you ask yourself: "Has this really happened?". Well, many things did not. But in each page there is some teaching or prophecy.

Cham was banned, but not for having seen his father naked, but for mocking him; or, at least, this is what I was taught. I know this was left implicit in the tale and I recognize that those who do not put themselves in the hands of my Church have no reason to believe so.


If you were to punish your brother, by doing the worst thing you could think of, something the equivialent of damning him to hell, along with all his children, and all of humanity that would ever be, becuase he went to the school you didnt approve of?

Meaning, if your brother attended the school anyway, after you warned him not to, ecen though you knew full well that he would make his choice regardless, then yes, your punishment would be infinitely unfair.


Why?
I am a judge. I say to a robber: the law says, if you will steal again, I'll have you killed. The robber steals again. I have the robber killed. I already knew for experience that this would have happened, yet I did not kill him immediately. I have been a good judge. What I mean is that there are two ways in which you can see the fact: I can doom mankind to be forever happy and brainless, like a dolphin, and so avoid sin, because I know it is a more than possible consequence; or I can judge, and say: "Why the Hell should I let these freaks commit sin? Let's damn them immediately!". It is as rightful as avoiding to give freedom of will.

I can't understand where you read this thing, of whole umanity damned to Hell. I don't know how things work for a Hebrew, but, in a Christian context, God offered Himself to save mankind.

Humanity is weak. we give in to temptation on regular intervals.
We both know this is true, yes? It is the epitome of human nature to do what we know is bad for us, or forbidden, every single day.
If we are truly made in God's image, then this is by design as well, would you agree?

We also win temptation, on regular intervals. What you say is true, and it is due to two facts: first, freedom of will; second, routine, for we usually do what we are used to. It is by God's design that we can do evil; it is by god's design that we can do good; it is by God's design that we don't have to do neither.

My personal opinion about God is that He can commit sin (being omnipotent) and no one can necessitate Him not to do it; but He is so good that He doesn't.

So then, in realistic terms, does it make sense for God, to make a "Tree of Knowledge", and have it bear fruit. Naturally, anything eaten from such a thing called "a tree of knowledge" would impart knowledge upon its consumer.
God presented this tree, and warned the two not to eat from it, knowing full well that they would fail. Is it free will then, if you are designed to fail?
If God is omniscient, then he knew the inevitable outcome.
If he did not, he is not truly omniscient, and does not exist, and that would make this all irrelavant. So for the purposes of arguement, lets assume he is all-knowing, agreed?

You are not designed to fail. You are foreseen to fail. God is a being that dwells in eternity, out of time. This means that, for Him, to see whole time in a single view is as natural as our eyesight is for us. Would you say that you are necessitated, if you are seen by someone else while doing something? I don't think so. The same with God.


Again, im assuming your speaking of free will. Once again, I say, its not truly free will, if one is designed to fail. The possibilty of succeeding, is removed in the case above.

I already explained why I don't think us to be necessitated. In my opinion, our free will exists, but it is difficult to use, if compared, for example, with angels. Angels have no physical body, which lets them have not so many problems in choosing what to do (of course, we have to think that angels near God also dwell in eternity, so that one choose will affect them forever).

I hope ive elaborated on my arguements from earlier.
I also must say Im a bit flattered you felt this needed its own thread.

Yes, you have. I hope you're finding the debate interesting. And, anyway, it's a pleasure to talk with you.
Icelove The Carnal
27-12-2007, 15:31
it does, however, imply a certain lack of critical thinking - a willful disregard for the evidence in some circumstances and a willingness to hold a number of utterly ludicrous propositions as true for no epistemically justifiable reason.

To tell the truth, I'm proud of this.
United Beleriand
27-12-2007, 15:43
To tell the truth, I'm proud of this.Proud of lack of critical thinking??
Peepelonia
27-12-2007, 15:56
Proud of lack of critical thinking??

Heheh!
Cabra West
27-12-2007, 16:17
Why?
I am a judge. I say to a robber: the law says, if you will steal again, I'll have you killed. The robber steals again. I have the robber killed. I already knew for experience that this would have happened, yet I did not kill him immediately. I have been a good judge. What I mean is that there are two ways in which you can see the fact: I can doom mankind to be forever happy and brainless, like a dolphin, and so avoid sin, because I know it is a more than possible consequence; or I can judge, and say: "Why the Hell should I let these freaks commit sin? Let's damn them immediately!". It is as rightful as avoiding to give freedom of will.

