Problems with the Bible

[neeeel]

Think about the townspeople who are saying alternately "good fortune" and "bad fortune".  In what way can we say that either of their conclusions are a "bad outcome"? They aren't. They are either good or bad.  The same applies to Genesis. I really don't understand how you can say the stories don't matter. I would never say that the "death" that results from eating the "fruit" in both stories is equal to one choice, to one half of the tree. It's the tree of good and evil. This is, ironically, the sticking point for you. As a strict rationalist, you can't see the Genesis story as anything but a black and white issue. There is no possibility of a view that paradigmatically transcends man's sense of good and evil.  You don't have a problem with the Taoist story because it does not state explicitly that making the relative choice between good and evil leads to a philosophical death.  But I can predict your reply. There is really no point in continuing the debate as it will only frustrate both of us. May I suggest we drop it and leave it open to others to chime in. Maybe they can shed a new light on the topic.

 

I didnt say the stories dont matter. I didnt say anything about one choice, or one half of the tree.

 

For the last time I AM NOT COMMENTING ON THE STORIES THEMSELVES!!!! I AM COMMENTING ON  YOUR USE OF THEM TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT, WHICH RESULTS IN A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IN YOUR STATEMENTS. NOT THE STORIES, BUT YOUR STATEMENTS

 

do you get it now?

[junglecat]

I didnt say the stories dont matter. I didnt say anything about one choice, or one half of the tree.

 

For the last time I AM NOT COMMENTING ON THE STORIES THEMSELVES!!!! I AM COMMENTING ON  YOUR USE OF THEM TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT, WHICH RESULTS IN A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IN YOUR STATEMENTS. NOT THE STORIES, BUT YOUR STATEMENTS

 

do you get it now?

Excuse me. When you said, "It's not about the stories" I assumed you meant the stories didn't matter.

 

No, I still don't see any logical contradiction. I see both stories as pointing out the philosophical dead end of 'eating the fruit'. It sounds to me as if you're saying the Taoist is not and Genesis is. The Taoist says the changes can never be fathomed, which to me equate to a philosophical dead end in siding with the crowd.  The Genesis story is saying the same thing but you disagree because you equate death with 'bad outcome'.  Is that right, or have I misconstrued

your argument?

[neeeel]

OMFG!! you cannot be serious?

 

I AM NOT COMMENTING ON THE STORIES!!!! I AM COMMENTING ON YOUR USE OF THE STORIES

 

story 1 says changes/outcomes can never be fathomed

story 2 says changes can be fathomed. because YOU are equating eating the fruit with a bad outcome ( philosophical death or philosophical dead end). 

 

story 1 says "We cannot know whether eating the fruit has a good or bad outcome"

story 2 says "We DO know whether eating the fruit has a good or bad outcome, eating the fruit ends in a bad outcome ( according to YOU, not me)" 

 

again, this is not about what I believe, whether I agree with the stories or not, how I interpret the stories, or anything like that

 

its about how YOU are interpreting the stories, and the logical contradiction that ensues.

[junglecat]

OMFG!! you cannot be serious?

 

I AM NOT COMMENTING ON THE STORIES!!!! I AM COMMENTING ON YOUR USE OF THE STORIES

 

story 1 says changes/outcomes can never be fathomed

story 2 says changes can be fathomed. because YOU are equating eating the fruit with a bad outcome ( philosophical death or philosophical dead end). 

 

story 1 says "We cannot know whether eating the fruit has a good or bad outcome"

story 2 says "We DO know whether eating the fruit has a good or bad outcome, eating the fruit ends in a bad outcome ( according to YOU, not me)" 

 

again, this is not about what I believe, whether I agree with the stories or not, how I interpret the stories, or anything like that

 

its about how YOU are interpreting the stories, and the logical contradiction that ensues.

Ok. So you don't see the Taoist story as pointing to the philosophical death. I respectfully disagree. Let it rest.

[neeeel]

Ok. So you don't see the Taoist story as pointing to the philosophical death. I respectfully disagree. Let it rest.

 

No its pointing to how we can never know whether an outcome is good or bad. And that is how you are interpreting it as well.

 

Except when you need to use it to prop up your other narrative.

[junglecat]

http://bigthink.com/articles/hyper-rationality

[neeeel]

nothing to do with hyper rationality. Its to do with you being dishonest and illogical

[junglecat]

nothing to do with hyper rationality. Its to do with you being dishonest and illogical

Of course I don't expect you to agree with me. This is a matter of interpretation. I can certainly see a parallel in the two stories. It's a logical comparison. But you keep repeating  yourself. I'll drop it after this post and let you get the last word. I do appreciate you clinging desperately to your view. Still, I would love to hear anyone else chime in.

[neeeel]

Of course I don't expect you to agree with me. This is a matter of interpretation. I can certainly see a parallel in the two stories. It's a logical comparison. But you keep repeating  yourself. I'll drop it after this post and let you get the last word. I do appreciate you clinging desperately to your view. Still, I would love to hear anyone else chime in.

 

right, its not that you are being dishonest, or illogical, its that I am "clinging desperately to my view" 

absolutely disgusting

[junglecat]

That's a horrible thought, since there's no rational basis to choose among mutually exclusive alternative gods.

Can you give me your thoughts on my comparison of the story of the Taoist farmer and the Genesis story of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?  I've come to a stalemate with Neeeel and would really like a second opinion.

[shirgall]

Can you give me your thoughts on my comparison of the story of the Taoist farmer and the Genesis story of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?  I've come to a stalemate with Neeeel and would really like a second opinion.

 

Well, the parable of the tree of knowledge to me is that once man learns about good and evil then he is cursed to forever have to tread the path of good, except it's hopeless because he became evil by learning of it. At least it was a choice, even if it was not informed consent. Bottom line: God is evil.

 

The Taoist farmer story is "knowledge of the cosmic plan is impossible" which is one of my most hated aphorisms. Bottom line: God is capricious.

 

Even The Terminator's aphorism of "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves" has more self-determination. Bottom line: Play God if you must, but live with the consequences.

[Donnadogsoth]

The responses to junglecat's posts are sad. Junglecat is talking in metaphor, not in literalness. It's like none of you have ever contemplated myths as harbouring psychological truths. You're so busy looking for “Gotcha!” logical fallacies to shore up your political philosophy that you have sawn down the tree of knowledge thinking to build yourself a shelter from the Big Bad Theist.

 

The Taoist farmer story is a metaphor for the tree of the Genesis story. The real stumbling block here is the definition of “philosophical death”. The death referred to is the death of the mentat, of the thinking, processing mind as it grapples with change as the only constant in the physical universe. Such a mind, to remain active, must remain open, remain non-finally-judgemental.

 

The Taoist farmer is the mentat, who sees past the ephemera of physical phenomena to the eternal, higher truth of the principle of mentathood itself. The tree in the Genesis story represents the temptation of the mentat to partake of final judgements.

[junglecat]

The responses to junglecat's posts are sad. Junglecat is talking in metaphor, not in literalness. It's like none of you have ever contemplated myths as harbouring psychological truths. You're so busy looking for “Gotcha!” logical fallacies to shore up your political philosophy that you have sawn down the tree of knowledge thinking to build yourself a shelter from the Big Bad Theist.

 

The Taoist farmer story is a metaphor for the tree of the Genesis story. The real stumbling block here is the definition of “philosophical death”. The death referred to is the death of the mentat, of the thinking, processing mind as it grapples with change as the only constant in the physical universe. Such a mind, to remain active, must remain open, remain non-finally-judgemental.

 

The Taoist farmer is the mentat, who sees past the ephemera of physical phenomena to the eternal, higher truth of the principle of mentathood itself. The tree in the Genesis story represents the temptation of the mentat to partake of final judgements.

I can't thank you enough for your insight.  "Such a mind, to remain active, must remain open, remain non-finally-judgemental."  I can only think of St. Paul-

 

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

 

Scapegoating the past is the most prevalent thing we do as humans. Of course we would never do those things today! We are so much more superior!  The Jews built monuments to prophets whose bodies they didn't have. What are they saying when they do that? If we were there, we wouldn't have killed them. We all say that and we all kill the prophets.