Ah, but you did not CREATE the robber, knowing full well that he will always be compelled to steal, and with full capacity to make him differently, now, did you?

Imagine you, as a judge, being able to manipulate the robbers brain. You give the robber the urge to steal, along with an incapacity to learn from former mistakes. And then you judge him and sentence him to death.
United Beleriand
27-12-2007, 16:26
Heheh!A real evangelical, it seems.
Chumblywumbly
27-12-2007, 16:51
To tell the truth, I'm proud of this.
Why on Earth would you be proud of it?
Free Soviets
27-12-2007, 17:01
If you want to dispute his characterization of Christians, it might help not to confirm his assessment.

maybe they weren't going for disputation, but rather exemplification?
Cabra West
27-12-2007, 17:19
To tell the truth, I'm proud of this.

What, of being close-minded, and arrogantly disregarding reality for your own personal idea of what it SHOULD be like?
Wow...
Icelove The Carnal
27-12-2007, 17:19
Ah, but you did not CREATE the robber, knowing full well that he will always be compelled to steal, and with full capacity to make him differently, now, did you?

Imagine you, as a judge, being able to manipulate the robbers brain. You give the robber the urge to steal, along with an incapacity to learn from former mistakes. And then you judge him and sentence him to death.

I think you've lost some parts. God created mankind in such a design that we can choose what we do. I can't remember any form of possession in which God makes somebody do what he should not do. Can you? And, are you sure you cannot learn from former mistakes? You learn from them, but you can choose if considering what you have learnt or not before acting.

Why on Earth would you be proud of it?

Because it's too easy to believe only in what you are told by mathematics and create your own world on the base of a logic which traps itself. I prefer faith, although it might seem a paradox (and probably it is).
Cabra West
27-12-2007, 17:28
I think you've lost some parts. God created mankind in such a design that we can choose what we do. I can't remember any form of possession in which God makes somebody do what he should not do. Can you? And, are you sure you cannot learn from former mistakes? You learn from them, but you can choose if considering what you have learnt or not before acting.

Exaclty. If we assume he made them, we must assume he made them the way they are on purpose. There are people out there physically incapable of experiencing empathy, and yet he asks them to love their neighbours or else.
If god is omniscient, he knew in advance what the decisions of his creation would be, and yet he chose not to make them any different, not to give them different abilities. He fitted them with strong urges, puts them into situations that play to those urges, knowing full well in advance that because they are the way he made them, they will obey those urges, and if they do he punishes them...


Because it's too easy to believe only in what you are told by mathematics and create your own world on the base of a logic which traps itself. I prefer faith, although it might seem a paradox (and probably it is).

I don't believe in mathematics. I know what it is, how it works, and how it reaches its conclusions. There is no need to "believe".
I did not create any worlds, either. I live in this one, and I quite like its complexity intercontectedness.
Vittos the City Sacker
27-12-2007, 17:41
The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is monumental because it introduces humans to Good and Evil, to rebellion against God, to shame, and to guilt.

Without the Fruit there is no explanation in the Judaic Creation Myth for why God is the supreme raging dickhead that he is.
Tekania
27-12-2007, 17:42
This thread is NOT about creationism. During the Rotovian discussion "I've lost all tolerance for religious people", I denied that a Christian (which is, me) does not think, or use his brain. BackwoodsSquatches replied that, in Genesis, God punishes mankind for reaching the Fruit, which is a symbol of knowledge. My answer was that the Fruit does not mean knowledge, for Adam's knowledge was perfect, before he ate the fruit (the ones of you who read Dante's Commedia know what I mean). Then the debate was about significance of the fruit, of the moral behind the creation tale and other minor issues. I'd love to continue this debate, and to ask others who are interested in this to join it.

I need to ask you to be kind - say your opinions, but do not launch verbal assaults agains users.


Here we were:



I do not doubt you. I was asking, because I did'n know what you were refferring to. And' to tell the truth, I don't know, right now, what you're referring to. I googled it, in Italian and English, but I couldn't find anything useful (which is probably because of my incapacity). Anyway, if you can link me something referring to a pre-biblical use of a fruit metaphora relating to knowledge, you'll have all my gratitude.