[Donnadogsoth]

I can't thank you enough for your insight.  "Such a mind, to remain active, must remain open, remain non-finally-judgemental."  I can only think of St. Paul-

 

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

 

Scapegoating the past is the most prevalent thing we do as humans. Of course we would never do those things today! We are so much more superior!  The Jews built monuments to prophets whose bodies they didn't have. What are they saying when they do that? If we were there, we wouldn't have killed them. We all say that and we all kill the prophets.

 

It is common in these "progressive" days for people to have no sympathy for the plight or perspective of their forefathers.  "I would never have participated in slavery!  Slave-owners were evil!" they say with relished spite.  Oh, really?  It bespeaks a blinkered and privileged existence, and it leads to Year Zero thinking, the idea that we should condemn and ignore anyone and anytime not politically correct enough.  But of course today's liberal is tomorrow's conservative, who awaits condemnation by tomorrow's liberals.

[shirgall]

I can't thank you enough for your insight.  "Such a mind, to remain active, must remain open, remain non-finally-judgemental."  I can only think of St. Paul-

 

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

 

If we denounce the ability to judge our surroundings we get eaten by predators. "Judgmental" is an adjective used to deflect an unwanted argument without addressing it.

 

St. Paul could have just as easily been addressing people's poor self-knowledge than condemning someone's judgment. I think Stefan addressed this directly in one of the call-in shows where he examined John 8:7 and 8:11. The accusers were shamed for hypocrisy and the victim was instructed to stop sinning. There's two judgments in quick succession and it's a well-regarded story.

 

If we are going to learn from the past we must be able to evaluate it. I acknowledge that things were different then, and there's always missing context from available accounts, and the choices made may have made things better than other choices could have, but that does not change whether some particular well-understood action was wrong or not.

[Donnadogsoth]

If we denounce the ability to judge our surroundings we get eaten by predators. "Judgmental" is an adjective used to deflect an unwanted argument without addressing it.

 

St. Paul could have just as easily been addressing people's poor self-knowledge than condemning someone's judgment. I think Stefan addressed this directly in one of the call-in shows where he examined John 8:7 and 8:11. The accusers were shamed for hypocrisy and the victim was instructed to stop sinning. There's two judgments in quick succession and it's a well-regarded story.

 

If we are going to learn from the past we must be able to evaluate it. I acknowledge that things were different then, and there's always missing context from available accounts, and the choices made may have made things better than other choices could have, but that does not change whether some particular well-understood action was wrong or not.

 

St. Paul was talking about judging another person's moral standing.

 

The mentat must balance between habit<-->novelty.  Too much concentration on habit, he stops thinking.  To much concentration on novelty, he stops thinking.  The former is a lattice that freezes him amidst his limited stable of principles and facts; such a collection of knowledge is always going to be incomplete and therefore cannot be relied upon in all ways and at all times.  The latter is the apprehension of the pure blooming, buzzing chaos of existence, which drowns him in questions and demoralises him with the thought that nothing is answerable.  What junglecat has been saying is the direction to avoid being eaten by predators, not the way to the reverse.

[junglecat]

If we denounce the ability to judge our surroundings we get eaten by predators. "Judgmental" is an adjective used to deflect an unwanted argument without addressing it.

 

St. Paul could have just as easily been addressing people's poor self-knowledge than condemning someone's judgment. I think Stefan addressed this directly in one of the call-in shows where he examined John 8:7 and 8:11. The accusers were shamed for hypocrisy and the victim was instructed to stop sinning. There's two judgments in quick succession and it's a well-regarded story.

 

If we are going to learn from the past we must be able to evaluate it. I acknowledge that things were different then, and there's always missing context from available accounts, and the choices made may have made things better than other choices could have, but that does not change whether some particular well-understood action was wrong or not.

No, being judgemental is a way to deflect guilt from oneself and place it squarely on another. It's called scapegoating. We do it with the past. The point is we cannot place blame on the recent past any more than we can place blame on ancient Babylonian or Egyptian culture. We can seek to understand why people did what they did in the past. Of course we should learn from the past. Unfortunately this is what we never do. This is why violence is escalating as history progresses.

 

I think you and Neeel can't understand these things because you equate sin with death. You equate eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with evil. All this while not believing there is such a thing as evil or good and that death is a natural process.  In doing this you miss the point of the story.