Yes, but nakedness has many significances; or, better: the same nakedness can be seen from many points of view. We have the physical nakedness: a body, with no clothes upon it. Is it wrong? Is it a sin go around naked? Nakedness was a vox media, before the serpent and the fruit added the shameful significance to a natural state. Imperfect knowledge, but after eating the fruit.



I knew my brother was going to choose a certain school. He chose it. Have I entraped him? Simply, I'm not omniscent, but I know him rather well.
I recognize that this example does not work, because I didn't create that school, anyway:

Mankind was given freedom of will. Freedom of will requires a situation where it can be applied, for we are no angels, and many of our actions require a physical world. Freedom of will requires the potency of sin. God never came and said: "Hey Adam, eat the fruit! So you'll sin!". He gave an order: do not eat that, and gave the potency of eating that. If you want good action to have a value as good, you need the chance to do evil things. Otherwise, Justice would have no meaning. Between a necessitated action and a free action lies the same difference we can find between a zero and any other number.

This is a justification for God, if God needs any justification from humans. Anyway, there is something about this I still couldn't solve. Always reasoning in numbers: if God is omnipotent, and he wanted to give a value to actions, couldn't he do this without giving freedom of will? Of course, we go to fall in: "God likes good things or things are good because He likes them?". It is something I cannot answer. Not yet, at least. Probably, the answer is related with the human similitude with God enunced during Adam's creation.

Well, one problem with the arguments, is their inability to separate the concept behind the "could" and "would"... They see "could" and "would" as being directly related to one another; when in reality the two denote two different capacities.... If God creating something that they "could not" resist, they would have a valid point... If we're going to talk about "would not" then we're talking a different scenario.... Adam and Eve did have the capacity of will to not make a decision, so it's impossible that they "could not" resist.. They clearly could resist... They had information supplied regarding God's commandment regarding the tree, and they had the capacity of will to refuse the serpent... So this is a matter of them being able
(could) resist, but chose not to, therefore they would (will) not resist the serpent... Their argument is the equivalent of blaming the person who posted a speedlimit for their decision to voluntarily exceed that limit...
Chumblywumbly
27-12-2007, 17:42
Because it's too easy to believe only in what you are told by mathematics and create your own world on the base of a logic which traps itself. I prefer faith, although it might seem a paradox (and probably it is).
I think you may well be a victim of limited choice. 'Faith vs. Mathematics/science' isn't the only way to look at the world.

Science and mathematics are extremely useful tools or frameworks for understanding various aspects of the world around us (and if, for example, you are a Christian, a useful way of understanding your God's creation), but there isn't some choice that must be made between 'believing' in maths or believing in a god or gods.

Theist or atheist alike, we can use both science and other frameworks -- art, philosophy, etc. -- to look at the world.

And I applaud those religious figures, such as St. Aquinas, who put a lot of value in critical thinking and a rational understanding of the world.
Icelove The Carnal
27-12-2007, 19:15
I think you may well be a victim of limited choice. 'Faith vs. Mathematics/science' isn't the only way to look at the world.

Science and mathematics are extremely useful tools or frameworks for understanding various aspects of the world around us (and if, for example, you are a Christian, a useful way of understanding your God's creation), but there isn't some choice that must be made between 'believing' in maths or believing in a god or gods.

Theist or atheist alike, we can use both science and other frameworks -- art, philosophy, etc. -- to look at the world.

And I applaud those religious figures, such as St. Aquinas, who put a lot of value in critical thinking and a rational understanding of the world.

I must say, you're right. But really often I hear people saying: there is no reality, if not science, and religion is against reality. I even got their point of view, although on the opposite side.
Now that you male melook at this better, I have to admit that I can't see nothing in science which is against religion and that the contrast has only historical causes.
Thank you.
Chumblywumbly
27-12-2007, 19:40
Now that you male melook at this better, I have to admit that I can't see nothing in science which is against religion and that the contrast has only historical causes.
Thank you.
You're quite welcome.