[shirgall]

No, being judgemental is a way to deflect guilt from oneself and place it squarely on another. It's called scapegoating. We do it with the past. The point is we cannot place blame on the recent past any more than we can place blame on ancient Babylonian or Egyptian culture. We can seek to understand why people did what they did in the past. Of course we should learn from the past. Unfortunately this is what we never do. This is why violence is escalating as history progresses.

 

I think you and Neeel can't understand these things because you equate sin with death. You equate eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with evil. All this while not believing there is such a thing as evil or good and that death is a natural process.  In doing this you miss the point of the story.

 

Not at all. I based what I said on what I have seen. When people claim I am being judgmental, and when I've seen the term applied to others, it's because that person is judging yet is not perfect. Claiming that someone is imperfect and therefore cannot judge others is an ad hominem attack that does not address claims or conclusions. You're right, it's a deflection, but it's not scapegoating. Scapegoating is the process of transferring sin to a goat and sending it out into the wild to be eaten by a predator.

 

Violence is not escalating as history progresses. People all around the world live longer, less violent lives on average now than in any prior era.

 

Claiming I cannot understand something is also an ad hominem attack that does not address what I said. You can say I was incorrect. What I said was that once Adam and Eve learned about good and evil they permanently took on obligation of being good and eschewing evil. They could not have been evil until they knew what it was.

 

I've never equated sin with death. Since we've stopped being polite, let me add that the point of the story, written by a person, was to invent a disease that only he could cure: sin. It's a great racket if you can get it. Sure beats chasing antelope or raising crops.

[Donnadogsoth]

Not at all. I based what I said on what I have seen. When people claim I am being judgmental, and when I've seen the term applied to others, it's because that person is judging yet is not perfect. Claiming that someone is imperfect and therefore cannot judge others is an ad hominem attack that does not address claims or conclusions. You're right, it's a deflection, but it's not scapegoating. (1) Scapegoating is the process of transferring sin to a goat and sending it out into the wild to be eaten by a predator.

 

(2) Violence is not escalating as history progresses. People all around the world live longer, less violent lives on average now than in any prior era.

 

(1) It's a metaphor, Shirgall.

 

(2) The potential for total violence is greater than at any time in history.  Prior eras couldn't wipe out mankind with nuclear weapons.

[shirgall]

(1) It's a metaphor, Shirgall.

 

(2) The potential for total violence is greater than at any time in history.  Prior eras couldn't wipe out mankind with nuclear weapons.

 

(1) Try to explain your concepts without metaphors or buzzwords. Clarity is more important than elegance. The allegory of the garden is all about "do what you are told" and "don't pry" and "shut up slave." But that's too obvious, let's write a story about friendly lions who turn predator because of humans!

 

(2) Prior eras could have wiped out mankind with other means. The human race, and significant portions of it, have been on the brink in the past. The difference with nuclear weapons is that it can target the leaders of a country just as easily as an army, which is why it's horror and condemnation is constantly talked up and reinforced... by the leaders.

[Donnadogsoth]

(1) Try to explain your concepts without metaphors or buzzwords. Clarity is more important than elegance. The allegory of the garden is all about "do what you are told" and "don't pry" and "shut up slave." But that's too obvious, let's write a story about friendly lions who turn predator because of humans!

 

(2) Prior eras could have wiped out mankind with other means. The human race, and significant portions of it, have been on the brink in the past. The difference with nuclear weapons is that it can target the leaders of a country just as easily as an army, which is why it's horror and condemnation is constantly talked up and reinforced... by the leaders.

 

(1) Correction:  In the story's literal (not allegorical) terms, the purpose was to groom humanity to the point where it could receive the revelation of the knowledge of good and evil obediently and thus live forever in paradise.  Instead man, as a kind of rational animal knowing only obedience and disobedience, not good and evil, failed the test and was forced to experience the torments of history while prey to the temptations of Satan.

 

But this is NOT what junglecat means. He means that the thinking mind must never make final judgements about the world, both on the level of the physical universe AND the level of human worth. On neither level can we know fully what we are dealing with and therefore our understandings are ad hoc. The first, physical level tells us we must always be open to new paradoxes in our understandings our resolution of which rewards us with a new physical principle which we can put to use in our quest for survival. The second, moral level tells us that we are not perfect and therefore cannot condemn anyone for being imperfect without that standard of perfection justly destroying us in turn.

 

(2) You don't think they tried?  Anything less than WMDs could never have collapsed global civilisation.  Only parts of Terra, like the great massacres in China or the environmental degradation of Easter Island or the Black Death in Europe, could have been affected.  No matter what people tried in the past, there was always a huge rump of survivors left to repopulate Terra.  But now hydrogen bombs are literally capable of sterilising the planet of humans.

[junglecat]

Not at all. I based what I said on what I have seen. When people claim I am being judgmental, and when I've seen the term applied to others, it's because that person is judging yet is not perfect. Claiming that someone is imperfect and therefore cannot judge others is an ad hominem attack that does not address claims or conclusions. You're right, it's a deflection, but it's not scapegoating. Scapegoating is the process of transferring sin to a goat and sending it out into the wild to be eaten by a predator.

 

Violence is not escalating as history progresses. People all around the world live longer, less violent lives on average now than in any prior era.

 

Claiming I cannot understand something is also an ad hominem attack that does not address what I said. You can say I was incorrect. What I said was that once Adam and Eve learned about good and evil they permanently took on obligation of being good and eschewing evil. They could not have been evil until they knew what it was.

 

I've never equated sin with death. Since we've stopped being polite, let me add that the point of the story, written by a person, was to invent a disease that only he could cure: sin. It's a great racket if you can get it. Sure beats chasing antelope or raising crops.

"Not at all. I based what I said on what I have seen. When people claim I am being judgmental, and when I've seen the term applied to others, it's because that person is judging yet is not perfect. Claiming that someone is imperfect and therefore cannot judge others is an ad hominem attack that does not address claims or conclusions.”

 

 

 

The quote from Paul’s letter to the Romans is a related to Jesus’ words in Matthew:

 

 

 

 'Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.  And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’  So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.  Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!’

 

 

 

 

 

" You're right, it's a deflection, but it's not scapegoating. Scapegoating is the process of transferring sin to a goat and sending it out into the wild to be eaten by a predator.”

 

 

 

Yes, scapegoating has it’s roots in Jewish ritual killing. The goat is an innocent victim. The modern meaning of scapegoat is the killing (or driving out of the community) of an innocent victim. We scapegoat the past when we say “we would not have taken part with them in the shedding of the blood of the prophets.”

 

A great example of this phenomenon is that of the modern media. They report of all the evils around the world perpetrated by nation states and terrorist organizations and they always exempt themselves as the guilty party. The truth is that the media is responsible for much of the evil in the world by what they choose to focus on. If it bleeds, it leads. This in turn encourages more and more violence.  Nation states and lesser powers want more control. Their aim is not violence for violence sake (although I’m sure that for some this is an end in itself) - the aim is violence to get more power and control. This is ‘eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”.  It’s not simply doing “evil”. It can also be doing “good”. It depends on what one’s Machiavellian strategy calls for.

 

 

 

"Violence is not escalating as history progresses. People all around the world live longer, less violent lives on average now than in any prior era.”

 

I’ve heard this idea before. Steven Pinker has done much to promote this idea. The problem is WW2 is at the bottom of his graph. It reminds me of the joke about the man who fell from the top of a 100 story building. As he was passing the 20th floor a man leaned out the window and asked how it was doing. The falling man replied, “So far, so good.”

 

Take your graph back to the industrial revolution or the enlightenment and you have a much different picture. It’s definitely getting more violent.

 

 

 

"Claiming I cannot understand something is also an ad hominem attack that does not address what I said. You can say I was incorrect. What I said was that once Adam and Eve learned about good and evil they permanently took on obligation of being good and eschewing evil. They could not have been evil until they knew what it was.”

 

They knew what was right and wrong/good and evil before the fall.  God told them explicitly. The story reads that they could not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was Satan who told them this was because on that day they would be like gods, deciding for themselves what was ultimately good and evil and not God. God did not tell Adam this because it’s a lie. God tells them that to eat the fruit will lead to death. The issue of power and control is what is destroying our world.  I say you don’t understand the story because you miss this central point. It makes all the difference. The story makes no logical sense the way you read it.