And if you're interested, there's plenty of theologians, past and present, who advocate(d) the usefulness of critical thinking and scientific enquiry, from Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas) to Denys Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denys_Turner).
Dyakovo
27-12-2007, 20:21
Atheistic evolutionists are also guilty of "a willful disregard for the evidence in some circumstances and a willingness to hold a number of utterly ludicrous propositions as true for no epistemically justifiable reason".

Because the theory of evolution is an "utterly ludicrous proposition", and many, if not most, people who accept it willfully disregard any scientific evidence which suggests otherwise, and will not produce the "evidence" they claim proves their theory.

How so?
Mad hatters in jeans
27-12-2007, 22:03
The Christian God has alot of flaws, when compared to a God in general.
For example, all we know about the Christian God is essentially in the Bible and Genesis (depending on what sort of Christianity you believe in.)
Also it's split into Catholic, Protestant. If a religion was truely believable then it probably wouldn't dissipate into two separate branches.

Many of the bibles teachings are out of date, yes a thousand years ago it would be a wonderful thing to go to church and be educated, but now as education is more freely available, the Main religions (Christianity, Hiduism, Islam etc) are fading and being replaced by "pseudo"religions e.g.

Big sports like Football notice the chanting the large crowds, the special clothes you can wear, the singing the TV coverage.
Or Shopping notice large buildings, one to one service in specialised shops, large crowds, TV adverts.

So it seems in a modern society that there is a shift towards science to answer the main issues in life, for example if you become ill you might go to your doctor, a thousand years ago this was not possible. If science says something is good for you e.g. tomatoes, colours, reading you might take it to be true, when many scientific facts a few decades ago have been proved incorrect,
e.g. first aid, many years ago you were taught to tie intricate bandages, or give your patient whisky or let them have a smoke, nowadays the main concentration is attenting to breathing(CPR where situation demands), bleeding(putting a bandage if available or any clean cloths to stop bleeding) and broken bones (this one is last because if you suspect broken bones all you can do is try not to let the person move) nothing about whisky.

So you could argue that science although it has helped massively in modern society it has a few downfalls started a medicalisation out of people, increasingly illness is socially created via drinking, smoking, poor diet. As people realise that there isn't much demand for a God they must replace this belief with science the answer to everything (it does a good job but it can't answer everything).

I'm sorry if i didn't really contribute to the thread but i thought this was worth a mention.
Straughn
28-12-2007, 06:27
Adam's knowledge was perfect
Ooh, big strike there.
*shakes head*

1:29 God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
.
3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
3:11 And He said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?
:p
BackwoodsSquatches
28-12-2007, 06:31
Thank you.

De nada.



You are partially right in saying so, but I think litteral interpretation of the Bible to be dangerous. For what I have understood, in Catholic Church nowadays the Bible is read as a book which tells you how to reach heaven, not how heavens work (Galileus). When you read the Bible, of course you ask yourself: "Has this really happened?". Well, many things did not. But in each page there is some teaching or prophecy.

Agreed. Stories of arks, and of men being swallowed whole by fish are meant to be fables, not fact.


Cham was banned, but not for having seen his father naked, but for mocking him; or, at least, this is what I was taught. I know this was left implicit in the tale and I recognize that those who do not put themselves in the hands of my Church have no reason to believe so.

I seem to recall his crime was actually seeing his father naked, but I cant remember verse and paragragh, and would like to read it again. I seem to remember that he put his dad back to bed, and covered him up with a blanket. The story, unless Im remembering it incorrectly, seemed to imply his crime was indeed witnessing his father indisposed.



Why?
I am a judge. I say to a robber: the law says, if you will steal again, I'll have you killed. The robber steals again. I have the robber killed. I already knew for experience that this would have happened, yet I did not kill him immediately. I have been a good judge. What I mean is that there are two ways in which you can see the fact: I can doom mankind to be forever happy and brainless, like a dolphin, and so avoid sin, because I know it is a more than possible consequence; or I can judge, and say: "Why the Hell should I let these freaks commit sin? Let's damn them immediately!". It is as rightful as avoiding to give freedom of will.

As Cabra mentioned the critical difference is that you, or "God" would be the man's creator.
Meaning "you created him in your own image". I tend to take this to mean in the spirit, and not in the literal. Meaning like "god", man is crucially flawed.
This means that being all-knowing, this fruit was created, and despite being warned, you knew full well that both Adam and Eve where going to eat it anyway.

If, Adam and Eve are guilty of anything, it would be acting as thier creator intended them to be. It would be like creating an android that can feel emotion, eat, drink, and crap, and then getting angry at that creatrion for crapping.
Even though you designed it to crap.

For free will to apply, they would have to have had an option to not eat the fruit.



I can't understand where you read this thing, of whole umanity damned to Hell. I don't know how things work for a Hebrew, but, in a Christian context, God offered Himself to save mankind.

Mankinds fate after the Garden of Eden. After Eden folks were destined to go to hell when they died, (unless being "saved" millenia later, by christ, etc...) thus, "sin", pain suffering etc, entering the world.


We also win temptation, on regular intervals. What you say is true, and it is due to two facts: first, freedom of will; second, routine, for we usually do what we are used to. It is by God's design that we can do evil; it is by god's design that we can do good; it is by God's design that we don't have to do neither.

My personal opinion about God is that He can commit sin (being omnipotent) and no one can necessitate Him not to do it; but He is so good that He doesn't.

Personal opinions aside, even if god were to exist, his mind is unknowable.



You are not designed to fail. You are foreseen to fail. God is a being that dwells in eternity, out of time. This means that, for Him, to see whole time in a single view is as natural as our eyesight is for us. Would you say that you are necessitated, if you are seen by someone else while doing something? I don't think so. The same with God.

The "outside of time" thing ive never quite understood. If that were true, there would be no way any human would be able to conceive of such a creature. It could have no impact upon anything. Rather, I think all that to be christian conjecture, wich can make a nice pastime, but can have little effect upon anything.
Its much like asking who's more powerful, Yoda or The Emporer.
Nice conversation, but ultimately pointless.



I already explained why I don't think us to be necessitated. In my opinion, our free will exists, but it is difficult to use, if compared, for example, with angels. Angels have no physical body, which lets them have not so many problems in choosing what to do (of course, we have to think that angels near God also dwell in eternity, so that one choose will affect them forever).

I must admit, this converation is intruiging, but I do have to say as an atheist, "Angels" are a bit too much for me to take. I can suspend disbelief for the sake of arguement,when speaking about "God", but angels are a bit too much for me.
If it were to make you feel any better, I would say the same thing about Valkryries.

As for my summary of Genesis, I believe the lesson in it to be a dual-purpose message, mixed in with a breezy explanation of how "god made our world", wich is secondary to the stories actual moral.
Its prudent that it be in Genesis, as its one of the most important lesson, "Be obedient to God, and do not seek to understand. IE...learning is bad!".

I think it sends a mixed message, and can be too confusing.



Yes, you have. I hope you're finding the debate interesting. And, anyway, it's a pleasure to talk with you.

I find this debate refreshing as neither of us have felt the need to get nasty with one another. This can be a rarity among many of the Christians on this site. Atheists, as well.
Straughn
28-12-2007, 07:06
truthfully and without weasel words.

HEY! Don't dis weasels. They have strong character and consistency, which is better than i can say for most people.
Cabra West
28-12-2007, 11:33
I must say, you're right. But really often I hear people saying: there is no reality, if not science, and religion is against reality. I even got their point of view, although on the opposite side.
Now that you male melook at this better, I have to admit that I can't see nothing in science which is against religion and that the contrast has only historical causes.
Thank you.

Science will never disprove religion, and it doesn't try to. Religion is inherently unscientific.
Science is occupied with understanding reality. The only time science and religion clash is when religion is making claims about reality, and science discovers that they simply are not true. Religion tends to insist a lot, though, disregarding evidence and pointing to old books instead...
United Beleriand
28-12-2007, 11:51
Science will never disprove religion...However, it will disprove the claims made by religion about the nature of the universe and human interaction with it.
Cabra West
28-12-2007, 12:31
However, it will disprove the claims made by religion about the nature of the universe and human interaction with it.

That's what I meant when I said science and religion clash when religion makes claims about reality ;)
BackwoodsSquatches
28-12-2007, 12:35
science and religion clash when religion makes claims about reality, and science proves it to be untrue.

Thats freakin' brilliant.

*applause*
Cabra West
28-12-2007, 12:38
Thats freakin' brilliant.