The media is changing as well! Now nation states condemn and exile individuals that "leak" evidence of their wrongdoing.  They say the crime is in the leak of the crime, not the crime itself.  Russia is guilty of hacking the DNC and exposing the rigged primary. Julian Asange is guilty of pointing out the governments crime.

[shirgall]

(1) Correction:  In the story's literal (not allegorical) terms, the purpose was to groom humanity to the point where it could receive the revelation of the knowledge of good and evil obediently and thus live forever in paradise.  Instead man, as a kind of rational animal knowing only obedience and disobedience, not good and evil, failed the test and was forced to experience the torments of history while prey to the temptations of Satan.

 

But this is NOT what junglecat means. He means that the thinking mind must never make final judgements about the world, both on the level of the physical universe AND the level of human worth. On neither level can we know fully what we are dealing with and therefore our understandings are ad hoc. The first, physical level tells us we must always be open to new paradoxes in our understandings our resolution of which rewards us with a new physical principle which we can put to use in our quest for survival. The second, moral level tells us that we are not perfect and therefore cannot condemn anyone for being imperfect without that standard of perfection justly destroying us in turn.

 

(2) You don't think they tried?  Anything less than WMDs could never have collapsed global civilisation.  Only parts of Terra, like the great massacres in China or the environmental degradation of Easter Island or the Black Death in Europe, could have been affected.  No matter what people tried in the past, there was always a huge rump of survivors left to repopulate Terra.  But now hydrogen bombs are literally capable of sterilising the planet of humans.

 

(1) rational minds should be refactoring when encountered evidence contrary to established conclusions, which is directly in opposition to religious doctrine, the fruit of the tree of knowledge was revealed wisom, not discovered... it still feels like a story on the level of "do not meddle with the affairs of wizards for you can be made crunchy and smothered in ketchup."

 

(2) At one point 70,000ish years ago there were 2000 homo sapiens, according to one theory. According to another there were only 2 about 6,000 years ago, but that seems far-fetched.

"Violence is not escalating as history progresses. People all around the world live longer, less violent lives on average now than in any prior era.”

 

I’ve heard this idea before. Steven Pinker has done much to promote this idea. The problem is WW2 is at the bottom of his graph. It reminds me of the joke about the man who fell from the top of a 100 story building. As he was passing the 20th floor a man leaned out the window and asked how it was doing. The falling man replied, “So far, so good.”

 

Take your graph back to the industrial revolution or the enlightenment and you have a much different picture. It’s definitely getting more violent.

 

Go back to twelve thousand years ago and start with two million people and make sure you look at what percentage of people die for what reasons as the eras march on. You will readily see people living longer and not dying of the simpler causes as time goes on. Yes, World War II was particularly bad, but on average doubling population every fifty years is an impressive feat for any critter, no matter how nasty it gets to the other critters in the cage.

 

It's interesting that the growth rate slows as standard of living increases.

 

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm

[junglecat]

(1) rational minds should be refactoring when encountered evidence contrary to established conclusions, which is directly in opposition to religious doctrine, the fruit of the tree of knowledge was revealed wisom, not discovered... it still feels like a story on the level of "do not meddle with the affairs of wizards for you can be made crunchy and smothered in ketchup."

 

(2) At one point 70,000ish years ago there were 2000 homo sapiens, according to one theory. According to another there were only 2 about 6,000 years ago, but that seems far-fetched.

 

Go back to twelve thousand years ago and start with two million people and make sure you look at what percentage of people die for what reasons as the eras march on. You will readily see people living longer and not dying of the simpler causes as time goes on. Yes, World War II was particularly bad, but on average doubling population every fifty years is an impressive feat for any critter, no matter how nasty it gets to the other critters in the cage.

 

It's interesting that the growth rate slows as standard of living increases.

 

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm

The chart you provided says nothing about violent deaths, only population growth. No one is disputing that the population is growing. Find me any statistics that show violent deaths are decreasing from at least the Roman Empire to today.

 

Also, you continue to read right past the Genesis story. You tell us what the story 'feels' like while ignoring the crucial salient points in the story that run counter to your reading of it.