*applause*

Oh... er.... *blushes*
BackwoodsSquatches
28-12-2007, 12:57
Oh... er.... *blushes*

Its eloquent, without being rude.

Makes for a nice quote.
Free Soviets
28-12-2007, 16:47
The only time science and religion clash is when religion is making claims about reality, and science discovers that they simply are not true. Religion tends to insist a lot, though, disregarding evidence and pointing to old books instead...

of course, the insistence on their part makes sense - they are pointing to 'the word of god' or whatever. if you can't trust the word of god, what can you trust? well, the evidence, obviously, but doing so in opposition to the word of god requires some rather dramatic and fundamental worldview restructuring. and the fundies and nietzsche are right - that way leads to the death of god (though people may still occasionally show up to church every couple years and check the 'catholic' box on surveys, etc).

religion stripped of its empirical claims and turned all metaphorical just doesn't survive well. the compelling force behind it is gone.
New Limacon
28-12-2007, 17:30
That's what I meant when I said science and religion clash when religion makes claims about reality ;)

When does that ever happen? I'm not denying that it does, I'm just curious what you consider claims about reality to be.
Hydesland
28-12-2007, 17:36
Genesis is a load of bullshit anyway, you may as well just ignore it.
Icelove The Carnal
28-12-2007, 17:55
Genesis is a load of bullshit anyway, you may as well just ignore it.

Not all that tactful, hm?

Anyway, if you search for moral teaching instead of scientific suffragation, you'll discover that it's not all that ignorable.
Hydesland
28-12-2007, 17:56
Not all that tactful, hm?

Anyway, if you search for moral teaching instead of scientific suffragation, you'll discover that it's not all that ignorable.

Oooohhhh yes it is.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 17:59
Anyway, if you search for moral teaching instead of scientific suffragation, you'll discover that it's not all that ignorable.
I don't see much moral teaching in Genesis, beyond arbitrary punishment for free will and a prohibition on murder.
The Alma Mater
28-12-2007, 18:01
I don't see much moral teaching in Genesis, beyond arbitrary punishment for free will and a prohibition on murder.

Genesis is also the book that presents humanity as lords of creation and all other life subservient.
New Limacon
28-12-2007, 18:15
I don't see much moral teaching in Genesis, beyond arbitrary punishment for free will and a prohibition on murder.
Genesis:

Says that God is the creator
Defines sin
Describes the beginning of the Jewish patriarchs
Describes the first covenant between God and humanity

I'm not really sure if this would count as moral teaching, but pretty important, all the same.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 18:28
Genesis is also the book that presents humanity as lords of creation and all other life subservient.

Genesis:

Says that God is the creator
Defines sin
Describes the beginning of the Jewish patriarchs
Describes the first covenant between God and humanity

My bad.

Though I'd say that's some pretty flawed moral teaching.
Hurdegaryp
28-12-2007, 18:30
Just because you need to go to bed early doesn't mean your parents do as well, does it?
That's actually funny. So when God slaughters members of his flock because His anger flared up again, it's actually the same as your parents watching late night TV while you had to go to bed early. That doesn't even make a shred of sense.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 18:35
That doesn't even make a shred of sense.
That's not what Laerod is saying, I believe.

S/he's saying that the Christian God may have made rules that his creations must follow, but that they wouldn't necessarily have applied to him.
United Beleriand
28-12-2007, 18:38
When does that ever happen? I'm not denying that it does, I'm just curious what you consider claims about reality to be.The position that there is a god as described in the bible and that he made the world and humans and interacts with them and determines or influences their fate is a claim about reality. A claim that does not only lack evidence, but even all indications for reality to be thus.
Free Soviets
28-12-2007, 18:39
I don't see much moral teaching in Genesis, beyond arbitrary punishment for free will and a prohibition on murder.

there's also a bunch of "obey my nonsensical and clearly morally wrong commands!" and some object lessons against trying to rape angels.
United Beleriand
28-12-2007, 18:48
"obey my nonsensical and clearly morally wrong commands!" that doesn't stop with genesis, though
Free Soviets
28-12-2007, 18:58
When does that ever happen? I'm not denying that it does, I'm just curious what you consider claims about reality to be.

all the time. for example, and sticking to the bible,
the world was created in 4004 bce
there was a global flood that wiped out all humanity save a handful about 2400 bce.
a horde of zombies stumbled into jerusalem around 30 ce
more generally, there is an entire history of israel included there with names, dates, events, etc.
Hurdegaryp
28-12-2007, 19:02
S/he's saying that the Christian God may have made rules that his creations must follow, but that they wouldn't necessarily have applied to him.
Ah, so it's more like living in a country that has an expanded body of strict anti-drugs laws, even though every citizen knows that their nation's leader snorts coke like a pro.
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 19:12
Ah, so it's more like living in a country that has an expanded body of strict anti-drugs laws, even though every citizen knows that their nation's leader snorts coke like a pro.
As an analogy, I suppose that holds.
Dyakovo
28-12-2007, 19:43
Just because you nead to go to bed early doesn't mean your parents do as well, does it?That's actually funny. So when God slaughters members of his flock because His anger flared up again, it's actually the same as your parents watching late night TV while you had to go to bed early. That doesn't even make a shred of sense.
That's not what Laerod is saying, I believe.

S/he's saying that the Christian God may have made rules that his creations must follow, but that they wouldn't necessarily have applied to him.

In a sense it is the same, the rules apply to the ones the the rule is made for, not for the creator of the rules
Chumblywumbly
28-12-2007, 19:50
In a sense it is the same, the rules apply to the ones the the rule is made for, not for the creator of the rules
I'm not denying that, but Hurdegaryp implied that Laerod was lessening God's actions, when s/he was only making an analogy.
Cabra West
28-12-2007, 22:42
When does that ever happen? I'm not denying that it does, I'm just curious what you consider claims about reality to be.

Well, in the past it made claims about the shape of the earth, its position in the solar system and in relation to the rest of the universe. These days, it's mostly about the age of the earth and the universe on the whole, about abiogenesis and evolution.
Umdogsland
28-12-2007, 23:24
In a sense it is the same, the rules apply to the ones the the rule is made for, not for the creator of the rulesWhich makes for an unfair sytsem, does it not? I think this is more what Hurdegaryp was implying. Another unfair part of it is this:
Genesis is also the book that presents humanity as lords of creation and all other life subservient.
The fact that it treats humans as separate from animals and their masters is both inaccurate and, in my view, morally reprehensible.
Icelove The Carnal
28-12-2007, 23:37
In a sense it is the same, the rules apply to the ones the the rule is made for, not for the creator of the rules

I don't think this to be a correct interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not sure those wars effectively happened, exactly as I am not sure a snake told Eva: 'Eat'. To tell the truth, I doubt these things to have happened. The Bible is said by my Church (you can belive it or not) that it has been written by inspired men, and that God's message has been therefore mediated by them, using their own schemes. "I'll kill your enemies" can simply mean "I am the one who'll always protect you". It doesn't seem all that strange to me.

Let me ask all of you: in your homeland, is the Bible read litterally or metaphorically? This would explain many things to me. For, here in Italy, no priest would ever say "it historically happened!"
Dyakovo
28-12-2007, 23:50
<SNIP>Let me ask all of you: in your homeland, is the Bible read litterally or metaphorically? This would explain many things to me. For, here in Italy, no priest would ever say "it historically happened!"

Some read it literally, some don't. A majority of the ones who are outspoken about christianity seem to fall into the former category.
Dyakovo
28-12-2007, 23:50
Which makes for an unfair sytsem, does it not? I think this is more what Hurdegaryp was implying.

Life is unfair
Umdogsland
29-12-2007, 16:21
Life is unfairThat doesn't much like an argument but a cliche. Sure, many things in the world aren't based on morality at all so fairness doesn't apply to them. However, when you create a system of government or whatever else that does involve morality, it is an approriate comment to say that it is not fair. Because the Bible protrays moral views I find repugnant, I can consider unfair. If I am to treat the Bible as a book on which one may base one's morality and not treat it literally and as a basis for metaphysics and the like, then I believe it to still be of poor quality as its ideas are unfair.
United Beleriand
29-12-2007, 16:40
Life is unfairOnly some folks' lives.
Icelove The Carnal
29-12-2007, 18:25
That doesn't much like an argument but a cliche. Sure, many things in the world aren't based on morality at all so fairness doesn't apply to them. However, when you create a system of government or whatever else that does involve morality, it is an approriate comment to say that it is not fair. Because the Bible protrays moral views I find repugnant, I can consider unfair. If I am to treat the Bible as a book on which one may base one's morality and not treat it literally and as a basis for metaphysics and the like, then I believe it to still be of poor quality as its ideas are unfair.