 

"the fruit of the tree of knowledge was revealed wisom, not discovered... it still feels like a story on the level of "do not meddle with the affairs of wizards for you can be made crunchy and smothered in ketchup.""

 

If you don't accept my reading of the story, counter it with your own reading that is backed up by the text. Changing crucial elements of the story is no way to interpret literature.

[shirgall]

The chart you provided says nothing about violent deaths, only population growth. No one is disputing that the population is growing. Find me any statistics that show violent deaths are decreasing from at least the Roman Empire to today.

 

Also, you continue to read right past the Genesis story. You tell us what the story 'feels' like while ignoring the crucial salient points in the story that run counter to your reading of it.

 

"the fruit of the tree of knowledge was revealed wisom, not discovered... it still feels like a story on the level of "do not meddle with the affairs of wizards for you can be made crunchy and smothered in ketchup.""

 

If you don't accept my reading of the story, counter it with your own reading that is backed up by the text. Changing crucial elements of the story is no way to interpret literature.

 

For the wars and man-made disasters, there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

 

As for the Garden of Eden story, I'm done. You asked for my take, knowing full well that I didn't care much about it, and seem dissatisfied that I'm not willing to spend a lot of time on it.

[junglecat]

For the wars and man-made disasters, there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

 

As for the Garden of Eden story, I'm done. You asked for my take, knowing full well that I didn't care much about it, and seem dissatisfied that I'm not willing to spend a lot of time on it.

If you're satisfied with an answer that makes no logical sense as it relates to the text, fine. Thanks for your contribution.

[Donnadogsoth]

They knew what was right and wrong/good and evil before the fall.  God told them explicitly. The story reads that they could not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was Satan who told them this was because on that day they would be like gods, deciding for themselves what was ultimately good and evil and not God. God did not tell Adam this because it’s a lie. God tells them that to eat the fruit will lead to death. The issue of power and control is what is destroying our world.  I say you don’t understand the story because you miss this central point. It makes all the difference. The story makes no logical sense the way you read it.

 

I know that the Bible is really sneaky and slippery, but that's not the reading I've gotten.  According to the Skeptics Annotated Bible:

 

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

In other words, as I wrote earlier, they did not know good from evil, but merely obedience from disobedience.  They were dogs in the vineyard, so to speak.  Only after eating the fruit did they "become as one of us, to know good and evil."

[junglecat]

I know that the Bible is really sneaky and slippery, but that's not the reading I've gotten.  According to the Skeptics Annotated Bible:

 

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

In other words, as I wrote earlier, they did not know good from evil, but merely obedience from disobedience.  They were dogs in the vineyard, so to speak.  Only after eating the fruit did they "become as one of us, to know good and evil."

Yes, but to eat the fruit is to know, or to claim knowledge in the ultimate sense and therefore justify doing evil for a greater good. Cain kills Abel to get more of God's love. This is mimetic desire. Cain wants Abel's 'essence' and, tellingly, he founds the first city based on this principle.  I would say obedience and disobedience is to know right from wrong in the relative sense.

The temptation is to see the fall of man as a breaking of the law of God. The problem is that the law of God only comes after the fall of man, as a result of the fall. Jesus fulfills the law. Jesus took mankind's training wheels off, so to speak. We are now on our own, without the law and without sacrifice to quell violence.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, but to eat the fruit is to know, or to claim knowledge in the ultimate sense and therefore justify doing evil for a greater good. Cain kills Abel to get more of God's love. This is mimetic desire. Cain wants Abel's 'essence' and, tellingly, he founds the first city based on this principle.  I would say obedience and disobedience is to know right from wrong in the relative sense.

The temptation is to see the fall of man as a breaking of the law of God. The problem is that the law of God only comes after the fall of man, as a result of the fall. Jesus fulfills the law. Jesus took mankind's training wheels off, so to speak. We are now on our own, without the law and without sacrifice to quell violence.

 

I'm having trouble with this idea.  Where are you getting this from?  Maybe if I read more to the source I will better see what you are saying.

[whirlingmerc]

As someone who strongly wants the Bible to be true, I can list a few of my personal debates in my head over my lifetime.