Are you referring also to what Jesus is supposed to have done and said? I ask, because it would be strange to me if you considered this to be repugnant. I mean, I can understand that Old Testament can look out of date and St. Paul's epistulae can be seen as the basis for male supremacy; but I can't find something to hate in Jesus' tales.
The Alma Mater
29-12-2007, 18:30
Are you referring also to what Jesus is supposed to have done and said? I ask, because it would be strange to me if you considered this to be repugnant. I mean, I can understand that Old Testament can look out of date and St. Paul's epistulae can be seen as the basis for male supremacy; but I can't find something to hate in Jesus' tales.

"The way to heaven is not through deeds" ?
Icelove The Carnal
29-12-2007, 18:42
"The way to heaven is not through deeds" ?

Where is this written?

There is a description of Doom given by Christ which seems to put a lot of importance to deeds of charity, and also the Smaritan's tale and other parables do.
Hurdegaryp
29-12-2007, 21:35
Well, in the past it made claims about the shape of the earth, its position in the solar system and in relation to the rest of the universe. These days, it's mostly about the age of the earth and the universe on the whole, about abiogenesis and evolution.
Ah, the infamous War Against Science as perpetrated by the evangelist hordes. I'm actually somewhat surprised that religists haven't already burned down several universities in the name of Jesus Christ over there in the States.
The Alma Mater
29-12-2007, 21:43
Ah, the infamous War Against Science as perpetrated by the evangelist hordes. I'm actually somewhat surprised that religists haven't already burned down several universities in the name of Jesus Christ over there in the States.

Unfortunately that sort of honesty is a thing of the past. Nowadays they use different manners.
Hurdegaryp
29-12-2007, 22:00
Yeah, I guess they're afraid of the repercussions. Somehow that's bit strange, though. Don't you score brownie points with God when you suffer for your faith?
Icelove The Carnal
29-12-2007, 22:42
Ah, the infamous War Against Science as perpetrated by the evangelist hordes. I'm actually somewhat surprised that religists haven't already burned down several universities in the name of Jesus Christ over there in the States.

but what sort of religious have you got in the states? :eek:
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 22:52
but what sort of religious have you got in the states? :eek:

The psycho kind

not all but definitely some of them

see below:
Fred Phelps (Phibes?), Tom Cruise, Mormons, Baptists :rolleyes:
United Beleriand
30-12-2007, 02:03
but what sort of religious have you got in the states? :eek:Fred Phelps (Phibes?), Tom Cruise, Mormons, Baptists :rolleyes:
Umdogsland
31-12-2007, 02:33
Are you referring also to what Jesus is supposed to have done and said? I ask, because it would be strange to me if you considered this to be repugnant. I mean, I can understand that Old Testament can look out of date and St. Paul's epistulae can be seen as the basis for male supremacy; but I can't find something to hate in Jesus' tales.
I agree that Jesus's parables are probably much more pleasant than the Old Testament but I'll admit that I don't know much of them. 1 bit I do know is "Treat others as you would have done to you" which I had thought to be good but from personal experience, some things you like others don't and vice versa. So really I don't know.
Klitvilia
31-12-2007, 03:40
If you're a bible-believing christian, then please explain why god did nothing to stop WWII, 9/11, and the 12/26/04 tsunamiquake. Rememeber, I do not find "God works in mysterious ways!" acceptable.

Someone may very well have already tried to answer this for you on some of the other pages in this thread, but I'm too lazy to check. :D

Anyway: All of those events involve mass amounts of death, so I'm assuming you are asking why a good God would not stop these deaths. The problem with this is that death in and of itself (in Christianity, at least) is not considered to be a bad thing at all, just a 'phase' change to the afterlife. Neither is pain considered to be an evil, for that matter. In fact, death might even be considered a good thing in Christianity, as it brings one closer to God. Even (actually especially) if you are going to view pain and death from a purely secular, biological point of view, they are not bad, just natural proccesses.