 

1. If God knows everything past and future, the day he created Satan, an angel at the time as the story goes, he knew that at some point Satan would turn on him and take 1/3 of all his angels with him. It's kinda like having a son and knowing without a doubt that when he turns age 20 he is going to go ballistic and drive a van with half your kids off a cliff. Up until that day you act like nothing is wrong and just wait till it happens.

 

The way I explain it: Satan is just a metaphor for an event that had to happen, he represents everything wrong in us and our freedom to choose good or evil without anyone forcing our hand.

 

2. If Satan knows what the bible says, and the bible says he is going to do a list of things in the end times (like mark of the beast) and then be defeated, why would Satan go along with that list, why not do something completely different?

 

3. Why doesn't God just reveal himself to us so there is no longer a question if he is real or not?

 

The way I explain it: Part of the reason we can be forgiven is because we are ignorant. If you knew the complete truth and then still went out and sinned anyway, how could you be forgiven then? Maybe this is why angels cannot be forgiven. Jesus said on the cross, "forgive them, for they know not what they do."

 

 

 

God can be all powerful and good  if He knew that a yet greater good would come out of the fall  of Satan and Man

There are depths of mercy and justice that can be seen in God because of both,  as one possible explanation.

[BrotherKev]

 

3. Why doesn't God just reveal himself to us so there is no longer a question if he is real or not?

It's a common question that shows a lack of biblical study. God has revealed Himself in ages past to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God, the Father. He came to His own(the Jewish people) as Jesus, the promised Messiah. He's also revealed Himself today as God, the Holy Spirit, to the believing Gentile world today.

 

It's not a question of whether God has revealed Himself, but one of why haven't you accepted that He has.

[shirgall]

It's a common question that shows a lack of biblical study. God has revealed Himself in ages past to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God, the Father. He came to His own(the Jewish people) as Jesus, the promised Messiah. He's also revealed Himself today as God, the Holy Spirit, to the believing Gentile world today.

 

It's not a question of whether God has revealed Himself, but one of why haven't you accepted that He has.

 

It's a question of whether any god of any stripe has revealed him- or her- or themselves to a credible witness whose experience has been objectively recorded, preserved, and replicated. To date none have.

[dsayers]

It's a common question that shows a lack of biblical study. God has revealed Himself in ages past to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God, the Father. He came to His own(the Jewish people) as Jesus, the promised Messiah. He's also revealed Himself today as God, the Holy Spirit, to the believing Gentile world today.

 

It's not a question of whether God has revealed Himself, but one of why haven't you accepted that He has.

How do you know? Somebody said so is not a valid methodology for determining what is true.

[BrotherKev]

It's a question of whether any god of any stripe has revealed him- or her- or themselves to a credible witness whose experience has been objectively recorded, preserved, and replicated. To date none have.

 

Do you consider yourself to be a credible witness? And are you in possession of moral values that you can explain the origin of without a supernatural source? The ethics and values you have within yourself are the evidence you seek.

 

Do you have an explanation for how those evolved from random collisions of 'space dust?'

[shirgall]

Do you consider yourself to be a credible witness? And are you in possession of moral values that you can explain the origin of without a supernatural source? The ethics and values you have within yourself are the evidence you seek.

 

Do you have an explanation for how those evolved from random collisions of 'space dust?'

 

I do consider myself to be a credible witness but I wouldn't expect anyone else to take my experiences as gospel without appropriate documentation and reproducibility. I once dreamed an event that later happened. I think it was a coincidence, because the mind tends to notice coincidences, and not precognition.

 

Unlike most people I was never indoctrinated in any of the mutually-exclusive religions that are out there so I didn't have to have a massive break with faith. If I'm forced to choose one, I'll pick one. It'll probably be at gunpoint like those unlucky people in the mall being quizzed on a certain prophet's mother.

 

I'm not making any extraordinary claims that need to be explained. Reality exists. Evolution happens. I make decent money as a professional paid logician. Where did I make a claim about the origin of ethics and values?

 

Perhaps you can explain why you think the carelessly handled and edited testimony of questionable ancient characters (whose stories are more likely to be parables than not, based on the fate of other passages of the same documents) constitutes credible evidence but similar stories from other religions do not. How do we know a particular sect is correct and not another?